김문수
문재인 대통령 신년 기자회견을 보니 앞이 캄캄합니다. 문재인 경제가 파탄한 원인이 있습니다.
첫째, 반(反) 대기업-친(親) 민노총 정신 때문입니다. 전국이 파업·시위 천국이 됐습니다. 이제 굿판을 걷어치워야 합니다.
삼성 이재용, 롯데 신동빈 재판 중입니다. 전경련은 완전 마비시켰습니다. 법인세는 3% 올렸습니다. 최저임금 33% 올렸습니다. 근로시간 주 68시간을 52시간으로 갑자기 단축시켰습니다. 모두 정규직으로 하라고 합니다. 노조의 갑질 인민재판에 노영방송까지 가세해서 진저리치게 합니다. 친노조 무더기 입법에, 기업은 폐업, 감원, 해외탈출 사태입니다. 미국, 일본기업 뿐만 아니라, 유럽상공회의소까지 나서서 문재인 경제정책 비판하고 나섰습니다.
둘째, 경제 현실을 외면하고 있습니다. 경제정의, 경제민주화, 평등, 공평을 시도 때도 없이 구호처럼 외치며, 적폐청산한다고, 세무조사, 공정거래 조사합니다.
셋째, 일자리는 기업이 만듭니다. 대통령이 만드는 일자리를 공공근로라고 하지요? 기업이 장사가 돼야 투자하고, 돈을 벌어야 일자리를 늘리지요.
넷째, 정부 경제정책을 체감케 하겠다고 합니다. 지금 국민들은 체감하고 있습니다. “망했다, 집어치우자, 줄이자” 아닙니까?
다섯째, 규제혁신 하겠다고요? 노동규제, 산업재해 규제, 공정거래 규제, 매일 규제를 쏟아내면서 규제를 혁신하겠다니요?
이제 촛불을 끄십시오. 세계 초일류 기업을 적폐로 몰지 말고, 귀를 기울이세요. 3류 주사파 정치인이 일류 기업인을 적폐로 몰지 마십시오. 문재인이 문젭니다.
-----------------------------------
현대, 기아는 망하는 게 정답이다.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
중국이 문화혁명 때와 마찬가지로 불순한(?) 사상을 개조하기 위한 학교를 운영하고 있다.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 폴란드 정부, 방금 전에 화웨이 판매담당이사를 간첩 혐의로 체포했다고 폴란드 국영방송이 발표
2. 중국 국적의 판매담당이사는 중국 첩보학교 출신으로 폴란드의 고급 첩보 수집활동 한 것이 발각됨
3. 화웨이, 판매된 기기와 통신망 만이 아니라 첩보훈련 받은 인력을 각국에 파송해 민간인과 군사 정보를 조직적으로 수집하고 있음
(한줄요약) 미국을 비롯 호주, 캐나다, 이제는 유럽도 화웨이를 내세운 중국 정부의 간첩 활동 실태에 치를 떨고있음
[출처] [속보] 폴란드, 화웨이간첩 체포
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
출처: 조선일보
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
좌파 방송인 영국 bbc에 의해 세뇌가 행해지고 있다고 주장하는 책. 우리 역시 kbs를 비롯한 모든 언론에 의해 전국민을 상대로 한 사회주의 세뇌가 진행되고 있다.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
비트겐슈타인의 척도
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
통계와 정부의 시장 개입
정부의 개입이 없는 시장에서는 통계의 수집을 요구하지 않는다. 하지만 정부의 개입이 시작되면, 광범위한 통계 수집 없이는 거의 아무 일도 할 수가 없다.
정부 통계가 확산된 주요 원인은 정부가 경계를 계획하면서 통계적 자료가 필요했기 때문이다. 또는 그 역으로 통계의 성장이 정부의 개입과 계획의 방법을 증가시켰다.
경험주의자는 완전한 사회주의자가 되지는 않겠지만, 일반적으로 정부 개입으로 흐를 것이다.
