------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
중국이 학교 개학하고 공장 다시 가동함
과학자들은 이에따라 4월말쯤
중국 전역에 우한폐렴 second wave
돌풍 예상된다고 예상
이상 Nature지 보도 / 일베
--->나는 반대 의견이다. 중국에서는 개인들이 약국에 가서 우한 폐렴 약을 살수도 있고, 또 정부에서 시민들에게 나눠주기도 했다. 또 이제는 폐렴의 치료에 어느 정도 자신감도 있고, 개발한 약도 여러 종류이다. 따라서 이전처럼 확산되지는 않을 것이다.
三药三方이란 무엇인가?
金花清感颗粒、莲花清瘟胶囊/颗粒、血必净注射液、
清肺排毒汤、化湿败毒方、宣肺败毒方을 가리킨다.
저기 6가지 약만 있으면 웬만한 우한 폐렴은 다 고칠 수 있다. 위의 3가지는 이전에 나와 있던 약들이고, 아래 3가지 약은 이번에 중의사들이 연구해 처방한 약들이다. 폐렴에 대한 치료 경험이 쌓이면서, 점점 치료율이 높은 약들이 등장하고 있다.
清肺排毒汤、化湿败毒方、宣肺败毒方을 가리킨다.
저기 6가지 약만 있으면 웬만한 우한 폐렴은 다 고칠 수 있다. 위의 3가지는 이전에 나와 있던 약들이고, 아래 3가지 약은 이번에 중의사들이 연구해 처방한 약들이다. 폐렴에 대한 치료 경험이 쌓이면서, 점점 치료율이 높은 약들이 등장하고 있다.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
https://youtu.be/FckYxGPXPfw
일부 중국 사람들은 중국 공산당 정권의 사실왜곡이 선전이고, 전염병이 다른 국가들로 인한겄으로 비난의 촛점을 옮기기위해 노력하고 있어 전세계에 중국정부가 폭정을 하고있다고 일께워주고있다고 주장하고 있습니다.
비디오에서 사천 지방 출신 인 ZHAO Kai는 모든 중국인 및 공산당 당국에 정의를 고수하고 그들의 일관성에 따라 행동하고 중국 공산당을 해산하기 위해 모든 중국인과 공산당 당국에 외쳤습니다.
첫째 영상
안녕하세요, 제 이름은 ZHAO KAI입니다. 나는 쉬츄환 국민입니다.
이 재난의 순간에, 나는 모든 정직하고 의로운 중국인과 공산당 관계자에 일어나서 공산당을 해체하라고 외칩니다. 이 바이러스는 끔찍하며,이 바이러스보다 더 끔찍한건 마르크스주의-레닌주의의 무신론적 공산주의입니다. 마르크스-레닌주의의 무신론적 공산주의는 정신적인 전염병입니다.
이 영적 전염병이 있는곳에는 재난이 있습니다.
1949 년부터, 우리는 문화적 혁명, 엄청난 기근, KMT당원들의 숙청, 반혁명운동, 자본주의, 부패한 정부들로 천안문 사태를 경험했습니다. 그 무었보다 사람이 만들어낸 재난보다 더 심각한건 없습니다.
오늘날까지, 공산주의의 이념적 전염병은 중국에서 결핍증세를 일으켰습니다. 우리 중국인은 기본적인 인간성을 잃었습니다. 우리는 더 이상 천국을 앙망하지 않습니다. 미래 세대에 대한 책임감도 없어졌습니다. 수많은 중국인들이 여전히 빈곤 한 생활을 하고있는 동안 세계 전역에 걸쳐 '영웅'이 되라고 돈을 쏟아 붇는 정권입니다. 이 바이러스가 전 세계에 퍼져 나가면서, 우리의 평범한 중국인들은 전 세계로부터 책임소재를 물을 껏이며, 배상 및 소송에 당면할 것입니다. 심지어 따돌림도 있을겄입니다. 중국 내에서 우리는 끝없는 위기와 재난에 직면하고 있습니다. 실업, 빈곤, 심지어 기근, 한층 치밀해진 부패, 독재 및 두려움.
우리의 미래 세대가 친절과 공평한 삶을 살기 위해, 나는 모든 중국인과 공산당 당국에게 일어나 공산당을 해체 할수 있도록 지원하고 호소합니다. 국가와 사회의 발전을 위해 지불해야 할 대가가 있습니다. 오늘 저는 그 대가를 지불합니다. 나는 공산당의 해체을 요구합니다. 이 나라에 하늘의 은총이 있길 바랍니다.
2번째 영상
안녕하세요, 시취환시민 자오 카이 입니다. 나는 공산당의 해체를 요구합니다. 어쩌면 나는 체포되거나 감옥으로 갈것입니다. 나는 다음과 같은 성명을 냅니다. 첫째, 나는 건강이 좋은 상태입니다. 두 번째로, 나는 열이 없으며 집에서 오랫동안 고립된생활을 했습니다. 셋째, 나는 하나님을 믿습니다. 나의 정신 건강합니다. 나는 정신 질환이 없습니다. 나는 자살 하지 안겠습니다. / 일베
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Niall Ferguson
By March last year it was clear to me that Chimerica was dead and Cold War II had begun.
작년 3월 무렵에 차이메리카Chimerica가 종말을 맞았고, 제2의 냉전이 시작되었다는 것이 내겐 분명해졌다.
Niall Ferguson
As the trade war got going in spring 2018, we argued that China had to "give ground and commit itself to reducing its bilateral trade deficit with the U.S." If not, there would be a non-amicable Chimerican divorce. Well, that's exactly what we got.
"The backlash against China was a more or less inevitable consequence of the evolution of Chimerica," we argued. "It would have happened ... even without Donald Trump."
None of what we recommended was done. China's persistent reliance on currency weakness made an American backlash inevitable. It came in the form of the protectionist Donald Trump's election in 2016:
---------------------------------------------------------------
우한 폐렴의 정치적 대처
갈 데까지 간 모든 것들의 거품으로 인해 전통적인 화폐 정책이 모두 소진되었고, 이제 최종적이고 불기피한 “바로잡기”를 피할 수 없게 되었다.
이번 폐렴 사태는 블랙 스완 사건이 아니다. 이미 2012년 독일 연구소에서는 사스와 유사한 바이러스로 인해 전염병 대유행이 발생하고, 놀라운 일들이 일어날 거라고 예측했다.
정치인들은 이번의 비상 사태를 새로운 부채로 대처하려 하고 있다. 하지만 이로 인해 경제는 더 왜곡되고 올바른 경제에 대한 사람들의 학습 과정은 더 연기될 것이다.
최대의 위험은 보이지 않아서 더욱 저평가된 자산, 즉 지식이 사라지고 있다는 사실이다. 경제적으로 관련 있는 지식은 계속 실제적인 응용이 되어야 하며, 그렇지 않을 경우 쉽게 폐기되고 만다.
모든 소득은 재분배가 아니라 사람들의 욕구를 더 잘 만족시키는 생산 활동에서 나와야 한다.
