속보)서방에 침투한 2백만 중국공산당 명단 공개, Excel로 주변 CCP 찾기 (현재 불가) scott 인간과 자유 이야기 https://youtu.be/uwMuLo1oVFg ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ‘법보다 위대했던 주먹(軍)’의 역사! –반역은 고발이 아닌 때려잡을 일! –미 국방부, CIA 송곳니 제거 –민사옵션 실패시, 다가온 행정명령 –트럼프, "싸움은 이제부터!” 진자유 티비 https://youtu.be/324TMN5bJzE ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 워싱턴DC 집회 … 개신교와 카톨릭, “여리고 행진(Jericho March)” 합류! ... 이슈진단#.220 ... 2020.12.14. ... [박훈탁TV] https://youtu.be/nGIyznlsmBw --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 좆커버그 시발놈 페북 직원 45000명중에 짱께 시발놈들이 6천명이다. 좆커버그 기집년이 짱꼴라년이란 건 알지? 이 6천명인 개새끼들이 페북의 핵심요직을 다 장악하고 있다 이것 때문에 자국민 고용을 개무시한 조커버거 시발놈이 이번에 형사 소송 들어가 있다 / 일베 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- <자본주의의 진정한 의미> 대기업주들을 자동차 왕이나 초콜릿 왕 따위로 불리지만, 사실 그들은 무엇을 통치하기보다는 고객을 섬기는 사람들이다. 18세기에 영국과 네덜란드에는 기본 사회가 받아들일 수 없는 잉여 인구가 1 ~ 2 백만 명이나 있었다. 그런데 그들 중 일부가 사람들을 조직해 작은 공장을 만들어 대중을 위한 저렴한 상품을 만들기 시작했다. 이것이 바로 자본주의의 기원이자 대량 생산의 시작이다. 좌파들의 맹렬한 공격을 받고 있는 대기업은 주로 대중을 만족시키기 위한 상품을 생산한다. 백년 전만 해도 철도회사는 절대 무너지지 않을 것 같은 거대회사였지만, 자유로운 경쟁 속에서 버스와 자동차, 트럭, 비행기에 패배하고 말았다. 자본주의는 모든 사람이 고객을 더 잘, 그리고 더 저렴하게 만족시킬 수 있는 권리를 지니고 있고, 이로 인해 세계가 변했고, 인구가 폭증했다. 자본주의 초기의 모든 잔혹상에 대한 말들은 하나의 통계로 부정될 수 있다. 즉 영국의 산업혁명이 벌어진 1760 ~ 1830년 동안에, 공장에 취업한 어린이와 부녀자들이 착취되었다고 주장되는 바로 그 시기에, 영국의 인구는 2배로 증가했다는 것이다. 자본주의 초기 연구자들은 반복해서 그 역사를 왜곡했다. 자본주의 사회에서는 상류와 하류 모두 의식주를 갖추고 있지만, 18세기 이전만 허더라고 중류층은 신발이 있었지만, 하류 주민들은 신발조차 없었다. 할리우드 스타나 복싱 경기의 선수에게 엄청난 돈을 주는 사람들은 필름 회사나 복싱의 프로모터가 아니라, 사실은 영화나 복싱 경기를 보러가는 관객들이다. 같은 이치로 공장의 노동자에게 임금을 주는 사람은 사장이 아니라, 실질적으로는 공장의 상품을 사는 소비자들이다. 독신남과 여러 명의 자녀를 둔 가장이 똑같은 임금을 받을 때, 우리는 고용주가 가장에게 더 많은 임금을 지불해야 하는지 토론하기 전에 다음과 같이 물어야 한다. 즉, 당신은 그 가장이 만든 빵(예를 들어)을 더 많은 돈을 주고 사먹을 용의가 있느냐는 것이다. 인구에 대비해 한 개인에 대한 자본의 투자가 증가할수록, 그 나라는 번영하게 된다. What "Capitalism" Really Means Ludwig von Mises [Economic Policy: Thoughts for Today and Tomorrow (1979), lecture 1 (1958)] Descriptive terms which people use are often quite misleading. In talking about modern captains of industry and leaders of big business, for instance, they call a man a "chocolate king" or a "cotton king" or an "automobile king." Their use of such terminology implies that they see practically no difference between the modern heads of industry and those feudal kings, dukes or lords of earlier days. But the difference is in fact very great, for a chocolate king does not rule at all; he serves. He does not reign over conquered territory, independent of the market, independent of his customers. The chocolate king—or the steel king or the automobile king or any other king of modern industry—depends on the industry he operates and on the customers he serves. This "king" must stay in the good graces of his subjects, the consumers; he loses his "kingdom" as soon as he is no longer in a position to give his customers better service and provide it at lower cost than others with whom he must compete. Two hundred years ago, before the advent of capitalism, a man's social status was fixed from the beginning to the end of his life; he inherited it from his ancestors, and it never changed. If he was born poor, he always remained poor, and if he was born rich—a lord or a duke—he kept his dukedom and the property that went with it for the rest of his life. As for manufacturing, the primitive processing industries of those days existed almost exclusively for the benefit of the wealthy. Most of the people (90 percent or more of the European population) worked the land and did not come in contact with the city-oriented processing industries. This rigid system of feudal society prevailed in the most developed areas of Europe for many hundreds of years. However, as the rural population expanded, there developed a surplus of people on the land. For this surplus of population without inherited land or estates, there was not enough to do, nor was it possible for them to work in the processing industries; the kings of the cities denied them access. The numbers of these "outcasts" continued to grow, and still no one knew what to do with them. They were, in the full sense of the word, "proletarians," outcasts whom the government could only put into the workhouse or the poorhouse. In some sections of Europe, especially in the Netherlands and in England, they became so numerous that, by the 18th century, they