The Politics of Political Economists
Murray N. Rothbard
[This article originally appeared in The Quarterly Journal of Economics, February 1960, pp. 659–665. Reprinted in The Logic of Action Two: Applications and Criticism from the Austrian School. Glos., UK: Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd., 1997, pp. 217–225.]
In the course of his interesting discussion of "The Politics of Political Economists," Professor Stigler challenges the alleged view of Professor Mises that "economic statistics, or more generally quantitative economics — generates a radical political viewpoint." Stigler asserts that the empirical student acquires a "real feeling" for the functioning of an economic system, and "has had the complexities of the economy burned into his soul." Without going into the question of Mises's precise viewpoint on this issue, I think it important to note that Stigler has overlooked several fundamental considerations.
In the first place, statistics are desperately needed for any sort of government planning of the economic system. In a free-market economy, the individual business firm has little or no need of statistics. It need only know its prices and costs. Costs are largely discovered internally within the firm and are not the general data of the economy which we usually refer to as "statistics."
The "automatic" market, then, requires virtually no gathering of statistics; government intervention, on the other hand, whether piecemeal or fully socialist, could do literally nothing without extensive ingathering of masses of statistics. Statistics are the bureaucrat's only form of economic knowledge, replacing the intuitive, "qualitative" knowledge of the entrepreneur, guided only by the quantitative profit-and-loss test. Accordingly, the drive for government intervention, and the drive for more statistics, have gone hand-in-hand.
The enormous expansion of governmental activity in the gathering and disseminating of statistics in the last 25 years is surely more than coincidentally related to the similar expansion of the role of government in regulating and manipulating the economy. One of the leading authorities on the growth of government expenditures has put it this way:
Advance in economic science and statistics improved our knowledge of interstate and intrastate differences in needs and capacities and may have helped stimulate the system of state and federal grants-in-aid. It strengthened belief in the possibilities of dealing with social problems by collective action. It made for increase in the statistical and other fact-finding activities of government.
We need not detail here the extensive use that has been made of national-income and gross-national-product statistics, as well as other statistical measures, in the attempts of the federal government at combating business cycles or unemployment.
Nor is this just a contemporary story. An authoritative work on British government puts the case thus:
the minor role of government during the nineteenth century reflects more than the absence of violent economic disruption; it also reflects the infancy of the economic and social sciences. Compared with recent decades, the volume of systematic information about social conditions was very small, which meant that the existence of problems was hard to establish persuasively.… If the volume of unemployment is unknown, the gravity of the problem is in doubt.
The accumulation of factual information about social conditions and the development of economics and the social sciences increased the pressure for government intervention.… Surveys like Charles Booth's Life and Labor of the People in London revealed conditions which shocked public opinion in the late eighties and nineties. As statistics improved and students of social conditions multiplied, the continued existence of such conditions was kept before the public. Increasing knowledge of them aroused influential circles and furnished working class movements with factual weapons.
Surely the role of the Fabian Society's industrious empirical studies in furthering the cause of socialism in Great Britain is too well-known to need stressing here.
On the continent and in America in the late 19th century, it is well-known that the rebels against laissez-faire and the classical political economy stressed their replacement with induction from economic history and statistics. That was the goal of the German Historical School and its Verein für Sozialpolitik, and of the young, German-trained exponents of the "new political economy" of government intervention in the 1870s and 1880s. One of their leaders, Richard T. Ely, who called the new approach the "look and see" method, made it clear that the aim of fact gathering was to "mold the forces at work in society and to improve existing conditions"; they believed that as economists they had a responsibility for "shaping the character of the national economy."
And let us not overlook the eminent interventionist sociologist Lester Frank Ward, whose proposed "scientific," "positive," planned economy, would consist of "social engineering" based on statistical information fed from all parts of the country into a central bureau of statistics.