점점 더 많은 사람들이 빚을 지고 매달 벌어서 간신히 생활을 이어가고 있어서, 갑자기 실업이나 질병 등의 이유로 급여가 중단되면 생존이 위협받는 상황이다.
화폐 정책으로 경제가 왜곡된 상황에서 가장 경제적으로 이득을 보는 사람들은 중앙은행의 정책 결과를 가장 잘 예측하는 사람들이다.
모든 화폐, 재정, 경제 정책들은 학습 무능력자에게 보상을 주고, 구조 조정을 방해하고, 생산의 기초를 무너뜨려서, 더 많은 정부 개입을 초래할 뿐이다.
이번 재난을 학습의 기회로 삼아, 다음의 재앙이 운명의 장난이 되지 않도록 해야 한다.
The Political Management of the Coronavirus Crisis
Rahim Taghizadegan
We may currently be facing the biggest economic crisis of all time, because it is a multifaceted crisis: first, there is the pandemic with its disastrous direct consequences for tourism, the service sector, and trade. Secondly, there is an oil price shock with a geopolitical background. Third, there is a shock caused by supply chain disruption due to heavy reliance on just-in-time production and distant producers. Fourth, there is a crisis of confidence due to differing risk assessments and disagreements about whether Western governments are guilty of negligence or fearmongering to massively restrict civil liberties. Finally, the ultimately inevitable correction of an overstretched “everything bubble” in which the traditional instruments of monetary policy have been exhausted.
We are dealing with a stroke of fate, but not with a “Black Swan” event. None of the crises were unpredictable in themselves, least of all the pandemic. In 2012, a study commissioned by the German Bundestag had already analyzed and done detailed calculations about the scenario of a pandemic caused by a SARS-like virus, with alarming results. No less than Bill Gates himself has been issuing urgent warnings for many years. The current shock thus points to deeper-seated problems—namely, the decline in society’s ability to learn. This decline could sharpen even further throughout the crisis intervention, and that represents the greatest danger in the long term.
Of course, the economic shock caused by travel and curfews also has an impact on health—a fact that many overlook. Public Health and the economy are not mutually opposed. The main driver of longer life expectancies with a higher quality of life is increasing prosperity, contrary to the romanticization of earlier lifestyles said to be “in harmony with the environment.” The consequences of impoverishment due to the measures taken are invisible and are therefore easily overlooked. Economists may be inclined to make calculations—but in this case nothing can be calculated. One could compare the economic damage with the potential death toll, but this is a comparison that few would find morally justifiable. However, it is not so easy to dismiss: it is indeed a true dilemma.
On the one hand, the economic damage has an invisible but direct impact on life expectancy and will certainly claim some lives due to complex effects: e.g., suicides and murdered wives, an increased health burden due to lack of sunshine, lack of exercise, unbalanced diet, which is only partially mitigated in some places by a decreasing health burden due to improving air quality. On the other hand, this damage is more linear than the opposite side being compared: the scenarios of non-intervention in the current, incomplete state of knowledge.
The Exponential Increase in Intensive Care Patients Is the Problem
If one compares only the current deaths in the West, the damage of the interventions to life and limb is certainly higher. But all contrarians who make such comparisons ignore the traumatizing experience on the epidemic front: The problem is not the direct lethality of the virus, but the clearly exponential increase in intensive care patients. Due to the extreme speed of infection without consistent contact avoidance—primarily social, less state intervention—doctors on the front lines of the epidemic are suddenly confronted with having to decide who to let die helplessly. This death initially only affects risk groups, but the sudden rise of old relatives suffocating in full consciousness, without being able to say goodbye to parents or grandparents, is such an intense experience that the pressure is to intervene—at all costs! This may seem uneconomic, but it is ethically and epistemologically imperative. Precisely because we still know so little, containing exponential drama of this kind is the order of the day.
Nonetheless, the fact that it could come to this is due to a low level of social learning and institutional failure. The early warning period should have been enough to follow the success stories of Singapore and Taiwan, which today have much fewer constraints on public life and correspondingly fewer economic sacrifices that are directly attributable to the pandemic.
Limiting the Economic Damage: Political Misjudgments?
If there is currently no alternative to the interventions, which could change at any time with new findings, then the question of limiting the economic damage arises. Since interventions are ordered by policymakers, almost everyone is now thinking of economic and monetary policy measures to reduce the damage. But this is a misjudgment by both supporters and opponents of the current policy interventions. Western politicians rarely initiate something new, but rather jump on social trends with a delay. Here the pressure clearly comes from society. This is not only the case in Europe, as proven by the Wuhan-Whistleblowers, the conditions in Iran (an interesting case, since it is an authoritarian state), and the actions of the municipalities in Lebanon (in a dysfunctional central state). From a purely rationalistic point of view, the attitude of averting visible, suddenly escalating suffering and accepting invisible, long-term distributed suffering in return may seem “irrational.” However, to act on the basis of such pure rationality would itself be an unreasonable error of judgement, which the majority of the population will never subscribe to, even with the best arguments and the most zealous persuasion.
Politics can only allocate what arises from current or future productivity. Damage reparation through policy can therefore only work based on one of the following premises: First, politicians are better able to assess the situation and the future than private decision-makers. Second, debt instruments can already generate future tax revenues today, and earlier use saves higher costs or means greater prosperity later. The two alternatives therefore mean: current redistribution of poorer use of funds by private decision-makers to better use of funds by political decision-makers, or temporal redistribution of poorer use of private or political funds later to better use of funds today.
At present, it does not seem very likely that the first premise holds. Compared to Asian models, the extreme measures, taken seemingly out of shock, are a clear indication of an incorrect assessment of the situation by politicians. Certainly, society was not much more forward-thinking either, but redistribution can of course never go from the more short-sighted to the more far-sighted within society. Logic dictates that it can only go from those who still create value today to those who no longer create value today.
Dangerous Debt Policy in Times of Over-Indebtedness
Therefore, the only alternative—politics seems to be sure about this—is the second premise: Averting the emergency with new debt. But since de facto interest-free government bonds have become the increasingly important central bank asset, this means the creation of money. We have become accustomed to responding to every price correction with new money creation. The traditional instruments of monetary policy have long since been used for this purpose, and the central banks have either fallen or are falling into the zero-interest rate trap. The consequence of these interventions was further distortion of the economic structure and further postponement of learning processes.
Certainly, the current catastrophe is not easy to sit out. It is much easier to stop production processes than to get them running again. In principle, price slumps and corporate bankruptcies allow the production structure to pass into the hands of those who have better anticipated the future. Today, this means in the hands of those who are more liquid and robust, who can deal with new situations more flexibly and recognize potential before others. Airlines can vanish into thin air, aircraft—apart from some strange exceptions—cannot.
Currently, far too much of the production structure is controlled by actors who use it incorrectly, such as the so-called zombie companies: by incorrectly I mean in disagreement with the current and future needs and plans of people. But crises are always an indication of negative surprises—in other words, most people were wrong in their assessment, which can lead to shock. The less agile and adaptive a society is, the more severe its impotence in a crisis. In this situation, capital structures could be destroyed too quickly because the influx of new and better entrepreneurs and investors falters.
