1. 자가치유랍시고 넘겨도 이미 심장섬유 파괴되서 또 걸릴시 심장마비로 골로간다

 

 

2. 미흡한 음성판정으로 못찾아낸다(CT촬영시 폐 망가져도 검사에서는 음성)

 

 

실제로 5번째 검사해서야 양성뜸

 

 

3. 24일동안 증상없다가 갑자기 급성 + 재감염 가능성도 상당히 높음/  일베

2번 번역이 잘못됐다.  바이러스에 대한 음성 판정이 엉터리로 나는 경우가 흔하다는 말이다.  즉 환자를 검사했는데 음성으로 나타났지만, 사실은 바이러스에 걸린 환자가 많다는 것이다. 현재 한국에서 중국 갔다온 사람이 급사했지만, 음성으로 판정되고 있는데, 이는 엉터리 음성 판정일 수도 있다는 말이다. 

우한 폐렴이 중국의 실험실에서 만들어진 바이러스일지 모른다는 설이 있었는데, 정말 그 말을 믿고 싶을 만큼 무서운 바이러스다. 세계의 하늘에 재앙과 죽음의 유령이 떠돌고 있다.  

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  

완치가 되었는데 여전히 바이러스에 양성 반응이 나타나고 있다고 한다.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

진중권이 요즘 가끔 바른 소리를 하고 있지만, 사실 좌파 이데올로기는 위선적이고 악마적인 인간들이 빠져드는 이데올로기이다. 따라서 진중권이 똑똑해 보이기는 해도, 사실은 인간과 역사에 대한 기본적인 이해가 잘못된 헛똑똑이이다.  

우리가 잘 아는 영국의 지성인들, 버트런드 러셀과 버나드 쇼, 런던 정경대학을 세운 웹 부부, 프랑스의 사르트르와 보브아르 등 모두 세계에서 가장 총명한 사람들이었지만, 엉터리 경제학 지식에 잘못된 길을 갔다. 그리고 그런 일이 한국에서도 재현되고 있을 뿐이다.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

중국의 역대 정부는 관료들의 부정과 무능으로 인해 쇠퇴와 멸망으로 갔다.
한국에서도 저런 일이 일어날 것 같아 걱정이다.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[선우정 칼럼] "보수가 권력을 잡으면 뭐가 달라지는데?

문갑식을 비롯해 수많은 사람들이 비판한 칼럼이다. 

하지만 자유주의자인 내가 보기에는 일리가 있는 말이다.

복지사회와 관료주의, 그리고 조선시대 탐관오리를 뺨치는 정치인들, 엉터리 케인즈 경제학 등을 타파하지 못한다면, 우파가 권력을 잡아도 경제가 크게 나아지지는 않을 것이다. 박 대통령 때부터 이미 청년 실업이 심해졌고, 자영업자들은 장사가 안 된다고 하소연 했다. 

좌파들이 사회의 구석구석에 꽈리를 틀고 앉아 있는데, 이들과 맞서 싸울 우파 대통령이 과연 나타날 수 있을까?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3부 금요칼럼) 여야 싸우는척 국민 속이고 총선후 합의해 개헌? 한국당 이원집정부제 당론 이미 채택! 이게 야당? (2020.02.14) [정치분석]

황장수

https://youtu.be/Hv8tEQhXRHk

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

반자본주의 전선

좌파 혁명가들은 경제사를 알고 있는 지식인들에 의해 불신되었지만, 질투와 증오라는 인간의 가장 강력한 열정에 사로잡힌 무지한 대중으로부터 지지를 받았다.

사회주의는 사유재산을 몰수하고 종교적 자유를 억압한다는 사실에도 불구하고, 앙시앙 레짐의 군주와 귀족과 사제들은 사회주의를 수용하고 말았다.

사람들이 사회주의자가 되는 이유는, 질투와 무지에 눈이 멀었기 때문이다.

경제학에 대해 정통하지도 않으면서 자본주의와 사회주의를 논하는 사람들은 무책임한 수다쟁이들이다.

 

The Anticapitalist Front

 

Ludwig von Mises

 

From the very beginnings of the socialist movement and the endeavors to revive the interventionist policies of the precapitalistic ages, both socialism and interventionism were utterly discredited in the eyes of those conversant with economic theory. But the ideas of the revolutionaries and reformers found approval with the immense majority of ignorant people exclusively driven by the most powerful human passions of envy and hatred.