Nor was it only abstract speculators who expressed such views. Statisticians themselves participated in this movement. As early as 1863, Samuel B. Ruggles, American delegate to the International Statistical Congress in Berlin, declared that "statistics are the very eyes of the statesman, enabling him to survey and scan with clear and comprehensive vision the whole structure and economy of the body politic." One of the founders of the Verein für Sozialpolitik was the famous statistician Ernst Engel, head of the Royal Statistical Bureau of Prussia.
And Carrol D. Wright, one of the early commissioners of labor in the United States and a man greatly influenced by Engel, urged the collection of statistics of unemployment because he wanted to find a remedy (presumably via government action). Wright hailed the new German school as including men of all lands "who seek by legitimate means, and without revolution, the amelioration of unfortunate industrial and social relations." Henry Carter Adams, a student of Engel's, who established the Statistical Bureau of the Interstate Commerce Commission, believed that "ever-increasing statistical activity by the government was essential not only for the sake of controlling naturally monopolistic industries, but also for the efficient functioning of competition wherever possible." And certainly one of the great spurs toward constructing index numbers of wholesale and other prices was the desire to have government stabilize the price level.
Unquestionably one of the prime founders of modern statistical inquiry in economics was Wesley C. Mitchell. There is no doubt that Mitchell aspired to lay the basis for "scientific" government planning. Thus:
[Quoting from Mitchell] "clearly the type of social invention most needed today is one that offers definite techniques through which the social system can be controlled and operated to the optimum advantage of its members." To this end he [Mitchell] constantly sought to extend, improve, and refine the gathering and compilation of data.… Mitchell believed that business-cycle analysis … might indicate the means to the achievement of orderly social control of business activity.
And:
he [Mitchell] envisaged the great contribution that government could make to the understanding of economic and social problems if the statistical data gathered independently by various Federal agencies were systematized and planned so that the interrelationships among them could be studied. The idea of developing social statistics, not merely as a record but as a basis for planning, emerged early in his own work.
The federal government's own account of the growth of its statistical agencies differs little from the above examples. The Bureau of the Budget, during President Eisenhower's not rabidly socialistic administration, explained the continued growth of federal statistics as follows:
National growth and prosperity demanded an enlightened conduct of public affairs with the aid of factual information. The ultimate responsibility of the Federal Government for underwriting the health of the national economy has always been implicit in the American system.
Then, speaking of the New Deal era after 1933, the bureau added:
A realization grew in the Congress and in high administration circles that sound and positive proposals to combat the depression required analysis based upon reliable information. As a result … statistical expansion was resumed at an accelerated pace.
Suffice it then to say that a leading cause of the proliferation of governmental statistics is the need for statistical data in government economic planning. But the relationship works also in reverse: the growth of statistics, often developed originally for its own sake, ends by multiplying the avenues of government intervention and planning. In short, statistics do not have to be developed originally for politicoeconomic ends; their own autonomous development, directly or indirectly, opens up new fields for interventionists to exploit.
Each new statistical technique, whether it be flow of funds, interindustry economics, or activity analysis, soon acquires its own subdivision and application in government. A particular example is input–output analysis, which began as a purely theoretical attempt to lend empirical content to the Walrasian system of general equilibrium. It has now advanced to the point where its champions hail it as providing
an integrated picture of the industrial mechanism. They believe it can measure with fair accuracy the changes in inter-industry relations that would follow assumed changes in the "final bill of goods…" In practice, the most important change in the bill of goods is that called for by way of large-scale rearmament. It is hardly astonishing, therefore, that most of the development and application of input–output studies have been connected with industrial mobilization.
There are other reasons why the statistically oriented will tend to become interventionists. For one thing, the economic statistician will tend to be impatient of all theory as "armchair speculation," and hence will tend to advocate piecemeal, pragmatic, decide-every-case-on-its-"merits" type of government planning. It is perhaps true, as Stigler declares, that few empirical economists have become outright socialists or communists; such a course would be much too theoretical for them. But neither do they become adherents of laissez-faire; instead, a case-by-case, ad hoc approach drives them down the path of a muddled government interventionism.