The greatest danger lies in the fact that a far underestimated (because it is invisible) part of capital disappears into thin air: knowledge. Developed production structures are far more mental than material. Stalled production could threaten the necessary transfer, increase, and preservation of knowledge. Economically relevant knowledge needs practical application to stay fresh, or it can quickly become obsolete.
Income Comes from Productivity, Not from Redistribution
Unfortunately, most people overlook this mental aspect. It does not mean that jobs have to be preserved at all costs. Due to the distorted economic structure, many jobs are far from being knowledge work, as would be necessary for a dynamic and innovative economy. A growing proportion of jobs persist because of the inertia of distorted production structures, which often no longer represent net production but net consumption—i.e., the real value added is lower than the costs, especially when opportunity costs are considered. Another part of the jobs serves process control and continues to exist in de facto technically stagnant economies due to the inertia of technical development: thus, it requires people only because no one has yet had the reason and competence to optimize processes.
Many are used to seeing jobs as assigned sources of income, as permission to receive a salary. In fact, all income must come from productivity, from the use of activity in conjunction with capital to better satisfy the needs of others. Redistribution, especially the hidden—but more important—monetary redistribution, hides this need, but does not eliminate it in the long run.
What if productivity suddenly drops to zero in your own area because a catastrophe interrupts production? Such challenges are an unavoidable fact of life. Death is certain, and it is usually preceded by a prolonged period of declining productivity. This is the reason for retirement provision, supplemented by accident and illness prevention. The traditional way of this provision is saving: the conversion of income into assets. This path has been made so difficult and is so severely punished by monetary and fiscal policy that only a few people still travel it. This leads to increased redistribution dependency, which must eventually lead to a disastrous lack of provision due to demographics.
We are currently getting a taste of this. The fact that more and more people are living from monthly salary to monthly salary while also having negative assets (debts) is evidence of the dwindling sustainability of the economic activity to date. If incomes then suddenly collapse due to unemployment, displacement by competition, poor entrepreneurial decisions, illness, age-related problems, or even an unexpected catastrophe, existence is immediately threatened. The basic question that now arises in view of the pandemic is therefore: can such a provision gap be filled by monetary policy?
Fiscal Policy and Monetary Policy Are Already Exhausted
This is impossible in the long term. After all, the provision gap has grown because of monetary policy. Fiscal policy has been replaced by monetary policy. This then leads back to the first premise: the demand for a return to fiscal policy. Monetary policy should then no longer redistribute wealth to the wealthy but should serve as an instrument and facade for redistribution from the haves to the have-nots. Unfortunately, monetary policy replaced fiscal policy precisely because the former had already been exhausted. Western countries are all at the upper end of the Laffer curve: fiscal redistribution leads to the disappearance of the cake to be distributed. Germany and France are at the forefront of a reverse brain-drain: entrepreneurial and wealthy people emigrate in droves or give up entrepreneurship and asset accumulation.
It is naive to assume that extraordinary monetary policy measures such as helicopter money will allow a more sustainable redistribution. The more extraordinary the measure, the fewer people will correctly anticipate the consequences, and thus the fewer will benefit from it. In an economy distorted by monetary policy, the greatest gains in wealth are always to those who, consciously or subconsciously, best anticipate the consequences of central bank policy. A basic income for everyone created by monetary policy sounds charming, but it suffers from the fact that basic purchasing power for everyone cannot be created by monetary policy, but only by productivity. The path of helicopter money leads directly to stagflation with price controls, then capital controls, followed by economic collapse. At best, this does not apply to the U.S., because after the global currency, the dollar, there is increased demand in the event of a crisis: dollar allocations to citizens are thus de facto transfers of purchasing power from foreigners (late dollar recipients) to nationals (early dollar recipients). This works well until the dollar is no longer a world currency—and world currencies are never eternal.
Nearly all monetary, fiscal, and economic policy measures—if they are geared toward fixing damage, rewarding an inability to learn, thwarting structural adjustment and further undermining sustainable foundations of productivity—lead to a spiral of intervention. The only sensible policy measures will temporarily cushion the greatest need and prevent disasters in capital consumption. All other measures by nature spring from society in a voluntary manner—but can of course be stimulated, accompanied, and supported by politicians who are part of society. These measures treat the catastrophe as an opportunity. After all, it is not a black swan event. It points to catastrophic shortcomings which most people have overlooked.
We Are Faced with a Learning Opportunity
Now we have the opportunity to achieve the reality of a globally networked world with new challenges, including epidemics. The new virus is often relativized in comparison to influenza. In fact, the comparison shows the trauma of influenza, which we accept in a defeatist manner instead of reacting through innovation. The infection rate in kindergartens is completely unacceptable during the flu season (in addition to more and more other diseases). The fact that this has not yet led to decisive technical, educational and institutional measures shows the stagnation of our supposedly modern societies. The iatrogenic diseases in hospitals are also completely intolerable. For many elderly people, their stay in the hospital after a harmless fall becomes a death sentence. Outpatient clinics of the European health care system were often overcrowded before the epidemic, to the extent that patients generally wait many, many hours in cramped conditions with other contagious patients—because there are no incentives to optimize processes.
Especially in Austria, it seems that nothing can be learned from history. Ignaz Semmelweis was once ridiculed by the experts of his time! The current epidemic is exposing the still dramatic carelessness in hospitals (which in no way calls into question the heroic work of many doctors—especially now). But perhaps it is time to question the concept of “hospital” altogether. This is where the most bitter lessons of our time are to be learned: lack of protective equipment, lack of structural flexibility, weak leadership, poor processes, and lack of innovation. Good workshops today have 3D printers because sometimes suitable components are not available. What hospital has a 3D printer, even though a missing component costs lives?
Suddenly it becomes possible to work from home, digitalization is required, and the value of redundancy with simultaneous process optimization is recognized. The best compensation for damage would be that in which the currently bitter learning process leads to an evaluation and improvement of processes, structures, technical solutions, companies, and institutions. To compensate now, for example, for stationary retail trade or mass tourism upscaled with loans through subsidies will only create greater problems in the future.
The best and most urgently needed policy measure at present would be: Immediate tax exemption of all labor income related to the care of intensive care patients and of all business turnover related to the production of technical aids for pandemic management. This would be systematically extended to further dramatic shortages and, instead of a braking effect, would activate incentives, such as additional doctors accepting personal risk and burden, and production capacity not standing still, but being restructured as quickly as possible.
A certain amount of solidarity is, of course, necessary and helpful in order to make the necessary reorganization of the production structure a success. But solidarity must not be an excuse to resist this change. For most people, the current disaster shock is a phase of reflection, of reorientation. Let us use this opportunity to regain our capacity to learn as a society, so that the next disaster will hardly be a stroke of fate! In the past, when societies were doomed to catastrophe, their downfall was always long in advance: due to previous paralysis, dwindling ability to learn, and a lack of innovative strength.
