或曰；诊断即使确当一治疗有无方药?余目：此可不必虑，中医治病，在方之组织，不在药之神灵，不比西医仗特效药为唯一之武器，病而新生，药非夙制，即行束手。无法对付矣。吾中医既审确病之所在，知其在表在里，在腑在脏。属热属寒，是虚是实，即可因证撰方，使药直抵病所，故新病何名，虽未确定，而治之不悉无方，此则中医之所长，万非西医所能企及。虽中医亦有成药。丸散膏丹，类乎西医之特效。然所贵圆机活法，在乎变通，因证加减，从未有执死方治活病者，吾敢断言。
或曰：学术无国界，古亦有言，“泰山不让土壤，河海不择细流”，今尔辈中医。对于西医学说，掩耳却走，拒之惟恐不远，墨守旧法，自封固步，中国之医学，何能进步？
余日：凡是一种学术，必有其根据地，必有其立脚点，丝毫不能迁就，丝毫不能通融，现在中医以风寒暑湿燥火为外感病之总因，爱恶悲恐惊喜怒为内伤病之总因，与彼万病由菌之说能相通否?中医以表里虚实、脏腑营卫、气血为病之所，与彼某部炎某脏炎之说能相通否?假使必以迁就西医学说勾入时，立案论证，满纸发炎细菌，则根据尽失，立脚毫无。就为西医之病名，惟西药能主治，用中药治西医之病，为西医书所不载，毫无根据，此其一也；而中医书上，素无发炎细菌等新奇名词，中医方药，又从无治疗此种新病之纪载，试问有何根据，有何把握，胆敢以人为试验品，以草根树皮医治发炎细菌，私心自用，绝无师承，毫无根据，此又其一也。
论病盲从西医，处方仍用中药，治而得愈，西医定诬吾为幸中，治而不愈，病家定咎吾有过失，试问主张学术无国界者，身当其境，将用何法以对付？
中西医学比较中西医学说，大判天渊，中医主张六气。西医倡言微菌，一恃经验为武器，一仗科学为壁垒，旗帜鲜明，各不肯屈。
然而人同此身，身同此病，当病魔缠绕时，呻吟床褥，困苦万状，惟冀医者速愈吾病，更无馀暇管理六气学说、微菌学说之孰是孰非，经验牌子、科学牌子之谁长谁短。
试观一切设备极科学化之西医，西式之诊室，舶来之诊器，药针、药水、药片、药膏，无一不购自欧西，或采自东瀛，观其头衔，煌煌乎博士、学士，听其论文，几可推倒岐雷，排斥仓扁，真若可信，一旦有小疾苦，就使诊治，无不轻病变重，重病变危，议论与事实之不相似也，形式与效果之适相反也有如此!
再观中医，虽没有西医之神气活现，开出口来。老老实实，又不及西医之大吹特吹，相形之下，不免有一点土气，但是他的诊病，目视、口问、耳闻、指切，五官并甩，精神贯注，十余分钟功夫，早诊察得疾苦所在，使病无遁形，撰方用药，君臣佐使，组织得此方之药，可以直抵病所，药效捷如桴鼓，使病者覆杯而愈。
形式上比较，西医为优；治疗上比较，中医为优；器械上比较，西医为胜；药效上比较，中医为胜。为迎合世界潮流，应用西医，为配合国人体质，应用中医。准诸既往，逆测将来，吾中医不但畅行于中国，必且普遍于全球，吾敢断言。
好生恶死，好健康，恶疾苦，无古无今，无中无外，人同此心，心同此理，世界各邦，见中医之学术如此其优胜，自然舍彼就此，日本之复兴汉医即是铁证。
再论中西医中医对症发药，按病定方，犹之各菜馆各饭庄之厨师，可以凭了顾客的意志，配了吃客的口味，簇崭新鲜做起菜来，总使你吃的人满意。
西医诊病用药+犹之各食品公司的罐头食物，虽然一般的用鸭鸡鱼肉，一般的是荤素名肴，吃在口中，是否能够人人满意，恐怕不能无问题吧？
食品对于口味，没甚大关系，至多不过是可口不可口，可口多吃些，不可口少吃些，独是药品之对于病症，那就有生命出入的大关系，丝毫不能通融，丝毫不能迁就。
再有一件事，中医审定是热症，就用凉性之药，根本治疗。西医审定是热症，则甩大块寒冰，冰其外面，譬如救火，不用水浇，却用大量冰块，围绕火宅四周，虽高叠如墙。试问于宅中之火，是否有丝毫影响。
至于假寒真热，假热真寒，认错病证诸事，我都不谈，吾所谈者，见病知源，中西医的眼光，都不曾错，其治都各合法，而见效已大判天渊。
最好请西医诸公，平心静气，再研究我中医书，百尺竿头，更进一步，则于医术上必然大放出异样色彩，西医诸公其有意乎?企予望之。