I do not know whether, as Stigler asserts, "the most radical wing of the new dealers was not distinguished for its empirical knowledge of the American economy." But certainly the Tugwells and the Stuart Chases and the Veblenians proclaimed their empiricism often enough. And historians of the New Deal generally praise it highly for its flexible, pragmatic approach.
Another reason why statistics and political pragmatism are mutually congenial is that the very hallmark of the pragmatic approach is to begin by looking for problems or "problem areas" in the society. The pragmatist looks for areas where the economy and society fall short of the Garden of Eden, and these, of course, abound. Poverty, unemployment, old people with scurvy, young people with cavities — the list is indeed endless. And as each problem multiplies under the care of his eager research, the pragmatist calls ever more stridently for government to do something — quickly — to solve the problem. Only hard-headed, deductive, a prioristic economic theory can teach him about ends and means, allocation of resources, opportunity cost, and the other rigors of the economic discipline.
Considering the above discussion, it is no wonder that conservative members of Congress, in the days before they were indoctrinated in the modern economic niceties by the Joint Committee on the Economic Report, were very suspicious of the seemingly harmless expansion of federal statistical activities. Thus, in 1945, Representative Frank Keefe, conservative Republican congressman from Wisconsin, was in the process of questioning Dr. A. Ford Hinrichs, head of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, on the latter's request for increased appropriations. In the course of the questioning, Keefe's misgivings about government statistics emerged as a cry from the heart—unsophisticated perhaps, but at least of sound conservative instinct:
