论文部分内容阅读
由广州中医学院主编的四版《方剂学》教材,根据理论结合实际的原则,选录古今成方319首,本着选精纳粹原则,适当考虑方剂的代表性,眉目清楚,确能起到学以致用。但无可讳言,该教材从编排程式到内容细节存在不少舛错和不当之处。我基本同意《陕西中医》2卷6期发表的陈如泉同志对《方剂学》几点意见一文的看法,为《方剂学》今后再版和改订的需要,特提出几点补充意见,权作续貂。一、对选方出处的失考:在方名后括号内标明该方来源,一般方书均标出首载该方的文献资料,而《方剂学》有几首方所标出处失实。如败毒散(人参
The four editions of the “Fundamental Science” textbook edited by the Guangzhou College of Traditional Chinese Medicine, based on the principle of combining theory with practice, selected 319 ancient and modern chengfang, based on Nazi principles of selection and careful consideration of the representativeness of the prescription. Use it. However, it goes without saying that there are many mistakes and inaccuracies in the textbook from the programming process to the details of the content. I basically agree with the opinion of Comrade Chen Ruquan of the Shaanxi Traditional Chinese Medicine Volume 2 on the comments on the “Fundamental Pharmaceutics” article. It is for the needs of the “Fundamental Pharmaceutics” to be republished and revised in the future and I would like to make a few additional comments. . I. Missing test for the source of the selected party: The source of the party is indicated in parentheses after the name of the party, and the general party book marks the first time that the party’s literature is included, and several prescriptions of the “Fundamental Science” are not true. Such as seizures (ginseng)