? Mr. Zhang Xiaoxia quoted an article by a Japanese scholar, saying that doctors in China "can't learn from scratch, and treatise on febrile diseases meets the requirements of quickness and practicality"-in other words, they regard "ancient prescription" as "fast food". However, the author believes that to grasp the relationship between prescription and syndrome requires a lot of practice and experience accumulation.
? Regarding whether advocating the correspondence between prescription and syndrome will lead to drug waste, the author believes that only when there is evidence can there be a prescription, and the right medicine will not lead to drug waste.
Recently, Mr. Zhang Xiaoxia of Shandong University of Traditional Chinese Medicine published articles in the academic edition and clinical edition of China journal of traditional chinese medicine, such as "All diseases correspond to each other, which has nothing to do with prescriptions and syndromes", "The basis between prescriptions and syndromes is pathogenesis" and "Relative prescription and syndrome is the retrogression of traditional Chinese medicine", and repeatedly stated that Zhongjing's Treatise on Febrile Diseases identified the pathogenesis and denied the theory of "relative prescription and syndrome". In this regard, the author has different views, as follows.
The analysis of pathogenesis is partial and comprehensive.
Mr. Zhang Xiaoxia cited an example of Tongmai Sini Decoction in the article "Recipe of All Diseases, Nothing to do with Prescription and Syndrome" (journal of traditional chinese medicine, China, Academic and Clinical Edition, 20 15, June 26th). The author thinks that its analysis of the pathogenesis of Tongmai Sini Decoction is biased.
Mr. Zhang Xiaoxia proposed that "internal cold and external heat" and "internal cold and external deficiency heat" are the pathogenesis of Tongmai Sini decoction. In other words, Tongmai Sini decoction can only be used when internal cold and external heat are present. Not exactly. For example. "Treatise on Febrile Diseases" Guizhi Shentang "Taiyang disease, the symptoms are not removed, but if it is counted, it will help heat and benefit, and the benefits will not stop. If the heart is hard and hard, the exterior and interior are insoluble, Guizhi Shentang must take care of it. " The generalized analogy law points out: "it is always cold in the room, and external heat is more conducive to health." The master of Guizhi took part in the soup, used Guizhi to relieve exterior symptoms, learned ginger to drink cold, and stopped falling. According to Zhang Xiaoxia's so-called "pathogenesis" logic, it is also very appropriate to say that the pathogenesis of Guizhi Shentang is "internal cold and external heat".
The question is, if the patient is clinically judged to be "cold inside and hot outside", how can Mr. Zhang open it? Shall we prescribe Tongmai Sini Decoction or Guizhi ginseng soup? Can Tongmai Sini Decoction be interchanged with Guizhi ginseng soup? When did Zhang Zhongjing teach people to use Tongmai Sini Decoction "cold inside and hot outside"? Taking drugs like this is tantamount to quack killing; Such preaching and teaching is worth misleading children; People who read Zhongjing's book like this are like never entering Zhongjing's door.
The so-called pathogenesis proposed by Mr. Zhang Xiaoxia, just like the trigger point of crossbow machine, refers to the root and key, essence and root of the disease. Pathogenesis is not pathogenesis, just like crossbow machine, it is an important control organ to make bows and arrows shoot at the right time. It refers to the key point and trigger point of the disease, and the phrase "syndrome (symptoms and signs) is just" checking the pathogenesis "is confusing to read. Why is pathogenesis not the mechanism of pathogenesis? This view is puzzling.
There is a misunderstanding about the correspondence of the other card.
Mr Zhang Xiaoxia seems to know little about the corresponding relationship between prescriptions and syndromes, and he is full of misunderstandings. (Prescription and syndrome are retrogression of TCM, journal of traditional chinese medicine, China, August 20, 200519)
Is the correspondence between prescription and syndrome a retrogression of traditional Chinese medicine?
Mr. Zhang quoted a Hong Kong scholar as saying that the Japanese ancient school simply corresponded Fang with Zheng. At present, Chinese medicine advocates "grasping the main symptoms", which is a retrogression of Chinese medicine and a return to "empirical medicine" thousands of years ago. Only medication is based on experience, regardless of the cause. First of all, it is assumed that the development of TCM must follow the development direction from experience to theory. Perhaps the development of modern natural science is along this path, but it is totally unfounded for Chinese medicine, but it is subjective and does not conform to the current situation of Chinese medicine development. Secondly, Chinese medicine aims at treating diseases, not for theory or to show that science is unscientific. Practice has proved that the corresponding prescription can cure diseases and the curative effect is not bad. Jiyidong Ancient School was once the most influential medical school in Japan. Today, Zheng Fang counterparts are reviving in China, among which Huang Huang and Lou Shao Kun are outstanding. Thirdly, the statement that the prescription corresponds to "regardless of the cause" is too absolute. Before determining the prescription, we must analyze the pathogenesis. Scholars of classical prescriptions are not so mechanical as to blindly copy regardless of pathogenesis.
Is "ancient recipe" a fast food?
Mr. Zhang quoted an article by a Japanese scholar, saying that it is impossible for doctors in China to learn from scratch, and Treatise on Febrile Diseases meets the requirements of rapidity and practicality. In other words, the popularity of ancient recipes is regarded as "fast food". First of all, the author ignores Ji Yaodong's long-term study and practice of Treatise on Febrile Diseases and the long and arduous history of establishing the ancient school. Secondly, the correspondence between prescription and syndrome can not be mastered overnight; Mastering the relationship between prescription and evidence requires a lot of practice and experience accumulation. Thirdly, to take a step back, what's wrong if we can master the correspondence between prescription and syndrome in a relatively short time and use it to treat diseases? It is better to adapt to the fast pace of society than being tortured to death by the so-called pathological pathogenesis of four qi and five flavors, five movements and six qi, strange meridians and eight veins, and vague and mysterious, and then becoming a person; It can also make more people devote themselves to the cause of Chinese medicine and serve the society earlier. What's wrong with that?
Will advocating the correspondence between prescription and syndrome lead to the waste of medicine and medicine?
The answer is no, for the simple reason. Only when there is a certificate can there be a prescription. How can it lead to a waste of medicine? Most people who hold a positive view don't know enough about the corresponding relationship of the opposing cards. These people arrogantly think that they are not Chinese medicine without going through all kinds of complicated so-called "syndrome differentiation" and taking Neijing as the standard. The harm of waste medicine does not come from the correspondence between prescription and syndrome, but from the various "modern" and westernized applications of Chinese herbal medicines, such as Dendrobium candidum. It is believed that the polysaccharide contained in Dendrobium candidum can enhance human immunity and resist tumors, and the drumstick phenanthrene and mauritanin contained in it have anti-cancer effects. This usage has nothing to do with the correspondence between prescription and syndrome.