 

The social philosophy of the Enlightenment that paved the way for the realization of the liberal program—economic freedom, consummated in the market economy (capitalism), and its constitutional corollary, representative government—did not suggest the annihilation of the three old powers: the monarchy, the aristocracy, and the churches. The European liberals aimed at the substitution of the parliamentary monarchy for royal absolutism, not at the establishment of republican government. They wanted to abolish the privileges of the aristocrats, but not to deprive them of their titles, their escutcheons, and their estates. They were eager to grant to everybody freedom of conscience and to put an end to the persecution of dissenters and heretics, but they were anxious to give to all churches and denominations perfect freedom in the pursuit of their spiritual objectives. Thus the three great powers of the ancien régime were preserved. One might have expected that princes, aristocrats, and clergymen who indefatigably professed their conservatism would be prepared to oppose the socialist attack upon the essentials of Western civilization. After all, the harbingers of socialism did not shrink from disclosing that under socialist totalitarianism no room would be left for what they called the remnants of tyranny, privilege, and superstition.

 

 

However, even with these privileged groups resentment and envy were more intense than cool reasoning. They virtually joined hands with the socialists, disregarding the fact that socialism aimed also at the confiscation of their holdings and that there cannot be any religious freedom under a totalitarian system. The Hohenzollern in Germany inaugurated a policy that an American observer called monarchical socialism. The autocratic Romanoffs of Russia toyed with labor unionism as a weapon to fight the “bourgeois” endeavors to establish representative government.2 In every European country the aristocrats were virtually cooperating with the enemies of capitalism. Everywhere eminent theologians tried to discredit the free enterprise system and thus, by implication, to support either socialism or radical interventionism. Some of the outstanding leaders of present-day Protestantism—Barth and Brunner in Switzerland, Niebuhr and Tillich in the United States, and the late Archbishop of Canterbury, William Temple—openly condemn capitalism and even charge the alleged failures of capitalism with the responsibility for all the excesses of Russian Bolshevism.

 

One may wonder whether Sir William Harcourt was right when, more than sixty years ago, he proclaimed: We are all socialists now. But today governments, political parties, teachers and writers, militant antitheists as well as Christian theologians are almost unanimous in passionately rejecting the market economy and praising the alleged benefits of state omnipotence. The rising generation is brought up in an environment that is engrossed in socialist ideas.

 

The influence of the prosocialist ideology comes to light in the way in which public opinion, almost without any exception, explains the reasons that induce people to join the socialist or communist parties. In dealing with domestic politics, one assumes that, “naturally and necessarily,” those who are not rich favor the radical programs—planning, socialism, communism—while only the rich have reason to vote for the preservation of the market economy. This assumption takes for granted the fundamental socialist idea that the economic interests of the masses are hurt by the operation of capitalism for the sole benefit of the “exploiters” and that socialism will improve the common man’s standard of living.

 

However, people do not ask for socialism because they know that socialism will improve their conditions, and they do not reject capitalism because they know that it is a system prejudicial to their interests. They are socialists because they believe that socialism will improve their conditions, and they hate capitalism because they believe that it harms them. They are socialists because they are blinded by envy and ignorance. They stubbornly refuse to study economics and spurn the economists’ devastating critique of the socialist plans because, in their eyes, economics, being an abstract theory, is simply nonsense. They pretend to trust only in experience. But they no less stubbornly refuse to take cognizance of the undeniable facts of experience, viz., that the common man’s standard of living is incomparably higher in capitalistic America than in the socialist paradise of the Soviets.

 

In dealing with conditions in the economically backward countries people display the same faulty reasoning. They think that these peoples must “naturally” sympathize with communism because they are poverty stricken. Now it is obvious that the poor nations want to get rid of their penury. Aiming at an improvement of their unsatisfactory conditions, they ought therefore to adopt that system of society’s economic organization which best warrants the attainment of this end; they ought to decide in favor of capitalism. But, deluded by spurious anti-capitalistic ideas, they are favorably disposed to communism. It is paradoxical indeed that the leaders of these Oriental peoples, while casting longing glances at the prosperity of the Western nations, reject the methods that made the West prosperous and are enraptured by Russian communism that is instrumental in keeping the Russians and their satellites poor. It is still more paradoxical that Americans, enjoying the products of capitalistic big business, exalt the Soviet system and consider it quite “natural” that the poor nations of Asia and Africa should prefer communism to capitalism.