Most Western Europeans and Americans believed themselves to be in the best of all worlds, and even believed that they would have to discipline or possibly save the rest of the world with their immense wisdom (provided that others would bear the cost of their infinite generosity). It is to be hoped that the current shock will lead to self-knowledge, to a new humility, and to the realization that we are not at the end of history, but in a dynamic world in which we must constantly learn.
Translated from German by Thomas and Kira Howes. Originally published at the Austrian Institute.
Author:
Rahim Taghizadegan (info@scholarium.at) is director of the academic research institute Scholarium in Vienna, Austria, lecturer at several universities and faculty member at the International Academy of Philosophy in Liechtenstein.
---------------------------------------------------------------
数据显示，截至目前，新冠肺炎确诊病例中，有74187人使用了中医药，占91.5%，其中湖北省有61449人使用了中医药，占90.6%。临床疗效观察显示，中医药总有效率达到了90%以上。“这表明中医药能够有效缓解症状，能够减少轻型、普通型向重型发展，能够提高治愈率、降低病亡率，能够促进恢复期人群机体康复。”余艳红说。
우한 폐렴 환자의 91.5%가 중약을 사용했다. 중약의 유효율은 90% 이상이다.
--------------------------------------------------------
우한 폐렴의 분석
董洪涛라는 저자는 우한에 가서 임상에 참여하지는 못했지만, 시골의 코흘리개에 불과했던 자신을 박사가 될 때까지 배양해준 국가에 보답하기, 후방에서 글을 쓴다고 밝히고 있다. 중국에는 아직 이런 유교적 사고가 깊이 박혀 있는 지식인들이 많다. 초반에 중의사들은 폐렴이 寒濕疫이라고 생각했는데, 시간이 지나고 치료 경험이 쌓이면서, 湿热疫이라는 주장이 대두하고 있다. 이 글의 저자도 그런 주장을 펼치고 있다.
关于武汉病毒性肺炎的思考之九
_董洪涛 01-28
我认为，此次的病毒性肺炎，其病名当为湿疫，属于湿热疫，兼有冬温。建议用中医来缓解疫情。
至2020年1月27日晚上，武汉的病毒性肺炎疫情尚未缓解，作为一名中医人，我还要努力。继续思考，继续写作，并整理成文，希望能为早日控制疫情贡献自己的一点力量。
一、用中医防治疫病的好处
中医可以防治疫病，且不说中医防治疫病的丰富经验（中医有2000多年的治疗疫病经验，历代医家著述甚多，传承下来的药方也不可胜数），也不说疗效，大家看看非典用中医治疗的事实（零感染、零死亡、零后遗症），也就知道中医的厉害了。除此之外，中医防治疫病还有如下好处：
一则，中医的名词不会让人恐慌。
比如，中医诊断出来的病机名词，如湿热内滞、寒湿困脾、湿邪郁肺、邪热壅肺、邪毒闭肺等等，试问谁会看这些名词而内心恐慌呢？
再如，中医的诊断病名：湿热疫、寒湿疫、风温（冬温），您会对这几个病名害怕吗？
当然，有人说，这些名词我不懂，我不懂中医，我不知道这些病机的内涵，当然也就不慌不怕了。那么，试问，新型冠状病毒，您懂吗？您学过西医吗？其实世上又有几个人知道这是个什么东东呢！但就是让人心中恐慌，这又是为什么呢？
二则，中医的防治措施更温和，理念更高明
比如，中医预防疫病强调扶正，认为“正气存内，邪不可干”，可以服汤药，也可以针灸，特别是灸足三里、大椎、太白、神阙等穴位，这些方法简单自然，而且有良效，能有效改善阳虚体质，温运脾阳，加强运化，排除湿邪；
再如，中医强调祛邪。注意，是“祛”，不是杀灭。杀灭会刺激病毒，导致病毒变异、增强，最终导致药物失效。杀灭的方法远远不及祛除病邪更高明；
三则，中医强调以人为本，重视“天人合一”
中医治疗疫病，其基本思路是调节人体的阴阳平衡，使脏腑气血归于中和，则病毒无法在人体存活，自然就会离开。这样的方法较之杀灭病毒又如何呢？请读者思考；
中医治疗疫病以人为本，以病邪为标。中医的眼里关注的是人，是活着的人，是人的正气，而不仅仅是病邪。中医把人放在天地之间去思考，中医治疗疫病考虑的是让人如何与天地平衡，让人如何跟上天地气机的节奏，让人如何顺应天地，而绝不是杀灭病毒。
四则，中医是人文医学，而不仅仅是临床医学
中医最重视人文关怀，比如，孙思邈的《大医精诚》即是代表。中医强调五情（怒喜思悲恐）影响五脏，所以，中医重视调畅病人的情绪和心理，并且通过心理调节来治疗疾病。
举个例子，《范进中举》一文中，范进因听说自己中举，暴喜而发疯。中医知道，喜入心，暴喜则伤心，导致心阳浮越，冲击心神，导致神不守舍。怎么办？心为火，肾为水，水克火，恐入肾，恐可胜喜。于是只需要胡屠户一巴掌，即瞬间治愈。于是范进精神恢复正常，开开心心地回家招待报喜的人了。试问，范进若是生活在现在，有现代医学的精神病科治疗，他能当天中午就治愈回家吗？