were a real menace to the preservation of the prevailing social system. Today, in discussing similar conditions in places like India or other developing countries, we must not forget that, in 18th-century England, conditions were much worse. At that time, England had a population of 6 or 7 million people, but of those 6 or 7 million people, more than 1 million, probably 2 million, were simply poor outcasts for whom the existing social system made no provision. What to do with these outcasts was one of the great problems of 18th-century England. Another great problem was the lack of raw materials. The British, very seriously, had to ask themselves this question: What are we going to do in the future, when our forests will no longer give us the wood we need for our industries and for heating our houses? For the ruling classes it was a desperate situation. The statesmen did not know what to do, and the ruling gentry were absolutely without any ideas on how to improve conditions. Out of this serious social situation emerged the beginnings of modern capitalism. There were some persons among those outcasts, among those poor people, who tried to organize others to set up small shops which could produce something. This was an innovation. These innovators did not produce expensive goods suitable only for the upper classes; they produced cheaper products for everyone's needs. And this was the origin of capitalism as it operates today. It was the beginning of mass production, the fundamental principle of capitalistic industry. Whereas the old processing industries serving the rich people in the cities had existed almost exclusively for the demands of the upper classes, the new capitalist industries began to produce things that could be purchased by the general population. It was mass production to satisfy the needs of the masses. This is the fundamental principle of capitalism as it exists today in all of those countries in which there is a highly developed system of mass production: Big business, the target of the most fanatic attacks by the so-called leftists, produces almost exclusively to satisfy the wants of the masses. Enterprises producing luxury goods solely for the well-to-do can never attain the magnitude of big businesses. And today, it is the people who work in large factories who are the main consumers of the products made in those factories. This is the fundamental difference between the capitalistic principles of production and the feudalistic principles of the preceding ages. When people assume, or claim, that there is a difference between the producers and the consumers of the products of big businesses, they are badly mistaken. In American department stores you hear the slogan, "the customer is always right." And this customer is the same man who produces in the factory those things which are sold in the department stores. The people who think that the power of big business is enormous are mistaken also, since big business depends entirely on the patronage of those who buy its products: the biggest enterprise loses its power and its influence when it loses its customers. Fifty or 60 years ago it was said in almost all capitalist countries that the railroad companies were too big and too powerful; they had a monopoly; it was impossible to compete with them. It was alleged that, in the field of transportation, capitalism had already reached a stage at which it had destroyed itself, for it had eliminated competition. What people overlooked was the fact that the power of the railroads depended on their ability to serve people better than any other method of transportation. Of course it would have been ridiculous to compete with one of these big railroad companies by building another railroad parallel to the old line, since the old line was sufficient to serve existing needs. But very soon there came other competitors. Freedom of competition does not mean that you can succeed simply by imitating or copying precisely what someone else has done. Freedom of the press does not mean that you have the right to copy what another man has written and thus to acquire the success which this other man has duly merited on account of his achievements. It means that you have the right to write something different. Freedom of