TCM "holds that the body's vital energy (chi or qi) circulates through channels, called meridians, that have branches connected to bodily organs and functions."
Its view of the human body is only marginally concerned with anatomical structures, but focuses primarily on the body's functions (such as digestion, breathing, temperature maintenance, etc.):

These functions are aggregated and then associated with a primary functional entity – for instance, nourishment of the tissues and maintenance of their moisture are seen as connected functions, and the entity postulated to be responsible for these functions is xuě (blood).
These functional entities thus constitute concepts rather than something with biochemical or anatomical properties.

The primary functional entities used by traditional Chinese medicine are qì, xuě, the five zàng organs, the six fǔ organs, and the meridians which extend through the organ systems.
These are all theoretically interconnected: each zàng organ is paired with a fǔ organ, which are nourished by the blood and concentrate qi for a particular function, with meridians being extensions of those functional systems throughout the body.

Concepts of the body and of disease used in TCM are pseudoscientific, similar to European humoral theory.
TCM is characterized as full of pseudoscience.
Some practitioners no longer consider yin and yang and the idea of an energy flow to apply.
Scientific investigation has not found any histological or physiological evidence for traditional Chinese concepts such as qi, meridians, and acupuncture points.
It is a generally held belief within the acupuncture community that acupuncture points and meridians structures are special conduits for electrical signals but no research has established any consistent anatomical structure or function for either acupuncture points or meridians.
The scientific evidence for the anatomical existence of either meridians or acupuncture points is not compelling.
Stephen Barrett of Quackwatch writes that, "TCM theory and practice are not based upon the body of knowledge related to health, disease, and health care that has been widely accepted by the scientific community.
TCM practitioners disagree among themselves about how to diagnose patients and which treatments should go with which diagnoses.
Even if they could agree, the TCM theories are so nebulous that no amount of scientific study will enable TCM to offer rational care."

TCM has been the subject of controversy within China.
In 2006, the Chinese scholar Zhang Gongyao triggered a national debate when he published an article entitled "Farewell to Traditional Chinese Medicine", arguing that TCM was a pseudoscience that should be abolished in public healthcare and academia.
The Chinese government however, interested in the opportunity of export revenues, took the stance that TCM is a science and continued to encourage its development.
TCM "holds that the body's vital energy (chi or qi) circulates through channels, called meridians, that have branches connected to bodily organs and functions." Its view of the human body is only marginally concerned with anatomical structures, but focuses primarily on the body's functions (such as digestion, breathing, temperature maintenance, etc.):
These functions are aggregated and then associated with a primary functional entity – for instance, nourishment of the tissues and maintenance of their moisture are seen as connected functions, and the entity postulated to be responsible for these functions is xuě (blood). These functional entities thus constitute concepts rather than something with biochemical or anatomical properties.
The primary functional entities used by traditional Chinese medicine are qì, xuě, the five zàng organs, the six fǔ organs, and the meridians which extend through the organ systems. These are all theoretically interconnected: each zàng organ is paired with a fǔ organ, which are nourished by the blood and concentrate qi for a particular function, with meridians being extensions of those functional systems throughout the body.
Concepts of the body and of disease used in TCM are pseudoscientific, similar to European humoral theory. TCM is characterized as full of pseudoscience. Some practitioners no longer consider yin and yang and the idea of an energy flow to apply. Scientific investigation has not found any histological or physiological evidence for traditional Chinese concepts such as qi, meridians, and acupuncture points. It is a generally held belief within the acupuncture community that acupuncture points and meridians structures are special conduits for electrical signals but no research has established any consistent anatomical structure or function for either acupuncture points or meridians. The scientific evidence for the anatomical existence of either meridians or acupuncture points is not compelling. Stephen Barrett of Quackwatch writes that, "TCM theory and practice are not based upon the body of knowledge related to health, disease, and health care that has been widely accepted by the scientific community. TCM practitioners disagree among themselves about how to diagnose patients and which treatments should go with which diagnoses. Even if they could agree, the TCM theories are so nebulous that no amount of scientific study will enable TCM to offer rational care."
TCM has been the subject of controversy within China. In 2006, the Chinese scholar Zhang Gongyao triggered a national debate when he published an article entitled "Farewell to Traditional Chinese Medicine", arguing that TCM was a pseudoscience that should be abolished in public healthcare and academia. The Chinese government however, interested in the opportunity of export revenues, took the stance that TCM is a science and continued to encourage its development.
Traditional Chinese medicine