论盲从西医之害国医界中有一股投机份子，眼见这个年头，西医十分时髦，十分神气，大为社会所重视，不免因羡生慕，不惜降志辱身，做起效颦的东施来，他那种做作，攒眉蹙额。我见了真欲作三日呕。
中医学西医样，抄袭西医病名，拾人唾馀，就显见得中医没出息，无志气，如果光是没出息，无志气，也还罢了，那里知道经你这么一来，就有两种大害，一种是害人，一种是害己。
提起害人这一件事，中医的学说，对于人体，除肌肉、腠里、骨骼、毛发之外，最重要的是脏腑十二官，手足十二经，营卫气血之分，井营俞合之穴，现在一切都不讲，只谈那原子细胞、神经淋巴腺、赤血球、白血球一派西医话。外人见了总以为中医的学说靠不住，所以弃此就彼，自己打倒自己，这是人体学说上的动摇。对于疾病，中医分做内伤、外感，风寒暑湿燥火，病之由外来者，名叫六淫；喜怒哀乐悲惊恐，病之由内起者，名叫七情，再要判分寒热表里虚实，现在一切都不讲，只谈那某部炎、某膜炎、某某菌、某某菌一派西医话，外人见了。总以为中医的学说靠不住，所以弃此就彼，自己打倒自己，就是疾病学说上的动摇。这是属于害人一方的。
提起害己这一件事，中医断病开方，都有依据，都有来历，某方专入某经，某药主治某病，自《神农本草经》、《黄帝内经》、扁鹊《难经》、仲景《伤寒》《金匮》、王焘《外台秘要》、孙思邈《千金方》，直至清代作品，有书为证，历历可稽。现在新出的病名，某部炎，某膜炎，为迎合潮流计，果然是新奇可喜，然而按诸书本，都是不见经传的，依据全无，将用何种方药治疗-这是一个问题。西医之定出某部某膜炎某菌等等病名，亦极郑重，经多次之试验，解剖之证明，其用某药治疗，某种手术。亦经各国医会之通过。故某病用某药-极其呆板。今用西医之病名，随便处方，与以中药，试问此种草根树皮之治疗，世界各西医团体，是否与以同意，认为合法，又是一个问题。
用西医病名，即不该用中药治疗，用中药治疗，即不该用西医病名，进退失据，啼笑皆非，不仅自讨苦吃，且易身蹈法网，很不上算，很不值得。
中医科学化之我见有主张改进中医者，余极端赞成，主张科学化中医者，余尤极端赞成，余赞成改进中医，余赞成科学化中医，但是改进的路。必须自己打出。不要摸在人家屁股后面，人步亦步，人趋亦趋，如狨狲戴帽子，鹦鹉学人言，被人家笑话，科学化也须自出心裁做去，做成功中医的科学化，不要假冒影戤人家的响牌子，那才是改进的好手段，科学化的真颜色。
或曰：你的议论，说来十分好听，做去却非容易，你常说现在的坏，坏在人人喜唱高调，不肯实干，要挽此颓风，非从埋头苦干做起不可，你既主张自已打出改进的路，自出心裁，做成科学化那就请你老人家担任这一件工作，埋头苦干，干给我们看。
余日：这个重大工作，诸位如果客气，不肯担任，余自该当仁不让，勉为其难，不过有一个先决问题，恳求诸位，稍稍顾全中医面子，不要去抄袭生理学上的话，抄袭西医术语，大胆老面皮的向人吹牛日，我是中医的改进者，我是科学化中医也，打倒自己的依据，动摇自己的学说，为虎作伥，助桀为虐，那才好呢。
科学者搜集证据，勘出病因，定出治法，有一定之病证，就有一定之药治，扫除空言，不准稍存理想，吾中医前辈，如嘉善俞东扶、慈溪柯韵伯、武进邹润庵之读书论证，反复推勘，实事求是，就是科学化中医，只要看《古今医案按》、《伤寒来苏集》、《本经疏证》就可以知道，照此走去，永无错误。
论药性中医西医同为治病之工，同以去人疾苦为职志，而以学术源流之异，对于药性之鉴别法，亦大大不同，更何论审病论症之大判天渊也。
中医辨药，注重色香味形；辨性，注重寒热温凉；辨味，分出成苦辛甘；辨类，分作金石草木；辨用，分为汗吐和下。
论其气芳香之品，都能舒气行经；芳烈之品，都能开中祛浊。论其味厚者走阴，味薄者走阳，辛甘之味无降，苦成之昧无升，酸涩之味无散，甘淡之味无攻。论其形，则诸根皆升，升麻、葛根、黄芪即其例也；诸子皆降，麻仁、葶苈、杏仁即其例也；诸花诸叶皆散，菊花、金银花、竹叶、荷叶、桑叶即其例也，此不过畜其常耳；有不然者，乃其变也。