competition concerning railroads, for example, means that you are free to invent something, to do something, which will challenge the railroads and place them in a very precarious competitive situation. In the United States the competition to the railroads—in the form of buses, automobiles, trucks, and airplanes—has caused the railroads to suffer and to be almost completely defeated, as far as passenger transportation is concerned. The development of capitalism consists in everyone's having the right to serve the customer better and/or more cheaply. And this method, this principle, has, within a comparatively short time, transformed the whole world. It has made possible an unprecedented increase in world population. In 18th-century England, the land could support only 6 million people at a very low standard of living. Today more than 50 million people enjoy a much higher standard of living than even the rich enjoyed during the 18th-century. And today's standard of living in England would probably be still higher, had not a great deal of the energy of the British been wasted in what were, from various points of view, avoidable political and military "adventures." These are the facts about capitalism. Thus, if an Englishman—or, for that matter, any other man in any country of the world—says today to his friends that he is opposed to capitalism, there is a wonderful way to answer him: "You know that the population of this planet is now ten times greater than it was in the ages preceding capitalism; you know that all men today enjoy a higher standard of living than your ancestors did before the age of capitalism. But how do you know that you are the one out of ten who would have lived in the absence of capitalism? The mere fact that you are living today is proof that capitalism has succeeded, whether or not you consider your own life very valuable." In spite of all its benefits, capitalism has been furiously attacked and criticized. It is necessary that we understand the origin of this antipathy. It is a fact that the hatred of capitalism originated not with the masses, not among the workers themselves, but among the landed aristocracy—the gentry, the nobility, of England and the European continent. They blamed capitalism for something that was not very pleasant for them: at the beginning of the 19th century, the higher wages paid by industry to its workers forced the landed gentry to pay equally higher wages to their agricultural workers. The aristocracy attacked the industries by criticizing the standard of living of the masses of the workers. Of course, from our viewpoint, the workers' standard of living was extremely low; conditions under early capitalism were absolutely shocking, but not because the newly developed capitalistic industries had harmed the workers. The people hired to work in factories had already been existing at a virtually subhuman level. The famous old story, repeated hundreds of times, that the factories employed women and children and that these women and children, before they were working in factories, had lived under satisfactory conditions, is one of the greatest falsehoods of history. The mothers who worked in the factories had nothing to cook with; they did not leave their homes and their kitchens to go into the factories, they went into factories because they had no kitchens, and if they had a kitchen they had no food to cook in those kitchens. And the children did not come from comfortable nurseries. They were starving and dying. And all the talk about the so-called unspeakable horror of early capitalism can be refuted by a single statistic: precisely in these years in which British capitalism developed, precisely in the age called the Industrial Revolution in England, in the years from 1760 to 1830, precisely in those years the population of England doubled, which means that hundreds or thousands of children—who would have died in preceding times—survived and grew to become men and women. There is no doubt that the conditions of the preceding times were very unsatisfactory. It was capitalist business that improved them. It was precisely those early factories that provided for the needs of their workers, either directly or indirectly by exporting products and importing food and raw materials