Isn't the point that "western medicine" is a set of things that have been shown to work based on the outcome of controlled tests - double blind tests and so on. As a result of these tests we say that, in general, statistically, "medicine" cures the condition more than doing nothing does (or, more precisely, more than the placebo effect).

If we put something through that process and find that outcome, we classify it as medicine. My understanding is that tests of some Traditional Chinese Medicine (which I assume is what we're talking about here when we say "eastern medicine") aren't able to replicate successful outcomes and so we therefore don't classify those things as medicine in the west.

That's not to say they don't help trigger the placebo and so on, just that we haven't proven it through double blind studies and so on - which is my understanding of what OP means by "empirical".

0 proof. It's based purely on magic thinking.

If you have any relevant sources that prove other wise I'll be happy to change my mind.

It really bothers me to hear that; it's a common statement, but I think when you examine what it means to say a placebo is observed to be effective, it dissolves into logical incoherence. It's pretending that a lack of results is a result, that an unknown source of bias is understood through doubletalk/think. It's worse than homeopathy.