 

People may disagree on the question of whether everybody ought to study economics seriously. But one thing is certain. A man who publicly talks or writes about the opposition between capitalism and socialism without having fully familiarized himself with all that economics has to say about these issues is an irresponsible babbler.

 

[Excerpted from The Anti-Capitalist Mentality]

---------------------------------------------------------------

상한론 전문가 황황 교수 인터뷰

황황 교수는 중국 남경대학의 중의학 교수로, 장중경의 상한론을 새롭게 해석해, 그 응용의 범위를 크게 확장한 의사이다.

 

脉景专访黄煌教授实录：

 

问题1:

此次全国新型冠状病毒所致疾病与2003年肆虐的严重急性呼吸综合征（SARS）和2012年出现的中东呼吸综合征（MERS）皆由冠状病毒引起，您如何看待此次全国新型冠状病毒肺炎?

 

黄煌教授：以上列举的各种疾病都是一种不可忽视的急性传染病，必须严加防范。在中医看来，以上疾病都属于时令病的范畴，也就是说，其发病有季节性，同时有流行性和传染性的特点。

 

中国古代将这些时令病称之为“伤寒”“温病”“瘟疫”“疫病”“天行”等。在几千年的临床实践中，古代医家对时令病的治疗积累了不少宝贵的经验。

 

问题2:

病毒的变异是西医治疗最难解决的问题。中医在对此方面疾病的治疗有特别之处，哪些可以借鉴？

 

黄煌教授：中医有句话：“受本难知，发则可辨。因发知受”。人感受什么病原体，中医是难以知晓的，但是中医可以根据病人出现的症状和体征来倒推感受的病因，这种病因，是所谓的“风、寒、暑、湿、燥、火”等。

 

也就是说，中医更强调患者的病理状态，并根据这个状态来选择对应的治疗方药。可以这么认为，无论病原体如何变异，机体在疾病过程中的反应状态应该是有规律可循的。对人体用药，调动机体的抗病能力是中医治病的基本原理。

 

问题3:

经方在历史上多次疫情防治中发挥了哪些重要作用？

 

黄煌教授：所谓经方，主要是指记载在东汉医家张仲景所撰写的医学著作《伤寒论》《金匮要略》里的处方。《伤寒论》的问世与东汉末年的大瘟疫有关。这场瘟疫导致中原人口锐减，曹操的诗句“白骨露于野，千里无鸡鸣”可见一斑，张仲景说得更清楚：“余宗族素多，向余二百。建安纪年以来，犹未十稔，其死亡者，三分有二，伤寒十居其七。”

 

《伤寒论》记载了张仲景为代表的古代医家治疗“伤寒”这一种急性传染病的临床经验。其中的麻黄汤、小柴胡汤、大承气汤、白虎汤、四逆汤等经方，一直是后世医家治疗那些时令性传染病的主要方剂。

 

 

宋金元时期以及明末清初，中国的瘟疫也十分猖獗，当时的中医遵循几千年积累的经验，特别是应用《伤寒论》里面的经方，结合临床多有创新，取得许多不可磨灭的贡献。《伤寒直格》《瘟疫论》《疫疹一得》《温热经纬》《温病条辨》等，就是古代治疗发热性传染性疾病的部分著名医著。

 

问题4:

据相关报道，新型冠状病毒感染患者主要表现为发热、乏力、咳嗽、呼吸困难等，您认为有哪些经方可供选择使用？

 

黄煌教授：我没有治疗过明确新型冠状病毒感染患者，不能提出非常切合的治疗方案，只能根据“因发知受”的原理，根据新型冠状病毒感染患者可能出现的临床表现，提供以下选方思路。

 

葛根汤（葛根、麻黄、桂枝、白芍、甘草、生姜、大枣）：适用于发热初起，无汗、恶寒、头痛、身体疼痛者。

 

麻黄附子细辛汤（麻黄、附子、细辛）：适用于极度疲劳及畏寒，面色晦暗、脉沉者。

 

大青龙汤（麻黄、桂枝、杏仁、甘草、生石膏、生姜、大枣）：适用于发热、恶寒、无汗而烦躁、脉有力、体格壮实者。

 