中医是仁学，中医不但重视治病，更重视所治的人。中医重视调畅病人的情绪，使病人心神舒畅，心为五脏六腑之大主，心神一畅，五脏六腑即归于平衡。
这一点西方医学家也有认识，认为医学的作用“有时能治愈，常常是帮助，总是在安慰”，但现代医学却是主流医学，甚至在疫病来临时扮演治病的角色，靠的是“帮助”还是“安慰”呢？！
……
当然，疾病是所有医学的对立面，尤其是面对疫病时，我们中医和西医都要同舟共济，共同防治疫情。我建议，为了早日缓解疫情，让中医上吧，中医到了做主角的时候了。
二、建议中医出手缓解疫情
武汉病毒性肺炎疫情爆发已经过去二十几天了，至今尚未被控制，甚至疫情越来越严重。有新闻报道：“至2020年1月5日，武汉市卫健委发布通报称，共报告符合不明原因的病毒性肺炎诊断患者59例，其中重症患者7例。“我在2020年1月7日就写了第一篇文章，名为《关于2019年底武汉病毒性肺炎流行的思考》，我一直关注着疫情，反复撰写文章，至今已经写了八篇。二十几天了，到了中医该出手的时候了。
（一）选择中医治疗疫病的理由
一则，据《中国疫病史鉴》一书记载，西汉以来的两千多年里，中国先后发生过321次疫病流行，由于中医的有效预防和治疗，在有限的地域和时间内控制住了疫情的蔓延。中国的历史上从来没有出现过象西班牙大流感、欧洲黑死病、全球鼠疫那样一次瘟疫就造成数千万人死亡的悲剧。
二则，中国历史上每次抗疫胜利都会出现几位中医大家，同时出现新的学说或学派。张仲景就是第一个证明，因为寒疫流行，促使了《伤寒杂病论》的诞生！不是先有《伤寒杂病论》才有瘟疫的，而是先有寒疫才产生了《伤寒杂病论》！
这些抗疫中医大家的出现，都极大地促进了中医理论的发展，丰富了中医治疗疫病的经验。而且，这些通过抗邪而成名的中医大家，无一不是深入疫区，边观察，边治疗，边思考，边写作，从而奠定了自己的学术基础。他们都是从实践中来的，在实践中发展起来的。
三则，中医早早就开始研究疫病。比如，两千多年前的《黄帝内经》一书中就有完整的五运六气体系，这套体系把天文、历法、地理、气象、物候、人的健康、疫病等融合为一体，成为有效的预测、预防并治疗疫病的理论体系，至今仍发挥着重要作用。
而且，中医文献中多有预防疫病的记载；晋朝葛洪的《肘后方》记载了“虏疮”（天花）、“狂犬咬”（狂犬病）等；其后的医书对疟疾、麻疹、白喉、水痘、霍乱、痢疾、肺结核等急性传染病及其辨证治疗办法都有明确记载。更别说明清时代的温病学派，更是集中发展了温病理论体系。
四则，古人知道如何处理疫情。
中国古人除了以药物治疗疫病，古代中医还总结出隔离检疫、消毒、保持良好的环境和个人卫生、“未病先防”等经验，应对疫病的蔓延。西汉史料载：“民疾疫者，空舍邸第，为置医药。”这意味着当时政府为控制流行病而建立了公立的临时医院，说明中国早在公元２年就对传染病采取了隔离措施。
历代中医人不断研究疫病，不断著述，发表自己的学术观点，这些都是我们今时赖以治疗疫病的宝贵经验，当珍惜起来。
我的观点是，中国古人治疗疫病是有办法的。若能结合现代医疗的预防和隔离措施，将会是如虎添翼，更能迅速缓解疫情。
五则，现代医学暂时没有针对新型冠状病毒的特效药物
面对新型冠状病毒感染，西医并没有特效药物，只能帮助确诊，并对症治疗。
对症治疗可以改善症状，虽然不能根除病因，但是在诊断未明或虽能确诊但无药可用时也是必不可少的。至少，在病毒肆虐，病人出现休克、烦躁、呼吸急促、高热时，对症治疗还是很有价值的。
（二）中医为主治疗疫病的总体思路
我的建议是，以中医为主导，用中医理念来指导感染病人的治疗。包括以下几个方面：
一则，用中医来判断病人的正气旺衰，并判断湿、热、寒、虚等病机的程度，决定采取何种治疗措施；
二则，中医通过辨舌诊脉来决定是否应该输液。一般来说，若舌苔白厚，或厚腻，往往是寒湿内滞，不应该输液，更不能滥用抗生素，因为会增加寒湿病机。再者，若病人出现身冷、汗泄、胸痞、口渴等症状，且苔白腻，舌质淡，脉细缓，这是湿从寒化，寒湿损伤脾肾阳气，出现湿盛阳微病机，此时不用输液；
三则，若病人以高烧为主，建议先用白虎汤退热，而不一定非要输液。白虎汤退热往往速效，可根据病人的体质和病情决定生石膏的用量，必要时不妨大剂应用，甚至超大剂量应用，中病即止，不要过服，即不会有任何毒副作用；
四则，病人呼吸困难时，可以结合吸氧。但建议不妨用针刺作为主要治疗方法，可针鱼际、尺泽、孔最，往往有速效，而且是标本兼治之法；
五则，死亡病例多是老年人，说明正虚者容易病情恶化。那么，就用中医来预防病情恶化。预防的方法是扶正。阴虚者可以适当输液，阳虚者则建议用灸法，可重灸关元或神阙，以改善老年人的阳虚体质，兼可借扶阳以消阴霾，化湿浊，改善体质；
六则，轻症感染患者建议完全用中医治疗。完全采用辨证论治，不拘何种症状，何种病机，见机用方。有湿则化湿，有热则清热，有寒则温阳，有虚则扶正，或兼顾，或分主次，抓主证，标本兼顾；
七则，虽然以中医为主，西医也不能无所事事，可以多去安慰病人，或帮助确诊，或做些隔离措施，或做些必要的对症治疗。
我相信，政府若能相信中医，并且以中医为主，疫情一定可以迅速控制。不但可以提高疗效，还可以挽救病人的生命。非典时中医治疗达到了零感染、零死亡、零后遗症的奇迹，彼时能，今时仍能。呼吁政府，想想17年前的非典，给中医一个机会吧。
三、武汉病毒性肺炎的病名讨论
（一）发病特点
武汉本次爆发的病毒性肺炎，其特点是：发病急，传染性强，病情凶险，而且引起流行。
感染新型冠状病毒后，患者主临床表现为发热、乏力，呼吸道症状以干咳为主，并逐浙出现呼吸困难。部分患者起病症状轻微，可无发热。多数患者（尤其是年轻人和儿童）病情较轻，预后良好；少数患者（主要是老年人或有基础病的人群，多素体正虚）病情危重，甚至死亡。
（二）病名认识
此次武汉爆发的病毒性肺炎发作于冬季。结合以上分析的本病发病特点，我认为当前发生的新型冠状病毒肺炎当属于温病范围，且属于温疫。
