以模型为单元，重建可验证的医学
MOM（现代东方医学）是一门以东方思想为方法论起点、以“模型”为基本单元，并结合现代科学语言重构的独立医学体系。
Modern Oriental Medicine (MOM) is an independent medical discipline that takes Oriental thought as its methodological starting point, uses the “model” as its basic unit, and is reconstructed with modern scientific language.
医学，说到底，是人类与复杂生命长期对话的一种方式。我们始终在追问：人体为什么会失衡？失衡之后，又该怎样把秩序找回来？这些问题看似朴素，答案却远不简单。
现实中的探索常常走成两条路：一条越切越细，分子、基因等都讲得明明白白，但整体如何复原，却没人能给出清楚的解释。另一条则偏向整体，宏大的叙事铺陈开来，却始终无法被验证，也难以被复现。细节与整体，如同两列平行的轨道，各自延伸，却始终难以交汇。
现代东方医学选择在这道分岔口上重铺道路。它既不是旧体系的修补，也不是把“传统 + 现代”硬拼在一起，这是一次从根基出发的重建。理论必须讲得清楚，方法需要真正落实，结果要能够被复现，还要能随着证据不断更新。这样的要求，不是口号，而是学术应有的基本姿态。
在这套框架里，模型是关键抓手，但它并不等同于具体疗法，更不是剂量或步骤清单。更贴切的理解是：模型是疗法之上的上层结构。它先给出问题的结构与边界，明确目标状态与评估方向，再把若干可选的操作路径（不同疗法/方案）装进同一架构里运行。不同团队可以在同一模型下走不同路径，最后都回到同一套结构化记录来对账——比的不是哪一招偶然见效，而是这个模型是否稳定地把人引向可重复的改善。模型可以迭代，但升级的是结构与判定逻辑，而不是无休止地打磨枝节。
把视野再拉远些：中医（中国）、韩医（韩国）、汉方医学（日本）、阿育吠陀（印度）等体系沉淀了大量经验，也提出了完整的整体观——这些价值不该被抹去；但它们往往停在经验与语言层面，难以形成标准化、可复现的机制。现代还原论医学则走向另一头，碎片越攒越多，却很难拼出全局。现代东方医学不附属于任何一方，它独立提出方法：以模型为框架，把“整体—关系—秩序”拉回现实，做到能操作，能验证，也能够被公开审视。
为了确保不再停留在空谈层面，现代东方医学确立了几项基本要求：
逻辑化：所有判断与干预必须能够顺着推理链倒查，逻辑要站得住，理由要说得清。
科学化：结论要能够被他人复跑，并且主动接受外部复核。
标准化：从观察到操作再到判定，细节与命名都必须统一。做到“十个人操作，得到一个结果”。
同时，当前的目标也非常明确，就是对若干核心模型与部分疗法进行学术确权与公开存证。所有材料都会标注版本号和时间戳，并建立可追溯的证据链；所有结论都可以被质疑，也必须能够被复核。模型被视为一个持续迭代的工程，而不是一次性的定稿。每一次更新，都以新增证据和可复现性为依据。相比堆砌成果清单，更重要的是证据本身，以及它能否被他人按照相同步骤复跑并得到相同结果。
现代东方医学的“东方”，并不是地理上的方位，而是一种理解生命的方式：它注重整体视角，强调事物之间的关系，也关注秩序的建立与维持。“现代”也不是简单的时间标签，而是一种工作方法：它要求验证，要求复现，并在迭代中不断修正和更新。
在这样的定位下，现代东方医学被确立为一门独立的医学体系。它以东方思想为方法论的起点，以“模型”为基本单元，并结合现代科学语言进行重构。通过这种方式，既不丢失东方思想的深度，也坚守科学方法的严谨，使医学重新回到可理解、可操作、可验证的轨道之上。
现代东方医学从不许诺万能的答案。它选择了一条更扎实的路：逐步建立一套可持续更新的知识体系，把医学重建成一门开放而清晰的学问，让任何人都能学习、查证，并且在实践中得到同样的结果。
Medicine, at its core, is a long-term dialogue between human beings and complex life. We have always asked: Why does the human body fall into imbalance? And once imbalanced, how can order be restored? These questions may appear simple, yet their answers are far from straightforward.
In practice, exploration often diverges into two paths: one cuts endlessly into details, explaining molecules and genes with clarity, yet offering no clear account of how the whole can be restored; the other leans toward grand narratives of wholeness, but lacks verification and reproducibility. Detail and whole move forward like two parallel tracks, yet never truly converge.
