Xue, the trouble with your response is that it doesn't adress the OP's concern with explaining TCM in
concrete "Western" terms. According to what I've come accross (and my knowledge in this area is admittedly very shallow) there really aren't any conclusive studies (oustside China) that support the whole TCM theoretical construct of qi, meridians, points, and so on. At least that is the upshot of the following summary taken from the
Wikipedia entry on accupuncture. After a lengthy discussion of many aspects of Accupuncture, the article considers the fundamental question of effectiveness as measured in controlled studies:
Effectiveness[edit]
The application of evidence-based medicine to researching acupuncture's effectiveness is a controversial activity, and has produced different results in a growing evidence base of research.[14] Some research results suggest acupuncture can alleviate pain but others consistently suggest that acupuncture's effects are mainly due to placebo.[3] It is difficult but not impossible to design rigorous research trials for acupuncture.[63][64] Due to acupuncture's invasive nature, one of the major challenges in efficacy research is in the design of an appropriate placebo control group.[14][15] For efficacy studies to determine whether acupuncture has specific effects, "sham" forms of acupuncture where the patient, practitioner, and analyst are blinded seem the most acceptable approach.[63] The under-performance of acupuncture interventions in such sham controlled trials may indicate that therapeutic effects are due entirely to non-specific effects, or that the sham treatments are not inert or systematic protocols yield less than optimal treatment.[65][66] A 2012 review found "A common control procedure has been the use of sham acupuncture where needles are inserted on either meridians not specific for the condition under study, or in areas outside meridians; often this is coupled with a more superficial needle insertion than what is performed in the true acupuncture group."[67] The research seems to suggest that needles do not need to stimulate the traditionally specified acupuncture points or penetrate the skin to attain an anticipated effect (e.g. psychosocial factors).[5] A 2012 review found "acupuncture was not better than sham interventions or conventional therapy in the longer term."[67] The evidence suggests that any benefits of acupuncture are short-lasting.[16]
Any evidence on the effectiveness of acupuncture is "variable and inconsistent, even for single conditions",[11] and publication bias is cited as a concern in the reviews of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of acupuncture.[11][68][69] A 1998 review of studies on acupuncture found that trials originating in China, Japan, Hong Kong and Taiwan were uniformly favourable to acupuncture, as were ten out of 11 studies conducted in Russia.[70] A 2011 assessment of the quality of RCTs on TCM, including acupuncture, concluded that the methodological quality of most such trials (including randomization, experimental control and blinding) was generally poor, particularly for trials published in Chinese journals (though the quality of acupuncture trials was better than the drug-related trials).[71] The study also found that trials published in non-Chinese journals tended to be of higher quality.[71]
A 2014 Nature Reviews Cancer article found that "contrary to the claimed mechanism of redirecting the flow of qi through meridians, researchers usually find that it generally does not matter where the needles are inserted, how often (that is, no dose-response effect is observed), or even if needles are actually inserted. In other words, āshamā or āplaceboā acupuncture generally produces the same effects as ārealā acupuncture and, in some cases, does better."[72] A 2013 meta-analysis found little evidence that the effectiveness of acupuncture on pain (compared to sham) was modified by the location of the needles, the number of needles used, the experience or technique of the practitioner, or by the circumstances of the sessions.[73] The same analysis also suggested that the number of needles and sessions is important, as greater numbers improved the outcomes of acupuncture compared to non-acupuncture controls.[73] A 2013 editorial found that the inconsistency of results of acupuncture studies (that acupuncture relieved pain in some conditions but had no effect in other very similar conditions) suggests false positive results, which may be caused by factors like biased study designs, poor blinding, and the classification of electrified needles (a type of TENS) as acupuncture.[11] The same editorial suggested that given the inability to find consistent results despite more than 3,000 studies of acupuncture, the treatment seems to be a placebo effect and the existing equivocal positive results are noise one expects to see after a large number of studies are performed on an inert therapy.[11] It concluded that the best controlled studies showed a clear pattern, in which the outcome does not rely upon needle location or even needle insertion, and since "these variables are those that define acupuncture, the only sensible conclusion is that acupuncture does not work."[11]
Please don't get me wrong here. I am well aware of Wikipedia's limitations and potential for bias, and I am not personally qualified to assert any opinion on this topic. I merely included this to show the inherent difficulty in addressing what I understand to be the OP's request ...namely for information that is backed up by Western scientific research and studies..
Just do your research.