麻杏石甘汤（麻黄、杏仁、生石膏、甘草）：适用于汗出而喘、胸闷者。

 

小柴胡汤（柴胡、黄芩、半夏、人参、甘草、生姜、大枣）：适用于发热、咳嗽而见往来寒热、胸胁苦满、心烦喜呕、默默不欲饮食者。

 

大柴胡汤（柴胡、黄芩、半夏、枳实、白芍、大黄、生姜、大枣）：适用于寒热往来或发热汗出不解，心下按之满痛、呕吐、郁郁微烦者。

 

柴胡桂枝汤（柴胡、黄芩、半夏、人参、甘草、生姜、大枣、白芍、桂枝）：适用于虚弱人群的发热、食欲不振、恶心呕吐、身体疼痛或皮疹者。

 

黄芩汤（黄芩、白芍、甘草、大枣）：适用于发热初起、咳嗽、咽痛、腹泻、舌红脉数者。

 

白虎汤（生石膏、知母、甘草、粳米）：适用于发热、自汗出、脉浮滑者。如口干渴，加生晒参或西洋参。

 

小陷胸汤（黄连、半夏、瓜蒌）：适用于胸闷痛、吐黄痰、便秘、上腹部按痛、脉浮滑者。

 

三仁汤（杏仁、薏苡仁、蔻仁、半夏、厚朴、滑石、通草）：适用于胸闷腹胀、不饥不渴、小便短赤、舌苔粘腻满布者。

 

凉膈散（大黄、芒硝、甘草、栀子、黄芩、连翘、薄荷）：适用于胸膈烦燥、便秘、舌红苔黄、脉滑数者。

 

小青龙汤（干姜、细辛、五味子、桂枝、白芍、麻黄、半夏、甘草）：适用于咳喘、鼻鸣，痰液、涕多而清稀如水，口不干渴者。

 

桂甘龙牡汤（桂枝、甘草、龙骨、牡蛎）：适用于咳喘气促、惊狂、失眠、汗出不止者。

 

生脉散（人参、麦冬、五味子）：适用于以脉弱、多汗、气短、头昏眼花者。

 

四逆加人参汤（附子、干姜、甘草、人参）：适用于脉微欲绝、四肢厥逆而恶寒、腹泻不止、腹胀满者。

 

炙甘草汤（炙甘草、桂枝、地黄、人参、麦冬、阿胶、火麻仁、生姜、大枣）：适用于消瘦肤枯、贫血貌、短气、胸闷、咳嗽声嘶、心动悸、脉结代者。

 

竹叶石膏汤（竹叶、石膏、半夏、麦门冬、人参、甘草、粳米）：适用于疾病后期，低热持续或已经退热，其人虚羸少气、气逆欲吐者。

 

总之，以方证相应为原则，有是证，用是方。

 

另外，根据历代医家治疗发热性疾病的经验，以下原则应该遵循：

 

(1）病情传变迅速，需要密切观察及时应对，常有每天数次变方者。

 

(2）病情复杂，可采用数方相合的投药方式。

 

(3）病情危重，需要加大用量，每日连进数剂。

 

问题5:

据世卫组织介绍，目前对于新型冠状病毒所致疾病没有特异治疗方法，也没有可用疫苗，但可有效预防。而中医的一大优势便在于治未病，那么在日常生活中如何运用中医知识预防此类疾病？

 

黄煌教授：避免接触传染源与阻断传播途径是最有效的预防措施。至于日常生活中的预防，应该是合理饮食，避免体质偏差过大。

 

体质偏热，经常咽痛咽干、口舌生疮者，宜清凉饮食，少吃辛辣酒肉。

 

体质偏寒，面色黄暗、不易出汗或腹泻者，宜温和饮食，保护脾胃，可适当喝些姜枣汤、葱豉汤等。

 

体质偏实，体格壮实、大便秘结、腹胀满者，宜清淡饮食，不要滥用补药。体质偏虚或年高多病，消瘦、易饥易汗者，宜均衡饮食，不饥不撑，吃好睡好，避免疲劳。

 

通常的人群，都应该注意保暖除湿，合理饮食，避免疲劳。一旦出现乏力、咳嗽、发热、怕冷等，应该尽早就医，用药干预。

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------