疫病是一类具有强烈传染和流行的一类疾病，《说文解字》谓：“疫者，民皆病也。”
所谓温疫，是指感受疫疠毒邪而引起的一类急性外感热病。温疫并不是专指某一种具体的疾病，凡是具有急骤起病、传变迅速、病情凶险，具有较强的传染性并能引起流行的特点的温病，都可称之为温疫。
我倾向于认为，这次的温疫应该属于湿热疫兼有冬温（又名风温）。但不可排除感染疫病的人多兼有阳虚体质。
四、是不是寒湿疫？
有学者认为，此次的武汉病毒性肺炎当为寒湿疫，是感受寒湿疫毒而发病。
其理由是：一则，病发于冬季，而且主要是从冬至（2019年12月22日）开始，经历了小寒（2020年1月6日）、大寒节气（2020年1月20日），这个时间段是一个高发期。按照“冬九九”来看，发病正值“一九”前后（2019年12月22日~2019年12月30日）。所以，在这个季节，“寒”邪是毫无疑问的。二则，对于“湿”，武汉的湿气本来就挺大，今年尤甚。以往这个时候，武汉开始降雪了。我们查了一下，2020年1月到今天为止，阴雨绵绵天气持续了16天，湿气非常重，这也是一种反常的天气。三则，“非其时而有其气”，该特别冷的时候反倒不冷，该下雪的时候反而下雨，就容易出现瘟疫。“疫”本身是指一种传染性极强的病。三则，病性上属于阴病。《黄帝内经》讲“察色按脉，先别阴阳”，阳病阴病的性质、发展和转归是完全不同的。若为温疫或湿瘟，病性上属于阳病，结局是伤阴，是以伤阴为主线。而新型冠状病毒肺炎是由寒湿之疫邪引起，病性上属于阴病，是以伤阳为主线。所以在治法上，一定是针对寒和湿。具体来说，因为寒邪被湿邪所抑遏，治疗寒邪，要温散、透邪，用辛温解表之法。治疗湿邪，要芳香避秽化浊。这是一个大的原则。四则，从病位来看，在肺和/或脾。《黄帝内经》讲“形寒饮冷则伤肺”，综合武汉气候及我们所看到的病人，也可以完全没有脾胃症状。通过问诊，我们发现大多数患者有脾胃症状，而且非常典型，如周身倦怠乏力，食欲不好，恶心、呕吐，脘痞胀满，腹泻或便秘等。我认为治疗时要注意调理脾胃。
——以上理由我做了简单地归纳，文字上则是完全引用了这位学者的原文。
试分析病毒性肺炎的病机，兼讨论我的观点，即湿热疫。
一则，分析武汉的气候特点，2019年底至今处于暖冬状态。温度较往年偏高，这是造成疫病的根本原因。暖冬所造成的疫病，中医称之为冬温。
二则，从五运六气理论分析，2019年己亥年终之气客气为少阳相火，主气为太阳寒水，客主加临，造成寒水不能闭藏，虚火上浮，虚阳外越——这是天之虚。人处其间，人的阳气不能闭藏，反而升浮，造成疏泄过度，阳根下拔，正气减弱——这是人之虚。两虚相感，其气至骨，深入五脏，疫病因此而发作。
三则，为什么阳虚体质的人容易感染疫病？因为阳气为人身的藩篱，主卫外而为固，尤其是太阳经，六经中太阳经居于后背，其经阳气最旺，卫外功能最强。若阳虚则卫外功能下降，正气不足，抗邪无力，病邪容易深入，造成疫病发作。
四则，湿从何来？
一方面，从武汉的环境和气候来。2020年1月至今，武汉地区阴雨绵绵天气持续了16天，湿气非常重；武汉地处长江边上，本来就偏于湿盛。另一方面，从五运六气来。2019年己亥年大运为土运不及，造成脾阳不振，脾主运化，脾虚则运化无力，容易生湿。我在临床上也观察到2019年12月初开始至今，舌苔白，或厚，或腻，或黄厚的病人非常多见，提示整体人群都处于湿浊内滞的状态，武汉亦不能例外。
五则，热从何来？
一方面，从暖冬而来，暖冬造成风热邪毒，侵袭人体而犯病；
另一方面，从湿浊而来。湿邪郁滞，容易郁而化热。一般来说，若脾阳偏虚者，则邪从湿化而病变偏于太阴，表现为湿重热轻。病人的舌苔往往偏于厚腻，微黄或不黄；若脾阳偏旺者，则邪从热化而病变偏于阳明，表现为热重湿轻，病人的舌质则变红，苔或少，或黄厚，或黄燥。当然，湿重于热者亦可能继续变化，或可损伤脾阳而转为寒湿之证，或可逐渐化热而转为热重于湿证。
六则，湿为此次病毒性肺炎的主要病机
媒体报道，感染病毒性肺炎的病人普遍反应会出现乏力感。从中医来分析，乏力源于脾虚而湿盛。一方面，大运的土运不及造成脾虚，这是天之虚，人感之，即成人之虚；另一方面，湿为阴邪，易伤阳气。湿浊内滞，亦会消耗脾阳，导致脾虚。脾主四肢，脾虚则四肢无力。
明代著名医学家徐春甫在《古今医统大全》中说：“脾胃一虚，则谷气不充，脾愈无所察。脾运四肢，既享气有亏，则四肢倦怠无力以动，故困乏而嗜卧也。”也就是说，脾胃虚弱则受纳、运化、升清、散精等功能也必然会衰退，水谷精微生成减少，四肢得不到气血濡养，就会没有力气，懒于行动，而出现困乏倦怠。
此次病毒性肺炎虽然以湿热疫为主，但寒湿蕴毒亦不可忽视。一则，死亡者多是老年人，存在着阳虚体质。阳虚则化湿无力，容易导致寒湿；二则，过度输液，特别是滥用抗生素，既增寒，又增湿，素体阳虚者最受不了；三则，武汉天气阴冷，寒邪外袭，与内滞的湿浊结合，易成寒湿；四则，寒湿郁久，即成毒邪。
是否可以这样说，湿热疫是病名，但病人发病往往因于阳虚体质。阳虚则易寒化，导致湿热疫毒化而为寒湿疫毒。
而且，寒湿皆为阴邪，寒湿皆伤阳气，皆损脾阳，导致脾阳虚而运化无力，亦会加重乏力症状，甚至加重病情。所以，温阳化湿刻不容缓。
五、是不是伏暑？
有学者认为，武汉的病毒性肺炎属于伏暑，即伏气温病，是夏季感受暑湿之邪，即湿热之邪，伏藏于体内，至秋冬季节受到外邪引动而发的一种急性外感热病。
其理由是：伏暑病冬季的外邪引动有寒热两种：一为寒邪引动在里的湿热之邪，二是风热之邪引动在内的湿热病邪。结合当前本病临床，当为应寒而反暖的风热之邪引动。临床患者舌苔多腻，且武汉地区今年冬日湿气较重，应寒反暖，较符合温病“伏暑”病的诊断。清代吴鞠通《温病条辨·上焦篇》第36条说：“长夏受暑，过夏而发者，名曰伏暑。霜未降而发者少轻，霜既降而发者则重，冬日发者尤重，子、午、丑、未之年为多也。”本病发于冬季，庚子之年，且气象学资料支持，诊断“伏暑”成立。
我的观点是，就病状和病机分析，应该不是伏暑。我的理由是：
