Talk:Kampo

Research into the efficacy of Kampo

This page really needs a section treating effective and disproven kampo treatments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:981:D34D:1:9099:2270:AFCD:E20B (talk) 15:16, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Ancient japanese ophthalmology

http://books.google.com/books?id=26FsAAAAMAAJ&q=Pusa+man+tang+japanese&dq=Pusa+man+tang+japanese&hl=en&sa=X&ei=eRqnUJ3aHqmL0QHcm4HQCQ&ved=0CEoQ6AEwCQ

Guderyean (talk) 05:14, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

2013 comment

why isn't Kampo classified as pseudoscience?

basically it follows the same concept of TCM. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.76.97.109 (talk) 14:45, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

For the same reason pseudoscience is not used to describe any premodern systems of medicine. Pseudoscience is based on scientific theory that has been disproven or has failed scholarly rigorous modern scientific methods. Dr.khatmando (talk) 10:47, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Kampo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20050403000328/http://health.ucsd.edu:80/NTRIALS/031532.htm to http://health.ucsd.edu/ntrials/031532.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:32, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Why 'Kampo' and not Kanpō?

wherever and also in this article, its name seems to be generally acceptrd as Kanpō (exempli gratia here: https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2022/12/15/national/science-health/kanpo-covid-study/?utm_source=pianoDNU&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=72&pnespid=quyKmIxH4aDJ7.mipUX3pqlMtQ5Msn1unRE7HFIv6UWVT9P7ODONMtS0rKQt5hR.ND3GkA) GianMarco Tavazzani (talk) 15:36, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Neither spelling is "wrong". "Kampo" is a more accurate reflection of the pronunciation, because ん is pronounced as [m] when followed by a labial consonant; when it is not followed by any consonant, i.e., at the end of a word it is pronounced as [n], so the character itself is transliterated "n". Therefore, either could be considered "correct" depending on one's point of view. ~2026-34838-40 (talk) 18:00, 24 June 2026 (UTC)