저 사람들의 정신 세계는 참 이해하기 힘들다.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(필독) 김겨쿨에 대해 모든 걸 폭로한다.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
민주당에서 정치하는새끼들중에 중국 프락치새끼가 존나 많다
걍 표때문에 나라를 그들만의 대국에 팔아먹는 매국노새끼들 집단임.
이나라는 수십 수백 수천차례 외세로부터 침략을 받아왔는데, 안보의식따윈 21세기 들어와서 그깟 표한표 얻겠다고 개나 줘버림ㅋㅋㅋ 역사를 잊은 민족은 없다는 모토로 정작 중국에 당한 역사를 잊고 더 나아가 이걸 진행하고 있음/ 일베
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
변희재
문재인과 탄핵파,미통당 이 쥐도 새도 모르게 개헌 발의했군요
탄핵파가 문재인과 손잡고 개헌 발의한 이상 박대통령 편지는 사실상 무효입니다.
문재인 심판하기 위해 다 함께 하라 그랬는데,
저 자들은, 뒤에서 문재인과 내각제, 연방제 딜 치고 있었습니다.
개헌 발의 소식을 조중동, 연합 등 싹다 감췄습니다
개헌 총사령부인 조중동에서 개헌발의 소식을 싿다 감췄다?
전 언론에서 아시아경제 하나만 보도했습니다.
이건, 아예 개헌발의 사건 자체를 철저히 은폐하려고 작당들 한 거지요.
연합뉴스조차 보도 안 했다는 건, 문재인 측도 감추고 싶었다는 겁니다.
----------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bonnie Castillo
We’re calling on our facilities to follow the “precautionary principle,” which says we DON’T WAIT until we know for sure something is dangerous before we act to protect people. #COVID19
우리는 시설들에 사전경계 원칙precautionary principle을 따르도록 요구했다. 이에 따르면 무엇인가 위험하다는 것을 확인할 때까지 기다리는 게 아니라, 그 이전에 사람들을 보호하기 위한 행동을 취하는 것이다.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
민족적 죄악이라는 거짓말
한 국가 전체에 집합적인 책임감을 강요하게 되면, 우리는 무고한 사람과 죄 지은 사람들을 모두 처벌하게 된다.
The Myth of National Guilt
David Gordon
In my article of February 21, I discussed Susan Neiman’s important book, Learning From the Germans. She maintains that, owing to the crimes of the Nazis, Germans have a moral obligation to “work through” the past. They must acknowledge their responsibility for these crimes, even if they themselves had nothing to do with them. In like fashion, white Southerners today must acknowledge responsibility for the crime of slavery and, after the end of legal slavery, the continuing oppression of blacks.
Several readers of my article raised valuable points in their “comments,” and I’d like to discuss one of these in today’s article. Before doing so, though, I want to bring to the fore some remarks by H.D. Lewis in his article “Collective Responsibility.” This article, published in February 1948, was the basis of my criticism of Neiman, but Lewis raises other important issues in the article that help answer some of the questions that readers had.
Lewis distinguishes sharply between moral and legal responsibility. “The etymology of this word [‘responsibility’] suggests that it means ‘liability to answer,’ this being, of course, liability to answer to a charge, with the implication that if the answer is not satisfactory a penalty will be incurred. This is certainly the meaning of responsibility in the legal sense.” Lewis proceeds to say that, in this sense of responsibility, “there are some occasions, at any rate, when we share our responsibilities with others and are implicated in their wrongdoing.”
What does Lewis mean? He says,
Normally, the purpose served by the imposition of penalties requires the penalties to be inflicted on persons presumed to have offended, and on no others….But there are, however, exceptional cases where expediency requires proceedings to be taken against a group as if it were an individual entity. No account will then be taken of the guilt or innocence of individual members of the group….Suffice it for the present to note that, as a device for the achievement of practical ends, we have sometimes to accept collective responsibility. This is fully acknowledged in law, where a parent may in some respects be held to account for the conduct of children, or where a society or corporation may be proceeded against as a single entity or person.