There is no doubt but what it would be nice to have a whole lot of statistics.… I am just wondering whether we are not embarking on a program that is dangerous when we keep adding and adding and adding to this thing.
We have been planning and getting statistics ever since 1932 to try to meet a situation that was domestic in character, but were never able to even meet that question.… Now we are involved in an international question…. It looks to me as though we spend a tremendous amount of time with graphs and charts and statistics and planning. What my people are interested in is, what is it all about? Where are we going, and where are you going?
I think we can conclude that the nub of the difference between Stigler and myself is this: to him a radical or nonconservative is essentially a socialist or a communist. To me, a nonconservative is someone who advocates intervention rather than laissez-faire. The difference is one of frame of reference. If we define conservatism as Stigler does, then it is true that most economists are conservatives; if we define it as believing in laissez-faire, then the conclusion must be very different. For the key then becomes not so much economics and noneconomics as theory versus empiricism. Empiricists will tend less to be full-scale socialists, but will also drift generally toward intervention.
Still, when all is said and done, it is probably true that even the proportion of believers in laissez-faire is much greater among economists than in other academic disciplines, and that the "average" point on the ideological spectrum in economics is considerably "to the right" of the average in other fields of study. It appears that the economic discipline, per se, imposes a rightward shift in ideological belief. And this, after all, is the main point of Stigler's article.
------------------------------------------------------
明心堂医案医话：荆芥连翘汤临证心得（二）皮肤杂病
按：本方经过加减可以治疗很多皮肤科方面疾病，经俺验证过的有如：面部过敏性皮炎、荨麻疹、关节型湿疹、玫瑰糠疹、痤疮、肝斑、酒糟鼻、酒精肝、黄疸等。以上所举案例都是亲自治疗过的，疗效确切。有的病例因当时没有详细记录，整理时只能依据处方上记录的主症，简单整理。有的病种因病例较少，经验有限，还请各位同仁继续共同验证，不断扩大本方的应用范围。