from other countries. Again and again, the early historians of capitalism have—one can hardly use a milder word—falsified history. One anecdote they used to tell, quite possibly invented, involved Benjamin Franklin. According to the story, Ben Franklin visited a cotton mill in England, and the owner of the mill told him, full of pride: "Look, here are cotton goods for Hungary." Benjamin Franklin, looking around, seeing that the workers were shabbily dressed, said: "Why don't you produce also for your own workers?" But those exports of which the owner of the mill spoke really meant that he did produce for his own workers, because England had to import all its raw materials. There was no cotton either in England or in continental Europe. There was a shortage of food in England, and food had to be imported from Poland, from Russia, from Hungary. These exports were the payment for the imports of the food which made the survival of the British population possible. Many examples from the history of those ages will show the attitude of the gentry and aristocracy toward the workers. I want to cite only two examples. One is the famous British "Speenhamland" system. By this system, the British government paid all workers who did not get the minimum wage (determined by the government) the difference between the wages they received and this minimum wage. This saved the landed aristocracy the trouble of paying higher wages. The gentry would pay the traditionally low agricultural wage, and the government would supplement it, thus keeping workers from leaving rural occupations to seek urban factory employment. Eighty years later, after capitalism's expansion from England to continental Europe, the landed aristocracy again reacted against the new production system. In Germany the Prussian Junkers, having lost many workers to the higher-paying capitalistic industries, invented a special term for the problem: "flight from the countryside"—Landflucht. And in the German Parliament, they discussed what might be done against this evil, as it was seen from the point of view of the landed aristocracy. Prince Bismarck, the famous chancellor of the German Reich, in a speech one day said, "I met a man in Berlin who once had worked on my estate, and I asked this man, 'Why did you leave the estate; why did you go away from the country; why are you now living in Berlin?'" And according to Bismarck, this man answered, "You don't have such a nice Biergarten in the village as we have here in Berlin, where you can sit, drink beer, and listen to music." This is, of course, a story told from the point of view of Prince Bismarck, the employer. It was not the point of view of all his employees. They went into industry because industry paid them higher wages and raised their standard of living to an unprecedented degree. Today, in the capitalist countries, there is relatively little difference between the basic life of the so-called higher and lower classes; both have food, clothing, and shelter. But in the 18th century and earlier, the difference between the man of the middle class and the man of the lower class was that the man of the middle class had shoes and the man of the lower class did not have shoes. In the United States today the difference between a rich man and a poor man means very often only the difference between a Cadillac and a Chevrolet. The Chevrolet may be bought secondhand, but basically it renders the same services to its owner: he, too, can drive from one point to another. More than 50 percent of the people in the United States are living in houses and apartments they own themselves. The attacks against capitalism—especially with respect to the higher wage rates—start from the false assumption that wages are ultimately paid by people who are different from those who are employed in the factories. Now it is all right for economists and for students of economic theories to distinguish between the worker and the consumer and to make a distinction between them. But the fact is that every consumer must, in some way or the other, earn the money he spends, and the immense majority of the consumers are precisely the same people who work as employees in the enterprises that produce the things which they consume. Wage rates under capitalism