Lewis goes on to say, “Extending the canvas still wider, we have the imposition of sanctions against a whole nation in the interest of international order….Reparations and similar measures adopted against an aggressor nation nature may be mentioned here.” Lewis has misgivings about these measures but soon arrives at his key thesis. These measures may be expedient, even though they lack perfect justice because they penalize the innocent:
There will always be some intermingling of justice with injustice in human relations under any conditions we can anticipate. But what does this prove? Does it prove that the innocent share in the wickedness of the guilty, that the former are morally answerable for the ill deeds of the latter? Surely not. The question needs only to be stated plainly for us to see how foolish it is to allow our view of moral responsibility to be affected by imperfections in the ways in which members of society must deal with one another.
(In my opinion, Lewis is, as Murray Rothbard would have said, “weak on the reparations question,” but I won’t pursue that here.)
It is exactly this view of moral responsibility that Neiman challenges, and this was the crux of my disagreement with her in my earlier article. This leads to one of the issues raised in the comments on that article. One commenter wondered whether Neiman in fact supports the ascription of individual moral guilt to Germans and white Southerners who themselves committed no crimes. The commenter thought it wasn’t evident from my quotations from her book that Neiman thinks this.
She could be clearer about the matter, but she does hold the position I ascribed to her. She amalgamates shame and guilt, and it is some combination of these that she thinks Germans and white Southerners ought to have. She says, for example. “Guilt, it’s been argued, is directed, inward, and no one need know if you have it. Shame, by contrast, is what you see feel when you see yourself reflected through others’ eyes and you cannot bear to let that image stand. To overcome shame, you must actually do something to show others you are not inevitably caught in your, or your forebears’, worst moments” (p. 289, emphasis added).
She also says, “I doubt that guilt can be entirely separated from responsibility. What makes a young white man from Jackson [Mississippi] feel responsible for this corner of the Delta? Isn’t it at least partly the fact that members of his own family…had been the sort of softly angry racists whose views helped shape the world that would acquit a child’s killers?” (p. 233, the reference is to the acquittal of Emmett Till’s murderers).