心以治心，筋以治筋，络以治络，皮以治皮，乃其常也；有不然者，乃其变也。凡物之中空者，皆能疏气；有刺者，皆能息风；有芽者，皆能透发；多汁者，皆能增液。论其色，则色白入肺，色赤入心-色青入肝，色黄入睥。色黑入肾，此其常也；有不然者，乃其变也。
凡此辨药诸法，以毁吾者放言高论，诬之为理想，轻之为哲学，其实在吾皆有确据，五千年来亿兆人治疗之实验，从此则效，违此则否，事实之证明有不必言语辩护者。
西医辨药，惟以一种药物，分析之为五六种。以至十余种，曰糖质，曰淀粉质。曰发挥油，如是而已。肉桂有发挥油，官桂有发挥油，桂枝有发挥油，当归有发挥油，其间所差，惟某药含发挥油成分多，某药含发挥油成分少而已。在吾中医，不仅当归与桂枝功用不同。即肉桂与官桂亦大有不同也。
西医以一种药物，分析做数种之用。夫草木秉天地偏胜之气，以成偏胜之性，吾人就利甩其偏胜之性，治人体偏胜之疾苦，今西医再以偏胜之药物，分析之更成为数种偏胜之新药，其偏胜之程度，或大过乎原药，或大背乎原药，就为原药各质混合，自能互相救济，析之使分，顿失其天然救济之力，所以新药之功效，必与原药有大不同者。
中医治病用药，能以各具个性气味不同之药，混合成剂，加水煎熬，成一种特殊之汤药，可以直抵病所，使病魔脱离人身，所以我说中医重方义不重药性，重在方之组织。君臣佐使，配合之得当与否，与西医之专仗特效药，以死方治活病者大不同也。
再中医治病，有咏案有方子，咏案论明病情，方子确定治法。一切公开，人人可以据方论治，药性叉人人知晓，无人不知参芪之补，硝黄之泻，砒鸩之毒，是非曲直，一见即明，不比西医之药，其名既估屈聱牙，其性又不见经传，一般病家，又何从知晓，此中西医药性之不同也。
病家的话有人问我，你讲药性，什么中医是把个性各别的药十来味，组织成方子，混合在一处，加水煎熬，就成汤药，可以直抵病所，除去病魔。什么西医将原料药一味，分析成五六个成分，七八个成分，以至十余个成分，各各不同，可以分做几种用法，我们可没有那么大功夫来管你们的闲帐，不过我是个多病之身，衣食住之外，还有一个好伴侣，就是药，回溯十年来，中药服了不少，西药服的也很多，我年龄虽不大，对于中西药品，都已经有相当的经验。
中药的短处，共有两样，第一样是容量太多；第二样是味儿太苦。西药的长处，第一样就是容量少；第二样容易下口，就为容量少了，味儿苦不苦，也不及细辨，并且有许多药，外面都有一层糖衣护着的呢。
不过西药不比中药，吃了数十次就要上瘾。成为习惯，你要想不吃它，哼哼，万万不能。安神的药初吃时半片就灵了，后来慢慢增加到一片。到一片半，倘然不吃它，翻来复去，给你个一夜不能睡；通大便的药，也是如此，每天非药不通，非通不解；那助消化机能的苏打片，也是每餐不能罢，并且药量一天一天增加起来；鸦片烟、吗啡针都是西医发明的，都是西药，差不多就是西药的代表，这到底是什么缘故？
我回他。我不是说过。凡药的性秉了天地偏胜之气，成就天地偏胜之性，西医更把原药分析成分。成为数种，失其互相救济之功，成为偏而又偏之物，偏而又偏之极点，此则偏之为害，偏极成毒，而久服难免上瘾了，我们中药就没有此弊。
鸡蛋搜惊小儿惊风，有急慢之分，急惊属热，慢惊属寒；急惊多实，慢惊多虚。所以急惊之药，不能移治慢惊，慢惊之药不能移治急惊，乃药肆发售丸丹，往往以一药而统治急慢惊风，真不通之论也。
惊风有外治一法，有利无弊，万妥万安，且著效异常迅速，就为小儿脏腑柔嫩，投药偶一不当，其弊立见，兼之不会讲话，身有病痛，难于表示，医者之能聆音察理，见貌辨色者，能有几人，外治不比内服，自然比较稳妥。
有人问：诊断即使准确，治疗时是否有方药可用？我回答：这不必担忧。中医治病，关键在于方剂的组方结构，而不在于单味药物的神奇功效，不像西医依赖特效药作为唯一的武器。如果疾病是新出现的，药物不是预先制备的，就会束手无策，无法应对。我们中医既然已经明确诊断了疾病的所在，知道病位在表在里、在腑在脏，性质属热属寒，状态是虚是实，就可以根据证候拟定方剂，使药物直达病所。因此，即使是新病，名称虽未确定，但治疗并非没有方法，这是中医的长处，绝非西医所能企及。虽然中医也有成药，如丸散膏丹，类似于西医的特效药，但中医可贵之处在于灵活变通，根据证候加减变化，从未有拿着死板的方子去治疗活人的病的，我敢断言这一点。