are not set by a class of people different from the class of people who earn the wages; they are the same people. It is not the Hollywood film corporation that pays the wages of a movie star; it is the people who pay admission to the movies. And it is not the entrepreneur of a boxing match who pays the enormous demands of the prize fighters; it is the people who pay admission to the fight. Through the distinction between the employer and the employee, a distinction is drawn in economic theory, but it is not a distinction in real life; here, the employer and the employee ultimately are one and the same person. There are people in many countries who consider it very unjust that a man who has to support a family with several children will receive the same salary as a man who has only himself to take care of. But the question is not whether the employer should bear greater responsibility for the size of a worker's family. The question we must ask in this case is, Are you, as an individual, prepared to pay more for something, let us say, a loaf of bread, if you are told that the man who produced this loaf of bread has six children? The honest man will certainly answer in the negative and say, "In principle I would, but in fact if it costs less I would rather buy the bread produced by a man without any children." The fact is that, if the buyers do not pay the employer enough to enable him to pay his workers, it becomes impossible for the employer to remain in business. The capitalist system was termed "capitalism" not by a friend of the system, but by an individual who considered it to be the worst of all historical systems, the greatest evil that had ever befallen mankind. That man was Karl Marx. Nevertheless, there is no reason to reject Marx's term, because it describes clearly the source of the great social improvements brought about by capitalism. Those improvements are the result of capital accumulation; they are based on the fact that people, as a rule, do not consume everything they have produced, that they save—and invest—a part of it. There is a great deal of misunderstanding about this problem and—in the course of these lectures—I will have the opportunity to deal with the most fundamental misapprehensions which people have concerning the accumulation of capital, the use of capital, and the universal advantages to be gained from such use. I will deal with capitalism particularly in my lectures about foreign investment and about that most critical problem of present-day politics, inflation. You know, of course, that inflation exists not only in this country. It is a problem all over the world today. An often-unrealized fact about capitalism is this: savings mean benefits for all those who are anxious to produce or to earn wages. When a man has accrued a certain amount of money—let us say, $1,000—and, instead of spending it, entrusts these dollars to a savings bank or an insurance company, the money goes into the hands of an entrepreneur, a businessman, enabling him to go out and embark on a project which could not have been embarked on yesterday, because the required capital was unavailable. What will the businessman do now with the additional capital? The first thing he must do, the first use he will make of this additional capital, is to go out and hire workers and buy raw materials—in turn causing a further demand for workers and raw materials to develop, as well as a tendency toward higher wages and higher prices for raw materials. Long before the saver or the entrepreneur obtains any profit from all of this, the unemployed worker, the producer of raw materials, the farmer, and the wage earner are all sharing in the benefits of the additional savings. When the entrepreneur will get something out of the project depends on the future state of the market and on his ability to anticipate correctly the future state of the market. But the workers as well as the producers of raw materials get the benefits immediately. Much was said, 30 or 40 years ago, about the "wage policy," as they called it, of Henry Ford. One of Mr. Ford's great accomplishments was that he paid higher wages than did other industrialists or factories. His wage policy was described as an "invention," yet it is not enough to say that this new "invented" policy was the result of the liberality of Mr. Ford. A new branch of business, or a new factory in an already existing branch of business, has to attract workers from other employments, from other parts of the country, even from other countries. And the only way to do this is to offer the workers higher wages for their work. This is what took place in the early days of capitalism, and it is still taking place today. When the manufacturers in Great Britain first began to produce cotton goods, they paid their workers more than they had earned before. Of course, a great percentage of these new workers had earned nothing at all before that and were prepared to take anything they were offered. But after a short time—when more and more capital was accumulated and more and more new enterprises were developed—wage rates went up, and the result was the unprecedented increase in British population which I spoke of earlier. The scornful depiction of capitalism by some people as a system designed to make the rich become richer and the poor become poorer is wrong from beginning to end. Marx's thesis regarding the coming of socialism was based on the assumption that workers were getting poorer, that the masses were becoming more destitute, and that finally all the wealth of a country would be concentrated in a few hands or in the hands of one man only. And then the masses of impoverished workers would finally rebel and expropriate the riches of the wealthy proprietors. According to this doctrine of Karl Marx, there can be no opportunity, no possibility within the capitalistic system for any improvement of the conditions of the workers. In 1864, speaking before the International Workingmen's Association in England, Marx said the belief that labor unions could improve conditions for the working population was "absolutely in error." The union policy of asking for higher wage rates and shorter work hours he called conservative—conservatism being, of course, the most condemnatory term which Karl Marx could use. He suggested that the unions set themselves a new, revolutionary goal: that they "do away with the wage system altogether," that they substitute "socialism"—government ownership of the means of production—for the system of private ownership. If we look upon the history of the world, and especially upon the history of England since 1865, we realize that Marx was wrong in every respect. There is no Western, capitalistic country in which the conditions of the masses have not improved in an unprecedented way. All these improvements of the last 80 or 90 years were made in spite of the prognostications of Karl Marx. For the Marxian socialists believed that the conditions of the workers could never be ameliorated. They followed a false theory, the famous "iron law of wages"—the law which stated that a worker's wages, under capitalism, would not exceed the amount he needed to sustain his life for service to the enterprise. The Marxians formulated their theory in this way: if the workers' wage rates go up, raising wages above the subsistence level, they will have more children; and these children, when they enter the labor force, will increase the number of workers to the point where the wage rates will drop, bringing the workers once more down to the subsistence level—to that minimal sustenance level which will just barely prevent the working population from dying out. But this idea of Marx, and of many other socialists, is a concept of the working man precisely like that which biologists use—and rightly so—in studying the life of animals. Of mice, for instance. If you increase the quantity of food available for animal organisms or for microbes, then more of them will survive. And if you restrict their food, then you will restrict their numbers. But man is different. Even the worker—in spite of the fact that Marxists do not acknowledge it—has human wants other than food and reproduction of his species. An increase in real wages results not only in an increase in population; it results also, and first of all, in an improvement in the average standard of living. That is why today we have a higher standard of living in Western Europe and in the United States than in the developing nations of, say, Africa. We must realize, however, that