俺目前使用本方的辩证要点是：体质较壮实，面色较黑，皮肤粗糙、干燥，大便略燥结，舌质红苔厚而腻，脉搏有力、略数。皮损局部色泽红或暗红，皮温增高，基底部潮红，瘙痒脱屑等。以阳、实、热证，表现为主者。
在应用本方时，取效的关键是辨病辩证适当加减：
1， 局部瘙痒较重，加苦参、白鲜皮等增强止痒之效。
2， 局部色素沉着或肝斑，丹皮、百合、紫草、白薇、茜草等可酌情选用二、三味，淡斑、化瘀。
3， 大便秘结较重，可选加加玄参、大黄、石膏等通腑泻浊。
4， 血分瘀滞较重，并见到舌质暗红，舌边瘀点、瘀斑，月经有血块等瘀血见证时，加桃仁、红花活血化瘀。
5， 痤疮较重，加夏枯草、牡蛎、皂角刺、双花、公英等软坚散结。
6， 若湿热互结，湿邪较重，表现为皮肤局部有渗出，舌苔黄腻或水滑苔，可加白花蛇舌草、白茅根利湿清热。
7， 黄疸、肝功异常，可加茵陈、栀子、大黄（茵陈蒿汤）利胆退黄。
酒精肝可加枸杞子、黄精、枳椇子、葛花解酒保肝。
8，荨麻疹较重，尤其是皮肤划痕症加桃仁、红花、丹皮、水牛角（前面已有专篇介绍）。
在应用本方时，取效的关键是辨病辩证适当加减：
1， 局部瘙痒较重，加苦参、白鲜皮等增强止痒之效。
2， 局部色素沉着或肝斑，丹皮、百合、紫草、白薇、茜草等可酌情选用二、三味，淡斑、化瘀。
3， 大便秘结较重，可选加加玄参、大黄、石膏等通腑泻浊。
4， 血分瘀滞较重，并见到舌质暗红，舌边瘀点、瘀斑，月经有血块等瘀血见证时，加桃仁、红花活血化瘀。
5， 痤疮较重，加夏枯草、牡蛎、皂角刺、双花、公英等软坚散结。
6， 若湿热互结，湿邪较重，表现为皮肤局部有渗出，舌苔黄腻或水滑苔，可加白花蛇舌草、白茅根利湿清热。
7， 黄疸、肝功异常，可加茵陈、栀子、大黄（茵陈蒿汤）利胆退黄。
酒精肝可加枸杞子、黄精、枳椇子、葛花解酒保肝。
8，荨麻疹较重，尤其是皮肤划痕症加桃仁、红花、丹皮、水牛角（前面已有专篇介绍）。
验案数则，供同仁参考：
附：俺手头关于荆芥连翘汤相关文献记载不多，一本是陈宝田先生的《时方的临床应用》论述较详，大家可以参阅。
后来买到一本《日本汉方医学皮肤病治疗辑要》（/任诚编译.北京：学菀出版社，2009.11.15~17）
对本方的源流有所详述，现摘录如下，供大家参考：（根据原文整理，略有改动，有条件的请参阅原书）
“ 荆芥连翘汤首先记载在龚廷贤编著的《万病回春》卷五的耳病和鼻病中，但二方剂中的药物稍有不同。森道伯根据他多年对此二方剂的临床研究经验，最后制订出日本一贯堂的荆芥连翘汤，因此就有了同一名称的三个不同方剂组成内容的荆芥连翘汤，今将三个不同方剂的组成内容分别列述如下：
后来买到一本《日本汉方医学皮肤病治疗辑要》（/任诚编译.北京：学菀出版社，2009.11.15~17）
对本方的源流有所详述，现摘录如下，供大家参考：（根据原文整理，略有改动，有条件的请参阅原书）
“ 荆芥连翘汤首先记载在龚廷贤编著的《万病回春》卷五的耳病和鼻病中，但二方剂中的药物稍有不同。森道伯根据他多年对此二方剂的临床研究经验，最后制订出日本一贯堂的荆芥连翘汤，因此就有了同一名称的三个不同方剂组成内容的荆芥连翘汤，今将三个不同方剂的组成内容分别列述如下：
（一）《万病回春》治疗耳病的荆芥连翘汤组成内容是：荆芥、连翘、防风、当归、川芎、白芍、柴胡、只壳、黄芩、山栀子、白芷、桔梗各等分，甘草减半。上銼一剂，水煎，食后服。两耳肿痛者，肾经有风湿也。
（二）治疗鼻病的荆芥连翘汤组成内容是：荆芥、连翘、柴胡、川芎、当归、生地、白芍、白芷、防风、薄荷叶、山栀子、黄芩、桔梗各等分，甘草减半。
上銼散，食远服。鼻渊者，胆移热于脑也。
（三）（一贯堂）的荆芥连翘汤
龙野一雄编著的《汉方处方集》记载的荆芥连翘汤
（日本一贯堂方）组成内容是：当归、熟地、白芍、川芎、黄连、黄芩、黄柏、山栀子、连翘、防风、薄荷叶、荆芥、只壳、甘草各1.5克 柴胡2.0克 白芷、桔梗2.5克
矢数道明编著的《汉方处方解说》记载的荆芥连翘汤（日本一贯堂方）的组成内容是：当归、地黄、白芍、川芎、黄连、黄芩、黄柏、山栀子、连翘、荆芥、防风、薄荷叶、只壳、甘草各1.5克，白芷、桔梗、柴胡2.5克。”
……
（二）治疗鼻病的荆芥连翘汤组成内容是：荆芥、连翘、柴胡、川芎、当归、生地、白芍、白芷、防风、薄荷叶、山栀子、黄芩、桔梗各等分，甘草减半。
上銼散，食远服。鼻渊者，胆移热于脑也。
（三）（一贯堂）的荆芥连翘汤
龙野一雄编著的《汉方处方集》记载的荆芥连翘汤
（日本一贯堂方）组成内容是：当归、熟地、白芍、川芎、黄连、黄芩、黄柏、山栀子、连翘、防风、薄荷叶、荆芥、只壳、甘草各1.5克 柴胡2.0克 白芷、桔梗2.5克
矢数道明编著的《汉方处方解说》记载的荆芥连翘汤（日本一贯堂方）的组成内容是：当归、地黄、白芍、川芎、黄连、黄芩、黄柏、山栀子、连翘、荆芥、防风、薄荷叶、只壳、甘草各1.5克，白芷、桔梗、柴胡2.5克。”