又有人问：学术是没有国界的，古人也说过，“泰山不拒绝土壤，所以能成就它的高大；河海不挑剔细流，所以能成就它的深广”。如今你们这些中医人，对于西医学说，掩耳盗铃，逃避躲避，拒绝唯恐不及，墨守成规，自我封闭，固步自封，中国的医学怎么能进步呢？
我回答：任何一种学术，必然有其立足的根本和基础，丝毫不能迁就，丝毫不能通融。现在中医以风、寒、暑、湿、燥、火（六淫）作为外感病的总病因，以爱、恶、悲、恐、惊、喜、怒（七情）作为内伤病的总病因，这与西医“万病由细菌引起”的说法能相通吗？中医以表里虚实、脏腑营卫、气血作为病变的部位，这与西医“某部位发炎、某脏器发炎”的说法能相通吗？假如一定要迁就西医学说来立案论证，满纸都是发炎、细菌，那么中医的理论依据就完全丧失，立足点也就没有了。如果只用西医的病名，认为只有西药才能主治，用中药治疗西医定义的病，这在西医书中没有记载，毫无根据，这是一方面；而中医书上，向来没有“发炎”、“细菌”等新奇的名词，中医方药，也从来没有治疗这种新病的记载，试问有什么根据，有什么把握，胆敢拿人做试验品，用草根树皮去医治发炎细菌，这是私心自用，绝无师承，毫无根据，这又是另一方面。
盲目论病并随从西医，处方却仍使用中药，治好了，西医一定诬蔑我们是侥幸中的；治不好，病人一定责怪我们有过失。试问那些主张“学术无国界”的人，身处这种境地，将用什么方法来应付？
中西医学比较：中西医学说，大体上如同天渊之别。中医主张六气学说，西医倡导微菌学说，一个依靠经验为武器，一个仗恃科学为壁垒，旗帜鲜明，各自不肯屈服。
然而，人的身体是一样的，生病时的痛苦也是一样的。当病魔缠绕时，在床上呻吟，困苦万分，只希望医生能迅速治愈我的病，更没有多余的时间去管理六气学说和微菌学说谁是谁非，经验牌子与科学牌子谁长谁短。
试看一切设备极其科学化的西医，西式诊室，舶来的诊断器械，药针、药水、药片、药膏，无一不是从欧美购买或从日本引进的。看他们的头衔，辉煌地写着博士、学士，听他们的论文，几乎可以推翻岐伯、雷公，排斥仓颉、扁鹊，真好像很可信。一旦有小疾苦，请他们诊治，无不轻病变重，重病变危，议论与事实的不相似，形式与效果的截然相反，竟然到了如此地步！
再看中医，虽然没有西医那样神气活现，开口就来，老老实实，也不及西医那样大吹大擂，相形之下，不免有一点土气。但是他的诊病，目视、口问、耳闻、指切（脉诊），五官并用，精神贯注，只需十余分钟功夫，就能早察觉得疾苦的所在，使疾病无处遁形。撰方用药，讲究君臣佐使，组织得当，此方的药物可以直达病所，药效快捷如击鼓应声，使患者喝下汤药即愈。
形式上比较，西医占优；治疗上比较，中医占优；器械上比较，西医胜；药效上比较，中医胜。为了迎合世界潮流，应用西医；为了配合国人体质，应用中医。基于过去，推测将来，我敢断言，中医不仅在中国畅行，必将普遍于全球。
好生恶死，喜好健康，厌恶疾苦，无论古今中外，人心相同，道理相通。世界各国看到中医的学术如此优胜，自然会舍彼就此，日本复兴汉医就是铁证。
再论中西医：中医对症发药，按病定方，就像各家菜馆饭庄的厨师，可以根据顾客的意志，配合吃客的口味，簇新新鲜地做菜，总能使吃的人满意。
西医诊病用药，就像各食品公司的罐头食物，虽然一般用的是鸭鸡鱼肉，一般的荤素名肴，吃在口中，是否能让人人都满意，恐怕不能没有问题吧？
食品对于口味，没多大关系，至多不过是可口不可口，可口多吃些，不可口少吃些。唯独药品对于病症，那就关系到生命存亡的大问题，丝毫不能通融，丝毫不能迁就。
还有一件事，中医审定是热症，就用凉性之药进行根本治疗。西医审定是热症，则用大块寒冰，冰其外面，譬如救火，不用水浇，却用大量冰块围绕火宅四周，虽然高叠如墙。试问对于宅中之火，是否有丝毫影响？
至于假寒真热、假热真寒、认错病证诸事，我都不谈。我所谈的是，见病知源，中西医的眼光都没有错，其治疗方法也都合法度，而见效已大有天壤之别。