At this fork, Modern Oriental Medicine chooses to lay down a new road. It is neither a patch on old systems nor a crude fusion of “traditional + modern.” It is a reconstruction from the ground up. Theories must be articulated clearly, methods implemented effectively, results reproducible, and evidence must drive continuous updates. These are not slogans, but the basic posture of scholarship.
Within this framework, the model is the key lever. It is not equivalent to a specific therapy, nor is it a dosage list or procedural manual. A better understanding is that the model is the higher-level structure above therapies. It first defines the structure and boundaries of a problem, clarifies target states and evaluation directions, and then accommodates multiple operational paths (different therapies/approaches) within one architecture. Different teams may follow different paths under the same model, yet return to the same structured record for reconciliation. What matters is not which trick works by chance, but whether the model consistently guides people toward reproducible improvement. Models can iterate, but what upgrades is the structure and logic of judgment, not endless polishing of minor details.
Zooming out: systems like Traditional Chinese Medicine (China), Korean Medicine (Korea), Kampo (Japan), and Ayurveda (India) have accumulated vast experience and constructed holistic views — values that should not be erased. Yet they often remain at the level of experience and language, unable to form standardized, reproducible mechanisms. Modern reductionist medicine, on the other hand, amasses ever finer fragments, yet struggles to assemble a whole. Modern Oriental Medicine affiliates with neither side; it proposes its own method: using models as frameworks to bring “wholeness—relation—order” back to reality, making them actionable, verifiable, and open to scrutiny.
To ensure it does not remain in empty talk, Modern Oriental Medicine establishes several core requirements:
Logic-driven: All judgments and interventions must be traceable along a reasoning chain; logic must hold, and reasons must be explicit.
Scientific: Conclusions must be reproducible by others and open to external review.
Standardized: From observation to operation to judgment, details and terminology must be unified. Achieving “ten people performing, one result” is the prerequisite for making both experiments and clinical work verifiable, executable, and transmittable.
Meanwhile, the current goal is clearly defined: to establish academic authentication and public archiving for several core models and certain therapies. All materials will carry version numbers and timestamps, with traceable evidence chains; all conclusions may be questioned and must be verifiable. A model is regarded as a continuously iterative project, not a one-time draft. Each update is driven by new evidence and reproducibility. More important than compiling a list of achievements is the evidence itself — whether it can be rerun by others following the same steps to yield the same results.
The “Oriental” in Modern Oriental Medicine does not mean a geographical direction, but a way of understanding life: emphasizing wholeness, relationality, and the establishment and maintenance of order. “Modern” is not merely a temporal label, but a working method: requiring verification, reproducibility, and continuous iterative refinement.
With this positioning, Modern Oriental Medicine is established as an independent medical system. It takes Oriental thought as its methodological starting point, adopts “models” as its basic units, and reconstructs itself in the language of modern science. In this way, it preserves the depth of Oriental thought while upholding the rigor of scientific method, bringing medicine back onto a track that is understandable, actionable, and verifiable.
Modern Oriental Medicine never promises universal answers. It chooses a steadier path: step by step, building a knowledge system that can be continuously updated, reconstructing medicine into an open and transparent discipline — one that anyone can learn, verify, and reproduce in practice.
李霖豪，现代东方医学（Modern Oriental Medicine, MOM）创始人。长期致力于医学体系的重构与创新，提出了炁能–生液功能模型、分形全息方法论、全息普适原理、泛全息身体映射模型等原创理论，并在国际学术平台（Zenodo、Figshare 等）确立原创权。其学术体系以语言逻辑、分形全息、系统映射等为核心，并融合跨学科方法，探索医学的结构化表达与可验证路径。代表性著作包括《双手脉诊》《唐本伤寒论解读》《脉诊双法不修心》，以及多份原创学术声明与正在撰写的专著。
学术定位：医学创新研究者、跨学科方法论构建者。
Li Linhao, Founder of Modern Oriental Medicine (MOM). He has long been dedicated to reconstructing and innovating medical systems, and has proposed a series of original theories such as the Qi–Energy & Liquid Functional Model (QEL), Fractal Holographic Methodology (FHM), Holographic Universal Principle (HUP), and Pan-Holographic Body Mapping (PHBM), among others. His works have been formally registered on international academic platforms (Zenodo, Figshare, etc.) to establish originality and traceability. His academic framework takes language logic, fractal holography, system mapping, etc., and integrates cross-disciplinary methods to create structured, logical, and verifiable pathways for medicine. Representative publications include Dual-Hand Pulse Diagnosis, Tang-Edition Shanghan Lun Interpretation, and Pulse Diagnosis Double-Method Without Cultivating the Heart, as well as multiple originality declarations and works in progress.
Academic Positioning: Medical innovation researcher and cross-disciplinary methodology builder.