this higher standard of living depends on the supply of capital. This explains the difference between conditions in the United States and conditions in India; modern methods of fighting contagious diseases have been introduced in India—at least, to some extent—and the effect has been an unprecedented increase in population, but, since this increase in population has not been accompanied by a corresponding increase in the amount of capital invested, the result has been an increase in poverty. A country becomes more prosperous in proportion to the rise in the invested capital per unit of its population. I hope that in my other lectures I will have the opportunity to deal in greater detail with these problems and will be able to clarify them, because some terms—such as "the capital invested per capita"—require a rather detailed explanation. But you have to remember that, in economic policies, there are no miracles. You have read in many newspapers and speeches, about the so-called German economic miracle—the recovery of Germany after its defeat and destruction in the Second World War. But this was no miracle. It was the application of the principles of the free market economy, of the methods of capitalism, even though they were not applied completely in all respects. Every country can experience the same "miracle" of economic recovery, although I must insist that economic recovery does not come from a miracle; it comes from the adoption of—and is the result of—sound economic policies. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 페스트鼠疫의 한약 치료 승마별갑탕으로 한다 从鼠疫到新冠，升麻鳖甲汤才是疫肺的钥匙？ 鼠疫（plague）是由鼠疫耶尔森菌感染引起的烈性传染病，在39种法定传染病中位居第一。也就是说，它比什么SARS，还有现在这个新冠啊，要厉害很多很多。 鼠蚤为传播媒介。临床表现为高热、淋巴结肿大疼痛、咳嗽、咯痰、呼吸困难、出血，以及其他严重毒血症状。本病传染性极强，病死率非常高。 根据1956年广州市防疫站的调查，1890年2月广州市流行鼠疫，以后每年2月～5月发生小流行。1894年广州城的鼠疫开始大规模流行。最早的记载出自奈尔斯(MaryNiles)1894年的1篇报道。是年1月16日，奈尔斯被邀请去诊治王将军的儿媳妇，他说，这个女患者在腹股沟部有1个肿块，体温华氏104.8度（40.4℃），脉膊160次/分钟，并有瘀斑疹。文章中特别提到这是广州第1个可靠诊断的鼠疫病例。 班凯乐巜1894年鼠疫中的广州与香港》：1894年3月，广州爆发鼠疫，疫情随后向香港蔓延；5月10日，香港宣布成为疫区。港英政府的抗疫重点是拘捕和控制华人居民、毁掉其房屋或个人财物，结果自然对控制疫情没什么帮助。 很有意思的是当时地方政府的表现。李瀚章时为两广总督，但在其文选中并未提及鼠疫。当时的广东巡抚是臭名昭著的满人保守分子刚毅，《宫中档光绪朝奏折》（1973—1975，第8册）中翻印了他的许多有关1894年广东事态的奏折，但是没有一份说到鼠疫。所以，欺上瞒下，这个地方政府历来就是这样一个惯例。从古到今，概莫能免。 对于鼠疫的治疗，当然一方面是西医的参与。但当时西医还没成形，没有像今天这样完备和先进。那么，在这个官方措施之外的医疗救助主要由善堂开展。这个善堂，其实它是一个民间组织，主要是由商会支撑的。当时广州的善堂高尚地挺身而出——如仁济、广济、司庙等等——只要有挽救生命的一丝机会，就尽一切努力。 仁济堂，因为他们在城里安置鼠疫病人的隔离病房已人满为患，就把一艘大船当做浮动医院，停泊在珠江南岸对面的Ngaochow。布告也贴了出来，呼吁技术娴熟的大夫参加慈善组织，定期出诊。 我们今天所说的这个主角易巨荪先生，他是岭南伤寒四大金刚之一，其他三位为:陈伯坛、黎庇留、谭星缘。 易巨荪在他的《集思医案》里对这次鼠疫流行有所记载:“甲午岁，吾粤疫症流行，始于老城，以次传染，渐至西关，复至海边而止。起于二月，终于六月。”甲午岁，还发生了甲午战争，可谓祸不单行。 “凡疫疾初到，先死鼠。礼曰：是谓发天地之藏诸蛰皆死。是时虫蚁皆死，鼠穴居亦蛰之类。后及人。有一家而死数人者，有全家覆绝者，死人十万有奇。父不能顾子，兄不能顾弟，夫不能顾妻，哭泣之声遍间里。”可见疫情之严重，死亡率也非常之高。 “礼曰:是谓发天地之藏诸蛰皆死。”怎么来看这段话呢？它跟我们《内经》里面说的“当至不至”是一个道理。到冬天的时候当寒而实际上又没有寒。还有《内经》所说的“冬不藏精，春必病温”。对于人体而言，它也是一个不能蛰伏的状态，就是不能藏。 他详细地记载了一些症状:“疫症初起，即发热恶寒，呕逆眩晕，其似伤寒少阳病。惟发热如蒸笼，眩晕不能起，或目赤或红或黑，或吐虫或吐血，此其不同也。有先发核后发热者，有发热即发核者，有发热甚或病将终而后发核者，有始终不发核者。核之部位有在头顶者，有在胁腋者，有在少腹者，有在手足者。又有手指足趾起红气一条，上冲而发核者，见症不一。大约以先发核为轻，热核并发次之，热甚核发又次之，病将终发核，始终不发核为重。核之部位以在顶，在胁腋，在少腹为重，在手足为轻。” 其实，他们在治疗这个疫病的时候并不是说一开始就想到了升麻鳖甲汤。用了其他方子治疗，但是效果不好。所以易巨荪说:“复读千金方”。嗯，再去书中找灵感，那么他找到一个五香散。 这个五香散，它是治疗“岭南恶核，朝发暮死”。那易巨荪觉得这个症状，与这个流行的鼠疫其实上没什么区别。看到这个五香散，里面有什么升麻啊、鳖甲啊，他认为这个方子也是以仲景先师的升麻鳖甲汤为主的，但是参合了一些香药。 五香散（千金） 治岭南毒瓦斯恶核。射工中人。暴肿生疮。 甲香 薰陆香 丁香 沉香 青木香 黄连 黄芩（各四分）犀角 羚羊角 鳖甲 牡蛎 升麻 甘草 乌（各四分）吴茱萸（三分）黄柏（六分） 上十六味。治下筛。水服方寸匕。日二。并以水和少许。洗之。仍以鸡子白和散涂疮上。干即易之。 这个五香散的组成，我给大家贴出来了。这里面有一大堆香药，像甲香、薰陆香、丁香、沉香、青木香，然后还有一些就是清热解毒凉血药，比如什么犀角、羚羊角、黄连、黄芩、黄柏之类。但当时这个方子对易巨荪的触动比较大的还是升麻、鳖甲、甘草这几味。 我们还是回到升麻鳖甲汤。升麻鳖甲汤，由升麻、鳖甲、当归、甘草、雄黄、蜀椒组成。升麻鳖甲汤一方，出《金匮要略方论·百合狐惑阴阳毒病证治第三》。原文为“阳毒之为病，面赤，斑斑如锦纹，咽喉痛，吐脓血，五日可治，七日不可治，升麻鳖甲汤主之；阴毒之为病，面目青，身痛如被杖，咽喉痛，五日可治，七日不可治，升麻鳖甲汤去雄黄蜀椒主之。” 那我们先看一看易巨荪他是怎么说这个升麻鳖甲汤的。他在《集思医案》第44案中说:“仲师升麻鳖甲汤用当归、鳖甲，亦从厥阴着眼，厥阴肝藏血故也；仲师又有赤小豆当归散治脓已成者，亦即此意。” 那么我们就知道了，升麻鳖甲汤它实际是厥阴方。厥阴的意义实际上是禀生长之气、由阴出阳。 易巨荪在他的《集思医案》中记录下来他的一个感悟:“疫者，天地恶厉之气也。人感毒气或从口鼻入，或从皮毛入，其未入脏与腑之时，必在皮肤肌腠经络胸膈之间，亦当使之由外而出，故升麻一味为此病要药。若先用苦寒攻下之药，何异闭门驱盗。即至入脏与腑仍可用升麻鳖甲汤，随症加入各药以收效。” 他在这里提出了一个原则:疫病开始的时候不要用苦寒攻下，这样会引邪深入。 我们先看升麻一味。《神农本草经》：【升麻】味甘。平。解百毒。杀百精老物殃鬼。辟温疫瘴气邪气蛊毒。 那么我们一看就清楚：升麻它不管你是无形的什么“百精老物殃鬼”，还是什么有形的“瘟疫瘴气邪气蛊毒”之类，它都可以解决。 我们再来看一下雄黄。雄黄在《本经》里所记载的性味是苦、平、寒。但后世本草认为它是辛温有毒的。 从雄黄的主治来看。什么“寒热”也好，还是“鼠瘘、恶疮、杀精物、恶鬼、邪气、百虫、毒肿”。它也是一个“杀百毒”的药物。 《药性论》说它“能杀百毒、辟百邪、杀蛊毒，人佩之，鬼神不能近，入山林，虎狼伏，涉川水，毒物不敢伤”。这个就把雄黄的这个作用说得非常非常清晰了。 《抱朴子》云：“吴楚之地，暑湿郁蒸，多毒虫及射工、沙虱之类，但以雄黄、大蒜等分，合捣一丸佩之，或已中者，涂之亦良。” 