最好请西医诸公，平心静气，再研究一下我中医的书，百尺竿头，更进一步，则在医术上必然大放出异样色彩，西医诸公有这个意思吗？我翘首以待。
论盲从西医之害：国医界中有一股投机份子，眼见这个年头，西医十分时髦，十分神气，大为社会所重视，不免因羡慕而生出仰慕之心，不惜降志辱身，做起效颦的东施来。他那种做作，攒眉蹙额的样子，我见了真想呕吐三天。
中医学西医样，抄袭西医病名，拾人牙慧，就显得中医没出息，无志气。如果光是没出息、无志气，也还罢了，哪里知道经你这么一来，就有两种大害，一种是害人，一种是害己。
提起害人这一件事，中医的学说，对于人体，除肌肉、腠理、骨骼、毛发之外，最重要的是脏腑十二官，手足十二经脉，营卫气血之分，井荥俞合之穴。现在一切都不讲，只谈那原子细胞、神经淋巴腺、赤血球、白血球一派西医话。外人见了总以为中医的学说靠不住，所以弃此就彼，自己打倒自己，这是人体学说上的动摇。对于疾病，中医分做内伤、外感，风寒暑湿燥火，病之由外来者，名叫六淫；喜怒哀乐悲惊恐，病之由内起者，名叫七情，再要判分寒热表里虚实。现在一切都不讲，只谈那某部炎、某膜炎、某某菌、某某菌一派西医话。外人见了，总以为中医的学说靠不住，所以弃此就彼，自己打倒自己，就是疾病学说上的动摇。这是属于害人一方面的。
提起害己这一件事，中医断病开方，都有依据，都有来历。某方专入某经，某药主治某病，自《神农本草经》、《黄帝内经》、扁鹊《难经》、仲景《伤寒论》《金匮要略》、王焘《外台秘要》、孙思邈《千金方》，直至清代作品，有书为证，历历可稽。现在新出的病名，某部炎，某膜炎，为迎合潮流计，果然是新奇可喜，然而按诸书本，都是不见经传的，依据全无。将用何种方药治疗？这是一个问题。西医之定出某部某膜炎某菌等等病名，亦极郑重，经多次之试验，解剖之证明，其用某药治疗，某种手术，亦经各国医会之通过。故某病用某药极其呆板。今用西医之病名，随便处方，予以中药，试问此种草根树皮之治疗，世界各西医团体，是否与以同意，认为合法？又是一个问题。
用西医病名，即不该用中药治疗；用中药治疗，即不该用西医病名。进退失据，啼笑皆非，不仅自讨苦吃，且易身蹈法网，很不上算，很不值得。
论中医科学化之我见：有主张改进中医者，我极端赞成；主张科学化中医者，我尤极端赞成。我赞成改进中医，我赞成科学化中医。但是改进的路，必须自己打出，不要摸在人家屁股后面，人步亦步，人趋亦趋，如猕猴戴帽子，鹦鹉学人言，被人家笑话。科学化也须自出心裁去做，做成中医的科学化，不要假冒倚仗人家的响牌子，那才是改进的好手段，科学化的真颜色。
有人问：你的议论，说来十分好听，做起来却不容易。你常说现在的坏，坏在人人喜唱高调，不肯实干。要挽此颓风，非从埋头苦干做起不可。你既主张自己打出改进的路，自出心裁，做成科学化，那就请你老人家担任这一件工作，埋头苦干，干给我们看。
我回答：这个重大工作，诸位如果客气，不肯担任，我自该当仁不让，勉为其难。不过有一个先决问题，恳求诸位，稍稍顾全中医面子，不要去抄袭生理学上的话，抄袭西医术语，大胆老面皮地向人吹牛曰：“我是中医的改进者，我是科学化中医也。”打倒自己的依据，动摇自己的学说，为虎作伥，助桀为虐，那才好呢。
科学者搜集证据，勘出病因，定出治法，有一定之病证，就有一定之药治，扫除空言，不准稍存理想。吾中医前辈，如嘉善俞东扶、慈溪柯韵伯、武进邹润庵之读书论证，反复推勘，实事求是，就是科学化中医。只要看《古今医案按》、《伤寒来苏集》、《本经疏证》就可以知道，照此走去，永无错误。
论药性：中医西医同为治病之工具，同以去除人之疾苦为职志，而以学术源流之异，对于药性的鉴别法，亦大大不同，更何论审病论症之大判天渊也。
中医辨药，注重色香味形；辨性，注重寒热温凉；辨味，分出咸苦辛甘；辨类，分作金石草木；辨用，分为汗吐和下。
论其气，芳香之品，都能舒气行经；芳烈之品，都能开中祛浊。论其味，厚者走阴，薄者走阳，辛甘之味无降，苦咸之味无升，酸涩之味无散，甘淡之味无攻。论其形，则诸根皆升，升麻、葛根、黄芪即其例也；诸子皆降，麻仁、葶苈、杏仁即其例也；诸花诸叶皆散，菊花、金银花、竹叶、荷叶、桑叶即其例也，此不过述其常耳；有不然者，乃其变也。