一则，伏暑（现逢冬季，应该是冬月伏暑）的特点是：起病急骤，病势沉重，初起即见里热证。本次的病毒性肺炎却有不少病人初起不发热，或者仅仅是低热。这完全不同于伏暑的起病即见高热。
二则，伏暑的另一个特点是热重，虽然每多兼挟湿邪为患，但毕竟是里热重的一种温病。所以，伏暑的治疗以清泄里热为主，兼有湿邪者，再可考虑化湿。
三则，伏暑若邪在气分，会出现暑湿郁阻少阳（病人会出现寒热似疟、胸腹灼热、苔腻的主症）和暑湿夹滞，阻结肠道（病人以身热、胸腹灼热、便溏不爽、色黄如酱、黄垢腻的主症）的病机。但病人多不会出一乏力。而此次的病毒性肺炎其中比较常见的一个症状即是乏力。
四则，新型冠状病毒性肺炎的临床表现以发热﹑乏力﹑干咳为主要表现。主要病机是湿邪郁肺，或邪热壅肺，病位在肺；而伏暑的主要病机是暑热或暑湿侵犯卫、气、营、血的不同层次，且一般不咳嗽，也不会干咳。
五则，新型冠状病毒性感染后不一定马上发病，其潜伏期长，有的长达十几天，这十几天里并无明显症状。而且首发表现未必都是发热，呈多样化，个别病人甚至一直没有发烧。武汉大学人民医院消化内科主任于红刚教授介绍了一个病例：45岁男性因腹泻3天到消化科门诊就诊，后确诊为新型冠状病毒性肺炎。从潜伏期长，以及不一定发热的特点来分析，不太象伏暑。伏暑若被风热邪气诱发，即会导致发病，出现高热症状。
六则，伏暑为里有暑湿（或暑热），外有时邪，内外勾结而发病。伏暑病初起，往往即见表里同病，卫气同病。在表则发热（邪在气分），在里则脘痞（邪在中焦）。病毒性肺炎的病机亦为表里同病，在表多见发热、咳嗽（邪在肺），在里则为乏力，或腹泻（邪在脾）。二者略有不同。
七则，伏暑有两种，若感受暑湿病邪，多伏于气分；或感受暑热病邪，多伏于营分。病发于气分，往往病情较轻；病发于营分，往往病情较重。而病毒性肺炎病情有轻有重，以年轻人或儿童病情轻，而老年人病情偏重，这是以正气旺衰作为分类标准的，与暑湿或暑热以感邪性质之分类不同。
八则，现在还是己亥年，要到2月4日立春才算是正式进入庚子年。按清代大医吴鞠通的判断，子年还未到呢——当然，这条理由并不重要，以上七条才是要点。
六、治疗病毒性肺炎的用方用药
针对此次的新型冠状病毒感染，要考虑化湿为主。我主张重视三仁汤。若兼有阳虚体质，则可考虑合四逆汤，二方合用，化湿与扶阳兼顾，既可改善阳虚体质，又能化去湿浊，通畅三焦气机，可谓标本兼顾之方。
另外，藿香正气散、四加减正气散、五加减正气散、神术散、达原饮、藿朴夏苓汤、香砂六君子汤等等药方皆有可用之时。
若兼有热象，需考虑连朴饮、白虎加苍术汤等药方。但建议勿滥用苦寒中药，以免伤损脾阳，导致湿邪加重。
对于湿邪郁滞而化热，我倾向于重视应用芦根、生石膏和黄芩这三味中药。
一则，芦根。
在连朴饮中芦根重用二两，达60克。此方芦根用量独重，取其清热、止呕、除烦，兼具利小便而导湿热之功，为全方的君药。芦根重用不伤脾阳，适合于湿浊化热的病机特点。
我自己临床观察，对于湿热发烧，连朴饮疗效极高，往往一两付即可湿去热退，可谓神奇。但此方必需重用芦根，我常用至60克。芦根药力平和，完全无毒，即使重剂使用亦无需担心。
二则，生石膏。
生石膏亦擅清热解毒，此药色白而入肺，擅长清肺热；加大米，则能护住脾胃，兼缓和药力，亦可作为使药，能透出太阴伏火。关于生石膏治疗疫病的资料，可参考《关于武汉病毒性肺炎的思考之八》一文，中有详细解说。
三则，黄芩。
黄芩苦寒，性擅清热燥湿，泻火解毒，用于湿温、暑湿，胸闷呕恶，湿热痞满，泻痢，黄疸，肺热咳嗽，高热烦渴，血热吐衄等症。历代医家都喜欢用黄芩。比如，小柴胡汤、龙胆泻肝汤、达原饮、普济消毒饮、半夏泻心汤、黄连解毒汤、葛根芩连汤、芍药汤、黄芩汤、神犀丹、九味羌活汤、柴葛解肌汤（陶氏）、柴葛解肌汤（程氏）等等，不可胜数。
尤其是在达原饮中，黄芩是一味非常重视的解毒避秽药物，尤其适合于湿热化“毒”的病机。唯黄芩苦寒，容易伤损脾阳，用量不必过大，且中病即止，不可过服。
我愿意与各位中医学者就武汉的病毒性肺炎疫情在学术上展开讨论。只就事论事，开展学术争鸣，有益于促进我们每个人进步。
为了早日缓解疫情，我们所有中医人应该联合起来，群策群力。这次疫情爆发也是发展中医的大好时机，不容错过。
------------------------------------------------------------------------
삼인탕을 중시하는 이유
关于武汉病毒性肺炎的思考之七
六，重视三仁汤的应用
（一）此时湿浊偏盛
就我见到的十二例病毒性肺炎患者的舌象，普遍都有湿浊内滞。而且，我最近一个多月（自2019年12月初至春节之前）临床工作中也发现，舌苔白、厚，或腻，或黄厚的病人（病人不限于南宁，全国各地都有）特别多，提示最近天地之间湿浊甚重。
再者，我在之前的文章中亦分析到，武汉地区湿浊偏重。原则大约有以下几点：一则，武汉位于长江边上，估计湿气不会少；二则，有资料显示，武汉最近两个月一直处于阴雨天气，湿气很重；三则，武汉人喜欢吃小龙虾喝啤酒，啤酒性凉，最能增湿；四则，目前整个江南都在下雨，湿邪弥漫；五则，2019年己亥年（现在仍属己亥年，要到2月4日才算是进入庚子年），大运为土运不及，意味着脾虚，化湿无力，容易导致湿滞为患。
刘清泉院长说：“新型冠状病毒肺炎的舌象，不管舌苔偏黄还是偏白，但总的呈厚腻苔。我们了解到武汉的气候状态，一个是阴雨，一个是湿冷。尽管较以往冬天，温度偏高一些，但没有阳光。结合患者的舌苔、脉象、症状，我们判断其病因属性以“湿”为主，湿困脾闭肺，气机升降失司，湿毒化热、阳明腑实，湿毒瘀热内闭，热深厥深。”——他的观点我非常赞成，希望大家能重视化湿。这是缓解疫情的关键。
（二）化湿，离不开三仁汤
化湿，是治疗这次病毒性肺炎的重点。湿浊不化，热势难退。而六气当中最难速已的，唯湿为最。我的观点是，若经方化湿不足，则求诸时方。既要会用经方，也不应忽视时方；对时方之疗效卓著者，可视若经方。常见的化湿时方有如下几个：藿香正气散，三仁汤，藿朴夏苓汤，甘露消毒丹等。我特别喜欢用三仁汤。理由如下，愿意与读者交流我学习三仁汤的体会。
（三）三仁汤解析