雄黄，因为后世认为它有毒，尤其是现代的所谓科学更认为它有毒。不但是端午节饮雄黄酒的习俗没有一再沿续，包括它的很多功用，其实全部都已经埋没。 我很欣赏已故丹医张觉人的一个说法:“雄黄、雌黄的成分均为硫化砷，较之其他砷化合物不但毒性低而且疗效高，所以在临床上经常都有所使用，是一种极理想的砷化合物。” 在升麻鳖甲汤中，升麻和雄黄是比较难以解读的，所以我们重点把它们拉出来重新再认识一番。那么我们看整个的方子，其实就了解:升麻、甘草、雄黄三味，为“解毒”而设；鳖甲、当归二味，引诸药入厥阴血分，以散结滞；蜀椒，温中透邪止痛。诸药合用，解散血毒，透达于表。 很多人难以理解，为什么阳毒反而要用雄黄和蜀椒，阴毒反而不用。以前我看刘渡舟先生的《伤寒临证指要》，里面记录了一个案子:说他到山东去，治疗一个伤寒的病人，按常规开方，没有什么效果，然后病人找了一个当地的老医生，用鸡冠上的血，加了一点雄黄粉，病人喝下去后，一汗而愈。这说明什么啊，说明雄黄其实是能发汗的。它的解毒，主要是让邪气从太阳而解。 阳毒的话，它的邪气是偏在表的。所以在方后有一个交待：“上六味，以水四升，煮取一升，顿服之，老小再服，取汗”，这是“阳毒”的治法。阳毒须汗，汗后，邪从太阳而解。 阴毒的话，不欲其发汗。邪气在里，那么太阳的话就离得相对较远，其邪以从阳明下行为顺（减味升麻鳖甲汤服后大便易溏）。 升麻鳖甲汤中，能发汗的，就是雄黄和蜀椒，故阳毒用之，阴毒去之。当然还有一个小的环节，对于阴毒而言，血分的损伤也是很严重的。那么要担心雄黄和蜀椒进去过后，对这个血分造成一个直接的影响。 我们回顾了这么多，还是要回到现实。其实从鼠疫的一系列表现，以及其传染性和死亡率，那都远远要比我们2003年的SARS以及今天的所谓新冠肺炎都要严重很多很多。 时至今日。西医的话，应该是说取得了快速的发展，比以前不知要强大多少倍。那么对于中医而言，是进步了吗？没有，我认为是在退步。 其实现在，如果我们静下心来，看到很多都是浮躁的东西。很多人华而不实。那当然，也有我们在后方的一些中医，憋着气，使不出力。我相信，你、我，都会有这样一种无可奈何的感觉。 这次的新冠病毒，比较SARS，其性偏阴。因为SARS的话，它主要针对青壮年更多一些，而且死亡率更高，其潜伏时日也比较短，这个和它的性质偏阳有关。这次的病毒，它的性质偏阴，故死者以老弱患者居多。但可能有人要问:李文亮医生为什么就走了？这么年轻，而且身体也不差。其实以我看，它实际上有一个治疗的问题。 《内经》说:形寒饮冷则伤肺。这个非常简单，就是说一个正常的人，你要去挂那么多水，然后又走到你的心肺以及全身。其实你的阳气，不知不觉中，就被淹没了。何况是那些，本身阳气就比较衰弱的一些患者。 至于这种轻症患者，实际上哪怕不治疗，他也能好。那么再则是用恰当的方法，扶助病人的正气，让邪气更好地、更早地、更全面地外透，这个当然也是非常好的。 那么对于中度的重度的疫肺患者的治疗，我认为就像打一场战争一样，要从整体来看待。最要紧的地方在于早早夯实三阴，不使邪气下陷，然后在此基础上驱引邪气从太阳、阳明而出。 可以用升麻鳖甲汤为主方。如果表证比较明显，偏寒的合用葛根汤，偏热的合用葛根芩连汤。如果中焦症状比较多，比如像口苦、腹胀、不欲饮食、胸闷等等，可以合用柴胡类方，包括升降散。舌苔非常厚腻的、浊腻的，或厚如积粉，这种的话，可以合用达原饮、苇茎汤。 重症的患者，他不仅仅是一个肺的问题，包括心啊肾啊脾啊，多个器官都会受到牵连。死亡原因也不仅仅是因为肺炎引起呼吸衰竭。可以用减味升麻鳖甲汤，合用真武、四逆、附子理中诸方。 肺炎不能控制的，我建议考虑加用桔梗白散。白散里的巴豆必须要去净油，辗千万次，成极细粉，这样效果才好。 另外，从网上或者是在群里交谈的时候可看到，一些患者，从这个状况，包括舌苔来判断:相当一部分人气阴不足。这个可以加用生脉饮。还有精血不足的，可以加用阿胶、鸡子黄之类。 当然，你也可以说我是纸上谈兵。但不同的是，赵括，没打过什么仗。我呢，基本上天天在打仗，尤其在外感病、肺病这一块投入了很多的心血。所以，希望我的经验能对大家治疗疫肺或以后临床有些帮助。 最后谈一谈防疫。我还是认为:雄黄为第一。在《医方考》里有一个辟瘟法：凡觉天行时气，恐其相染，须日饮雄黄酒一卮，仍以雄黄豆许用绵裹之，塞鼻一窍，男左女右用之。 雄黄酒，肯定是有效的，这是一定的。但是有人不能饮酒，那么也可以用煮散的方法。我的意见呢，可直接用升麻鳖甲汤，按如下比例:升麻4，当归2，生甘草4，鳖甲2，蜀椒2，雄黄1。打成粗末。布包。煮水当茶，连饮一周。成人每人每天量为15到20克。如果每个人每天用升麻鳖甲散15克，那么里面的雄黄才占1克，其实是非常安全的。我在临床上用这个方子，如果升麻用30克，那这个雄黄要用到6克。 作者：张学 江苏省昆山市大道中医门诊部 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 우슝즈의 계내금 강의. 위암 치료에는 항상 계내금을 사용하는데, 이는 위胃로 위胃를 치료하는 것이다. (계내금의 닭의 위 껍질을 말린 약재이다.) 吳雄志先生講雞內金，治療胃癌就經常用它，就是以胃治胃 本文乃吳雄志先生診療授課隨語。為求真實，茲保持其口語原貌而錄之。以後我們將陸續推送相關內容，並且這些內容將歸類在本微信平台的中西匯通的板塊內，方便眾師友學習交流。 雞內金，第一，是一個消食的藥，我想大家都知道。消食的藥有什麼？山楂、麥芽、谷芽、雞內金等等，實際上這五個藥都不同，常用的消食藥每個藥都有很大的區別，以後詳細跟大家講，實際上每個消食藥之間的區別非常大。 第二，雞內金是胃的一層粘膜。我們把雞胃剖開，可以撕下那一層金黃色的或者是白色的，就是雞內金。為什麼叫雞內金呢？因為雞內金黃色的效果好。所以說這是取類比象，能夠治療胃病。我們治療胃癌就經常用它，就是以胃治胃。 第三，大家知道雞有個特點是什麼？雞吃完了東西以後要吃石頭，吃進石頭後在胃裡面磨，幫助它消化。雞喜歡吃石頭，所以雞內金能夠化石，可以用來治療各種結石，泌尿系的肝膽的結石。大家都知道，這個作用大家都理解。 第四，雞內金能夠通經。大劑量的雞內金可以治療閉經，用30-50克。當然了，有人說，我這個閉經吃了怎麼不見效呢？那是因為它僅僅是一個活血通經的藥，如果閉經是由於腎精不足導致的還是需要補腎填精的。大家說我說的雞內金能通經，你拿去用了說不見效，是不是我說錯了？而實際上是你理解上要全面，雞內金能夠治療閉經，能夠通經，增加月經的量，劑量要大。 第五，雞內金能夠活血，它的活血作用可以替代莪術。莪術活血作用強，但是莪術理氣活血破血，如果病人精血虧虛的很明顯的，或者氣血虧虛的很明顯，你要活血就可以用雞內金來代莪術，這些都是張錫純在醫學衷中參西錄講了的，我們也用。所以，用四君子湯，有氣虛，又要活血逐瘀的時候，不想用三棱莪術，就可以用雞內金來代替。這就是雞內金用來治療胃癌，既是取類比象，又考慮到它活血的作用。 第六，雞內金入陽明經，能夠降血糖。血糖高，跟陽明胃有關係。胃熱則消谷善飢，用雞內金可以治療糖尿病。黃芪配雞內金，非常經典。因為雞內金有活血破氣的作用，用黃芪來配伍，治療糖尿病，包括用來治療一些腫瘤，這也是很經典的。 第七，雞內金還能固精，可以治療蛋白尿和早泄，有固精的作用，又是雞內金的一個特點。張錫純說雞內金善於治癆病，第一能固精，第二能活血，第三能開胃消食，等等，尤其適合於治療癆病，虛勞病，攻補兼施，用於開胃，我們在腫瘤的時候也經常選用它。 最近根據吳師脾胃用藥法治癒了一病人，各大醫院各大名醫到處看而沒有效果的脾胃病。病人劍突下疼痛，按壓痛。當時按壓時候，突然回憶起這不就是吳師說的賁門的位置嗎，於是以小陷胸湯原方治好了病人。 開始服用藥時候病人表示大痛，而後疼痛大減。? 不過，有一事當請教吳師，此例患者為何我之前用小陷胸湯合丹參飲無效，而單獨運用小陷湯，居然好了，而且如此快，真是讓我現在還想不明白。 以下是我用的處方： 瓜蔞30克 黃連4克 半夏10克 吳師回答： 小陷胸湯症治熱痛，胃中有熱，胃灼熱感，口乾脈數，苔黃膩。 從中醫的角度上講，有一個寒化與熱化的問題。熱化它就代表著小陷胸湯:瓜蔞、半夏、黃連。相對舉，還有寒化的瓜蔞薤白半夏湯，就是把黃連這個變成薤白，這個是寒化的，小陷胸湯是熱化的。 丹參飲它有兩個問題： 第一個問題，丹參、檀香、砂仁，它是一個什麼呢？它是治療寒化的方。是用檀香來定位在膻中穴。它是一個什麼？它是一個治療寒化的方，而小陷胸湯是治療熱化的，黃連、半夏、瓜蔞。 寒化的方治療心臟的其實有三個。這裡以前我都沒跟大家講過，現在我來講講：寒化的方，有丹參飲、瓜蔞薤白桂枝湯、瓜蔞薤白半夏湯。瓜蔞呢就等於它的這個丹參，薤白就等於它的檀香，砂仁就等於它的半夏。 第二個問題，這兩個方它的區別是什麼呢？ 一個重痰，一個重瘀；心臟疾病常常痰瘀互結，這兩個處方可以合在一起用。但是它都是治療寒化的方。 張仲景瓜蔞薤白半夏湯是偏痰，而丹參飲是偏瘀，你看這個配伍都很相似，痰瘀互結兩個方可以合起來用，這都是寒化的，而小陷胸湯是個什麼，是個熱化的方。那個你正心下按之疼是賁門炎，其實他的這些處方可以很簡單就把關係給他捋清楚。 附：吳雄志先生論少陰咽痛與半夏 以前講過，少陰呢，在上咽痛，在下吐利。 上呢，有半夏散及湯（半夏、桂枝、甘草）， 下呢，有四逆湯（乾薑、附子、甘草）。 咽痛用半夏，吐利用乾薑。 上取桂枝，下取附子。 一上一下，半夏散及湯與四逆湯！ 半夏～乾薑 甘草 桂枝～附子 甘草 大家知道半夏入少陰不？我們在半夏法講，少陰篇還會講。 比如，瓜蔞薤白半夏湯，半夏不是隨便選個和胃藥的。 薤白變黃連就是小陷胸哇！看張仲景制方多簡單。 睡不著，內經半夏秫米湯也是有原因的哇，陳皮就不行！ 那個心胸煩悶異常的生薑半夏湯也是半夏哇！ 內經說胃絡通於心，其實更深入的理解需要太陰陽明論以及水火大論。但是理論的東西大家不喜歡。事實上，理論搞明白了，應用反而很簡單哇！ 傷寒論，你要是搞清楚了是很簡單的，搞不清楚，那可複雜了！ 大道至簡，那是你入道以後，恍然大悟；入道以前，霧裡看花，還是很複雜的！ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------