心以治心，筋以治筋，络以治络，皮以治皮，乃其常也；有不然者，乃其变也。凡物之中空者，皆能疏气；有刺者，皆能息风；有芽者，皆能透发；多汁者，皆能增液。论其色，则色白入肺，色赤入心，色青入肝，色黄入脾，色黑入肾，此其常也；有不然者，乃其变也。
凡此辨药诸法，以毁吾者放言高论，诬之为理想，轻之为哲学，其实在吾皆有确据，五千年来亿兆人治疗之实验，从此则效，违此则否，事实之证明有不必言语辩护者。
西医辨药，惟以一种药物，分析之为五六种，以至十余种，曰糖质，曰淀粉质，曰挥发油，如是而已。肉桂有挥发油，官桂有挥发油，桂枝有挥发油，当归有挥发油，其间所差，惟某药含挥发油成分多，某药含挥发油成分少而已。在吾中医，不仅当归与桂枝功用不同，即肉桂与官桂亦大有不同也。
西医以一种药物，分析为数种之用。夫草木秉天地偏胜之气，以成偏胜之性，吾人就利甩其偏胜之性，治人体偏胜之疾苦。今西医再以偏胜之药物，分析之更成为数种偏胜之新药，其偏胜之程度，或大过乎原药，或大背乎原药。就为原药各质混合，自能互相救济，析之使分，顿失其天然救济之力，所以新药之功效，必与原药有大不同者。
中医治病用药，能以各具个性气味不同之药，混合成剂，加水煎熬，成一种特殊之汤药，可以直抵病所，使病魔脱离人身。所以我说中医重方义不重药性，重在方之组织。君臣佐使，配合之得当与否，与西医之专仗特效药，以死方治活病者大不同也。
再中医治病，有医案有方子，医案论明病情，方子确定治法。一切公开，人人可以据方论治，药性又人人知晓，无人不知参芪之补，硝黄之泻，砒鸩之毒，是非曲直，一见即明，不比西医之药，其名既佶屈聱牙，其性又不见经传，一般病家，又何从知晓，此中西医药性之不同也。
病家的话：有人问我，你讲药性，什么中医是把个性各别的药十来味，组织成方子，混合在一处，加水煎熬，就成汤药，可以直抵病所，除去病魔。什么西医将原料药一味，分析成五六个成分，七八个成分，以至十余个成分，各各不同，可以分做几种用法，我们可没有那么大功夫来管你们的闲帐。不过我是个多病之身，衣食住之外，还有一个好伴侣，就是药。回溯十年来，中药服了不少，西药服的也很多，我年龄虽不大，对于中西药品，都已经有相当的经验。
中药的短处，共有两样，第一样是容量太多；第二样是味儿太苦。西药的长处，第一样就是容量少；第二样容易下口，就为容量少了，味儿苦不苦，也不及细辨，并且有许多药，外面都有一层糖衣护着的呢。
不过西药不比中药，吃了数十次就要上瘾，成为习惯，你要想不吃它，哼哼，万万不能。安神的药初吃时半片就灵了，后来慢慢增加到一片，到一片半，倘然不吃它，翻来复去，给你个一夜不能睡；通大便的药，也是如此，每天非药不通，非通不解；那助消化机能的苏打片，也是每餐不能罢，并且药量一天一天增加起来；鸦片烟、吗啡针都是西医发明的，都是西药，差不多就是西药的代表，这到底是什么缘故？
我回他：我不是说过，凡药的性秉了天地偏胜之气，成就天地偏胜之性，西医更把原药分析成分，成为数种，失其互相救济之功，成为偏而又偏之物，偏而又偏之极点，此则偏之为害，偏极成毒，而久服难免上瘾了，我们中药就没有此弊。
鸡蛋搜惊小儿惊风，有急慢之分，急惊属热，慢惊属寒；急惊多实，慢惊多虚。所以急惊之药，不能移治慢惊，慢惊之药不能移治急惊，乃药肆发售丸丹，往往以一药而统治急慢惊风，真不通之论也。
惊风有外治一法，有利无弊，万妥万安，且著效异常迅速，就为小儿脏腑柔嫩，投药偶一不当，其弊立见，兼之不会讲话，身有病痛，难于表示，医者之能聆音察理，见貌辨色者，能有几人，外治不比内服，自然比较稳妥。