One final citation. She says, “Shame hurts. Guilt hurts….They are not emotions we willingly feel. We seek admiration from the outside and peace from within, and we have powerful ways to deflect everything that threatens them. Rather than acknowledging our complicity in something shameful, we forget with remarkable ease. That is why memory is vital” (pp. 380–81).
It is because of her views about guilt and shame that Neiman demands the extraordinary measures I discussed in my earlier article. Germans have a moral duty to dwell on the sins of their ancestors, and so do white Southerners on what their own ancestors did. In Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man, Stephen Dedalus says, “History is a nightmare from which I am trying to awake.”
For Neiman, history is a nightmare to which she wants others to return.
---------------------------------------------------------
상해시 폐렴 치료에서 중의약 참여가 95%에 이르고, 탕제의 참여율은 70%에 이른다.
上海新冠肺炎治疗：中医药参与率95%，汤剂参与率70%
2020-03-07
截止今天，上海已有313名新冠肺炎确诊病例痊愈出院。对确诊病例的悉心治疗中，祖国瑰宝中医功不可没。数据显示，313例新冠肺炎痊愈病例中，中医药参与率达95%，汤剂参与率达70%。
从轻型、普通型到重型、危重型，中医药的全程参与，中西医合作，为许多临床患者治疗带来转机。中医药到底如何发挥功效的？记者就此采访上海市中医药防控新型冠状病毒肺炎专家组组长、上海中医药大学附属龙华医院终身教授、上海市名中医吴银根教授。
中医应对疫毒，将确诊病例分为湿毒、热毒两种
新冠肺炎对西医来说，是新发传染病，在中医看来，传染病就是“疫病”。华夏民族历经数千年繁衍生息，疫病在所难免。疫病因感受疫戾之气，国家中管局提出，各地可根据病情、当地气候特点以及不同体质等情况，参照该方案进行辨证论治。
记者获悉，针对新冠肺炎的中医药治疗，国家版诊疗方案（第三、四版）分别进行内容增补和修订，吴银根对此表示，考虑到各地确诊病例各有症状不同，上海在国家版基础上微调了内容。新冠肺炎总体来说是“疫毒”，上海将“疫毒”分为湿毒、热毒两种。湿毒主要是轻型患者，热毒主要是重型患者。
专家解释，上海中医方案将确诊病例分为气虚型、气阴两虚型。根据临床不断变化，后又增加“肺气闭阻”型，“一些患者肺部出现纤维化，经过治疗后，CT拍片病灶已看不见，但症状仍在，还需要进一步化痰补肾，这类患者我们新增了‘肺气变阻’型，以此提供临床治疗应用价值。”
达原饮、升降散，轻症退热等治疗中发挥作用
市民关心的中医用药，国家版方案里推荐：对于乏力并伴有胃肠不适者，中成药藿香正气胶囊（丸、水、口服液）。乏力伴发热的，则推荐中成药金花清感颗粒、连花清瘟胶囊、疏风解毒胶囊、防风通圣丸。吴银根介绍，上海在实际应用上，以几款经典方为基础，辨证论治达到良好效果。
湿毒患者的治疗中，吴银根介绍，上海应用达原饮和升降散两方应用颇为普遍，两方也都是历经时间沉淀，经久不衰的中医名方。达原饮，原名“达原散”，是明朝中医吴又可所创，载于《温疫论》。达原饮用于瘟疫或疟疾邪伏膜原，憎寒壮热，临床可治疗湿热中阻，枢纽失职以致寒热起伏，连日不退，胸脘痞满，呕恶。记者同时翻阅资料发现，达原饮在17年前非典治疗中也曾担纲代表方，为整个救治工作带来诸多贡献。
至于升降散，作为中医经典医案，历史上，多位医家都曾记载，“升降散用蝉僵蚕，姜黄大黄也开煎，表里三焦郁热症，寒温条辨用之先。”两方在新冠肺炎的轻症患者高热不退等症状改善中发挥了重要作用。
麻杏石甘汤、宣白承气汤两方，改善重症“功不可没”
重型、危重型患者的治疗中，中医药发挥怎样功效？记者采访中获悉，中医典籍《黄帝内经》提及，“肺与大肠相表里”。这与新冠肺炎的症状非常贴合。重症患者伴有明显腹胀，通过中医内服、外敷、灌肠等方法，明显改善消化道症状。
针对“热毒型”，麻杏石甘汤、宣白承气汤两方“功不可没”。吴银根介绍，麻杏石甘汤，原载于东汉张仲景的《伤寒论》，治“汗出而喘、无大热者”，在各类外感疾病中应用很广泛。
至于千古名方——承气汤，在新冠肺炎的治疗中亦发挥独道功效。承气汤证从病理来看，邪热燥结滞于大肠。吴银根告诉记者，承气汤分为大承气汤、小承气汤等多种，在此次疫情中应用较多的是“宣白承气汤”，肺是白色的，通过这一方名称即知，宣白承气汤作用于肺部及大肠，在此基础上加以清热解毒方，为重症患者改善肠道功能，化解腹胀，改观整个治疗面貌奠定基础。
挖掘经典名方，自制制剂已完成应急审批
“相比国家版方案，上海中医应用方剂的特点是轻巧灵活，不断探索改进。”吴银根说。据悉，目前上海市中医药管理局正在整理313例确诊病例，从中分析并总结经验。中药参与的乐观疗效，同样被西医专家认可。上海市新冠肺炎专家治疗组组长、华山医院感染科主任张文宏教授表示，临床实践可见，中医药的参与对患者肝脏没有产生损害，一些因应用西药肝损的患者，通过中药调理，很快恢复肝功能。
记者同时从上海市中医医疗机构内获悉，传承挖掘经典名方，多种制剂已获得备案许可。龙华医院感染科张玮主任医师拟定“麻杏清肺颗粒”，该方以麻杏石甘汤、升降散经典名方为基础，加减而成经验方，用于湿毒郁肺型、热毒闭肺型肺炎。吴银根教授拟定的“肺炎清解颗粒”，则融合麻杏石甘汤、银翘散及宣白承气汤等经典方，用于出现肺热、疫毒闭肺证型新冠肺炎。
这两个制剂根据上海市药监局相关应急审批文件，采取优化流程、简化申报资料、压缩审批时限、支持调剂使用等多项应急审批措施，全程政策指导和技术支持，开通绿色通道加快办理。上海万仕诚药业有限公司负责制剂工艺和质量标准的研究，不久后，两个制剂即将应用于临床造福患者。
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
댓글 없음:
댓글 쓰기