一则，三仁汤的出处和主治
三仁汤出自吴鞠通《温病条辨·上焦篇》，原文：“头痛恶寒，身重疼痛，舌白不渴，脉弦细而濡，面色淡黄，胸闷不饥，午后身热，状若阴虚，病难速已，名曰湿温。汗之则神昏耳聋，甚则目瞑不欲言；下之则洞泄；润之则病深不解。长夏、深秋、冬日同法，三仁汤主之。”
有文献云：“在《临症指南医案》与《未刻本叶氏医案》中，运用三仁汤竟达60余案，其中与三仁汤8味药物相同7味的有2案，相同6味的有6案，其余均相同4-5味，这8案则是吴鞠通制订三仁汤的主要依据”。可以说吴鞠通汲取了叶天士的经验，并结合自己的体会而创立了三仁汤。
二则，三仁汤的组方
杏仁五钱，飞滑石六钱，白通草二钱，白蔻仁二钱，竹叶二钱，厚朴二钱，生薏仁六钱，半夏五钱。甘澜水八碗，煮取三碗，每服一碗，日三服。（清代一钱约当今时的三克。甘澜水即长流水，最好是河水或溪水。但今时河水已经被污染了，只能用自来水来代替了。）
三则，三仁汤的病因
一为外感时令湿热之邪；一为湿饮内停，再感外邪，内外合邪，酿成湿温。诚如薛生白所言：“太阴内伤，湿饮停聚，客邪再至，内外相引，故病湿热”。
四则，三仁汤的方义分析
三仁汤选用轻灵宣畅利窍之品，集芳香化湿、淡渗利湿、苦温燥湿于一体，更兼以宣展气机，使上焦津气畅行无阻，中焦水湿运化自如，下焦湿邪自有出路，体现了以除湿为主，清热为辅的立方宗旨。三仁汤体现了宣上、畅中、渗下，三焦分消的配伍特点，气畅湿行，暑解热清，三焦通畅，诸症自除。徐大椿云：“治湿不用燥热之品，皆以芳香淡渗之药，疏肺气而和膀胱，此为良法”
吴鞠通在书中并没有对三仁汤做详细方解，只是指出：“惟以三仁汤轻开上焦肺气，盖肺主一身之气，气化则湿亦化也。”为什么呢？
一则，吴鞠通说：“邪从上焦来，还使上焦去”。三仁汤所治证为邪在上焦之表。二则，湿气弥漫，闭阻阳气，病位偏于肺表，治疗重在轻开宣化。主要病邪为湿；治疗目的为祛湿；治疗手段为气化，通过气化以达湿化。三则，诸症表现为气不化，气不化的原因为湿不化。三仁汤通过“气化则湿亦化”来治疗湿温。
四则，温病用三仁汤的理由
温邪初起，当先治肺。清代柳宝诒说：“治湿热两感之病，必先通利气机，俾气水两畅，则湿从水化，热从气化，庶几湿热无所凝结。”叶天士言：“温邪上受，首先犯肺。”薛生白说：“湿热之邪从表伤者十之一二，由口鼻入者十之八九。”
肺是上焦脏腑中与湿热病关系最为密切的脏器。“肺主一身之气”，为水之上源，为津液运化的源头，主通调水道，人体内的水湿有赖于肺气的宣发肃降功能，下输膀胱而排出体外。
叶天士最先重视湿重开肺，从而创立了“三焦病，先治上焦，莫如治肺，以肺主一身之气也”之论，提出了湿热症“开上焦，从肺论治”之法。
五则，三仁汤的常见症状分析
据文献资料，三仁汤最常见的症状是食欲不振，如纳呆，纳差。次之是倦怠乏力，胸闷，发热，小便黄赤，身困重，呕恶，脘痞，腹胀，头晕，口渴，便溏。（以上按顺序递减）
五则，三仁汤的加减法
其一，加制附片和干姜。理由是阳虚体质兼见湿热。阳虚之人亦可感受湿热。或湿遏热伏，伤人阳气。叶天士：在治疗湿温病时，“如面色白者，须要顾其阳气，温盛则阳微也。”治湿热病，不可过用寒凉，恐伤阳气。扶阳与清热化湿可并行不悖，甚至相反相成，两擅其功。
其二，与小柴胡汤合用。小柴胡汤中去方中之生姜、大枣、人参、甘草）。理由是若湿热内外俱盛，或湿热久羁的时病和杂病，三仁汤方力就显得薄弱，结合小柴胡汤，可旋转少阳枢机，从少阳之枢以达太阳之气，上焦得通，津液得下，胃气因和。就可以加强三仁汤宣上畅中渗下的作用。可以说，三仁汤称得上温病学中的小柴胡汤。
其三，加石膏、甘草。若湿温夹热象明显时，以三仁汤加生石膏、生甘草，生石膏退热，甘草与滑石为伍有“六一散”之意，用生石膏，我常喜欢加大米一把，更增其效，且药力更和缓；
其四，与达原饮合用。若发烧不退，形似疟状时，时寒时热时，可加入草果、槟榔，即达原饮之意；
其五，与银翘散合用。冬春季节的外感病，若夹有湿温症状者，单纯治疗效果不显，可用银翘散与三仁汤合用，效果普遍好。
六则，用好三仁汤的关键
其一，病邪为湿浊。随着社会的发展，人们生活水平不断提高，恣食肥甘厚味、辛辣之品越来越多，体内容易生湿生浊，进一步影响脏腑功能，使脏腑功能失调，诸病丛生，属湿浊之证者居多。
其二，病位较弥散，两焦同病，或上中下三焦俱病，或表里内外俱病。因湿浊为患，内可损害五脏六腑，外可浸淫四肢百骸，均能阻滞气机，瘀阻经络，故非化湿涤浊不能使气机调达、经脉通畅。三仁汤乃宣上畅中利下、化湿涤浊之良方，若能灵活加减，取效桴鼓。
其三，舌质淡红或红，苔白腻或黄腻。舌苔腻是湿浊证的重要指征，偏寒偏热，兼虚夹实，应注意兼证。
建议自现在开始，不管是身处疫区还是非疫区，我们每个人都不妨自己看一下舌象，若苔白，或厚，或腻，或黄厚，白腻等等，都是湿浊内滞，不管有没有症状，我都建议先服一两付三仁汤。把湿浊内滞的病机去掉，这样可以让身体更健康，也更有益于预防疫毒感染。
七、武汉病毒性肺炎的定性
刘清泉院长认为，新型冠状病毒肺炎当属于“湿瘟”范畴，病程缠绵，它不像风热夹湿，湿邪一除热自清，患者比较容易痊愈。湿邪缠绵，如油裹面，所以，中医同道在选方用药时尤其需要谨慎，将本病的“湿毒化热”与“热毒夹湿”区别开，不要出现方向上的错误，它们的用药思路截然不同。
新型冠状病毒肺炎是以“湿毒”为主，并不是热毒夹湿。热毒夹湿证，用清热解毒加祛湿之法即可。热毒一清，湿自然就没了。对于湿毒化热、湿毒蕴热的情况下，如果贸然清热解毒，过早用上寒凉药物，必然会导致湿邪加重，会出现“冰伏”，反而影响治疗效果。所以，本病应该化湿为主，芳香化浊避秽，透表散邪，升降脾胃，这是我们治疗的核心。湿一化，郁热就散，毒也就没有了，症状自然就慢慢消失。”
这个观点我也非常认同，湿为阴邪，阴邪内滞，虽然出现了化热之征，但不能滥用寒凉药，最怕寒凉冰伏阳气，导致体质下降。
-----------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------
댓글 없음:
댓글 쓰기