Someone asked: "Even if the diagnosis is accurate, are there prescriptions and medicines for treatment?" I replied: "There is no need to worry about this. The key to treating diseases in Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) lies in the organization of the prescription, not in the miraculous efficacy of individual herbs. Unlike Western medicine, which relies on specific drugs as its sole weapon, if a disease is newly emerging and the medicine is not pre-prepared, one would be at a loss and unable to cope. Since TCM has clearly diagnosed the location of the disease—knowing whether it is in the exterior or interior, in the fu organs or zang organs, whether it belongs to heat or cold, deficiency or excess—we can formulate a prescription based on the syndrome pattern, allowing the medicine to reach the site of the disease directly. Therefore, even if the name of a new disease is not yet determined, there is always a method of treatment. This is the strength of TCM, far beyond what Western medicine can achieve. Although TCM also has proprietary medicines such as pills, powders, pastes, and elixirs, similar to Western specific drugs, the value of TCM lies in flexible adaptation, modifying prescriptions according to the syndrome. It has never been the case to use rigid prescriptions to treat dynamic diseases; I dare to assert this."
Another asked: "Academics have no borders. As the ancients said, 'Mount Tai does not reject soil, thus achieving its greatness; rivers and seas do not discriminate against small streams, thus achieving their depth.' Now, you TCM practitioners turn a deaf ear to Western medical theories, avoiding them as if they were contagious, refusing them with fear, sticking to old methods, sealing yourselves off, and standing still. How can Chinese medicine progress?"
