This paper strongly rejects the notion that the use of biomedical terms to represent traditional Chinese medical concepts is helpful to the intationalization of Chinese medicine. It further argues that translation for this term is unsatisfactory, because (1) the clinical reference is not identical, (2) it introduces the concepts of conjunctiva and inflammation, which are not Chinese medical concepts, and (3) destroys the Chinese medical concepts wind and fire expressed in the Chinese, which reflect the way the disease is traditionally diagnosed and treated. While for English readers not familiar with Chinese medicine, acute conjunctivitis may be immediately intelligible, for those seeking a deep understanding of the subject, the literal translation (loan translation) wind-fire eye is much more helpful. This paper supports these arguments with numerous other examples.