……
“矢数道明认为：此方剂中的温清饮具有改善青年期腺病体质的功用，其余八味药可治疗耳鼻喉的一些疾病，如：白芷的药效是作用于头部，与防风组合可除头痛；与荆芥、连翘、桔梗同用，可清解在头部停滞的郁热而抑制化脓症；荆芥、防风、薄荷叶、枳壳可治头面部的风热；桔梗、白芷可祛头面部的风邪，并有排脓作用。柴胡能解肝热，可增强肝功能。此方剂有清热、和血、解毒的作用。它适用于身体瘦弱，皮肤为青白色、浅黑色或暗褐色，对青年期具有解毒证体质的患者，发生急性或慢性中耳炎，急性或慢性上颌窦化脓症，肥厚性鼻炎、扁桃体炎、寻常痤疮，秃发症等疾病，长期内服有良效。”
---------------------------------------------------
荆芥连翘汤有两张方，一张是明代龚廷贤《万病回春》的，一张是上个世纪初期日本汉医森道伯的，两张方差别在于后者加上了黄连解毒汤。我临床用的是后者，即森道伯的荆芥连翘汤。我的经验用量如下：
1（太阳营卫）荆芥15防风15桔梗10薄荷5白芷10+炒枳实10当归10川芎10白芍10。
2（少阳枢机）柴胡15黄芩10生甘草5。
3（阳明1）黄连5黄柏10连翘30山栀10生地黄15
（阳明2）--------？
（阳明3）---------？
荆芥连翘汤年轻人用得多。这些人面色潮红或红黑，有油光，头发乌黑油亮，唇红饱满，咽喉充血，舌红，淋巴腺、扁桃体等腺体容易出现肿大，容易患痤疮、疱疹、口腔溃疡、牙龈出血、鼻衄等，怕热多汗，容易皮肤瘙痒、晨僵等。 女性多有妇科炎症，男性多有脚癣臭汗等。
荆芥连翘汤的功效，首先是清热，服用后原来的皮肤感染、咽喉肿痛、淋巴结肿大、口腔溃疡、妇科炎症等均减轻或消失；其次是散风，皮肤不痒了、身体不疼了；再就是解郁，心情好起来了，头不痛了，头不昏了。有些患者的疾病也随之缓解。此方起效很快，一般在3-5剂之间 。
女人群中我用荆芥连翘汤常有效的病种，一是痤疮，多是女高中生或大学生，痤疮满脸，疮体高突饱满，油亮脓黄，此方服后常常数剂即消。二是炎症性不孕症。只要是经常唇红、苔厚，有盆腔炎阴道炎病史，带下有色、量多，药后常能出人意料地怀上宝宝，让焦虑不安的准妈妈欣喜如狂。三是红斑狼疮，此病年轻女性最多。曾经接诊一位少女，患红斑狼疮性肾炎、肾衰4期，用透析以及大剂量激素，依然全身浮肿如弥勒佛，我用大剂荆芥连翘汤加蝉衣、浮萍，坚持服用5月，激素逐渐减量，肾功能恢复，上了大学。还有一位患红斑狼疮肾炎的姑娘，也是服用的荆芥连翘汤加蝉衣浮萍方7个月，ANA抗体阳性以及抗ss-DNA抗体居然破天荒地第一次转阴并降到正常范围。
男人能不能用荆芥连翘汤？当然可以。如“臭男人”的湿疹、皮炎、毛囊炎，此方有效，其人大多汗多粘臭，或脚臭熏人，或好酒，或易怒，面红黑油亮，其皮肤或瘙痒难耐，或脓水淋漓。男青年的“火眼”也可用，如青睫综合症、虹膜炎等，其人大多满脸油光，头毛浓密，唇红、咽红，暴躁不安。
荆芥连翘汤药液极苦，但如果是火体热病，刚开始服用此药，尚可入口，但随着疾病的好转，药液将越来越苦，到这个时候，就应该减量或停服。我通常改为每剂药服2-3天，每天仅服1顿。荆芥连翘汤不能滥用，用不好，食欲下降，甚至肝功能异常。所以，辨清体质，是安全有效使用本方的关键。
女人群中我用荆芥连翘汤常有效的病种，一是痤疮，多是女高中生或大学生，痤疮满脸，疮体高突饱满，油亮脓黄，此方服后常常数剂即消。二是炎症性不孕症。只要是经常唇红、苔厚，有盆腔炎阴道炎病史，带下有色、量多，药后常能出人意料地怀上宝宝，让焦虑不安的准妈妈欣喜如狂。三是红斑狼疮，此病年轻女性最多。曾经接诊一位少女，患红斑狼疮性肾炎、肾衰4期，用透析以及大剂量激素，依然全身浮肿如弥勒佛，我用大剂荆芥连翘汤加蝉衣、浮萍，坚持服用5月，激素逐渐减量，肾功能恢复，上了大学。还有一位患红斑狼疮肾炎的姑娘，也是服用的荆芥连翘汤加蝉衣浮萍方7个月，ANA抗体阳性以及抗ss-DNA抗体居然破天荒地第一次转阴并降到正常范围。
男人能不能用荆芥连翘汤？当然可以。如“臭男人”的湿疹、皮炎、毛囊炎，此方有效，其人大多汗多粘臭，或脚臭熏人，或好酒，或易怒，面红黑油亮，其皮肤或瘙痒难耐，或脓水淋漓。男青年的“火眼”也可用，如青睫综合症、虹膜炎等，其人大多满脸油光，头毛浓密，唇红、咽红，暴躁不安。
荆芥连翘汤药液极苦，但如果是火体热病，刚开始服用此药，尚可入口，但随着疾病的好转，药液将越来越苦，到这个时候，就应该减量或停服。我通常改为每剂药服2-3天，每天仅服1顿。荆芥连翘汤不能滥用，用不好，食欲下降，甚至肝功能异常。所以，辨清体质，是安全有效使用本方的关键。
-------------------------------------------
댓글 없음:
댓글 쓰기