I replied: "Any academic discipline must have its own foundation and foothold; it cannot accommodate or compromise in the slightest. Currently, TCM regards wind, cold, summer-heat, dampness, dryness, and fire (Liu Yin, Six Excesses) as the general causes of external contraction diseases, and love, aversion, grief, fear, fright, joy, and anger (Qi Qing, Seven Emotions) as the general causes of internal injury diseases. Can this be reconciled with the Western theory that all diseases are caused by bacteria? TCM regards the exterior-interior, deficiency-excess, zang-fu organs, Ying and Wei (nutritive and defensive qi), and Qi and Blood as the sites of pathology. Can this be reconciled with the Western theory of inflammation in specific parts or organs? If we must accommodate Western medical theories to establish diagnoses and arguments, filling pages with terms like 'inflammation' and 'bacteria,' then the theoretical basis of TCM would be completely lost, and its foothold would vanish. If we only use Western disease names, believing that only Western drugs can treat them, using Chinese herbs to treat diseases defined by Western medicine, this is not recorded in Western books and lacks any basis—this is one point. Furthermore, TCM texts have never used novel terms like 'inflammation' or 'bacteria,' and TCM prescriptions have never recorded treatments for such new diseases. May I ask, what is the basis? What is the assurance? To dare to use humans as test subjects, using roots and barks to treat bacterial inflammation, acting out of selfishness, without any lineage or tradition, and lacking any basis—this is another point."
Blindly following Western medicine in discussing diseases while still prescribing Chinese herbs creates a dilemma: if cured, Western doctors will accuse us of lucky guesses; if not cured, patients will blame our negligence. May I ask those who advocate 'academics have no borders,' how would you handle such a situation?
Comparison of Chinese and Western Medicine: The theories of Chinese and Western medicine differ vastly, like heaven and abyss. TCM advocates the theory of Six Qi, while Western medicine promotes the theory of microbes. One relies on experience as a weapon, the other on science as a fortress. Their flags are distinct, and neither is willing to yield.
However, human bodies are the same, and illnesses are the same. When entangled by illness, groaning in bed, suffering immensely, one only hopes the doctor will cure them quickly, with no time left to debate whether the Six Qi theory or the Microbe theory is correct, or whether the brand of experience or science is superior.
Observe Western medicine, with its highly scientific equipment: Western-style clinics, imported diagnostic instruments, medicinal injections, solutions, tablets, and ointments, all purchased from Europe, America, or Japan. With titles like Doctor or Bachelor shining brightly, and papers that seem capable of overturning Qibo and Leigong, dismissing Cangjie and Bian Que, it appears trustworthy. Yet, when minor ailments are treated, light diseases become heavy, and heavy diseases become critical. The discrepancy between discourse and fact, and the opposition between form and effect, reaches such an extreme!
In contrast, TCM, though not as flamboyant as Western medicine, nor boasting as much, may appear somewhat rustic. However, in diagnosis, using vision, inquiry, listening/smelling, and palpation (pulse diagnosis), engaging all five senses with focused spirit, within just ten minutes, the source of suffering is identified, leaving no room for the disease to hide. Prescriptions are formulated with the principles of Sovereign, Minister, Assistant, and Courier (Jun Chen Zuo Shi), ensuring the medicine reaches the target directly. The efficacy is swift as a drumbeat, curing the patient immediately after drinking.
Formally, Western medicine is superior; therapeutically, TCM is superior; instrumentally, Western medicine wins; in efficacy, TCM wins. To cater to global trends, apply Western medicine; to suit the constitution of the Chinese people, apply TCM. Based on the past and predicting the future, I dare to assert that TCM will not only thrive in China but spread globally.
The desire for life over death, health over sickness, is universal across time and space. Seeing the superiority of TCM, countries worldwide will naturally choose it. The revival of Han medicine in Japan is irrefutable proof.
Regarding Chinese and Western medicine: TCM prescribes based on symptoms and determines formulas based on diseases, like chefs in restaurants who cook fresh dishes according to customers' preferences, ensuring satisfaction.
Western medicine's diagnosis and medication are like canned foods from food companies. Although they use common meats and vegetables, whether everyone will be satisfied with the taste is questionable.
Food choice relates little to health; it is merely a matter of taste. But medicine relates to life and death, allowing no compromise.
Furthermore, if TCM identifies a Heat Syndrome, it uses cooling herbs for fundamental treatment. If Western medicine identifies a Heat Syndrome, it applies large blocks of ice externally. Like fighting a fire by surrounding the house with ice walls instead of water, does this affect the fire inside?
I do not discuss cases of false cold/true heat or misdiagnosis. My point is that both systems identify the root cause correctly and apply legal treatments, yet the results differ vastly.
It would be best if Western colleagues calmly studied TCM texts, taking a step further from the top of a hundred-foot pole, bringing new brilliance to medicine. Do they intend to do so? I await with hope.
The Harm of Blindly Following Western Medicine: There are opportunists in the TCM community who, seeing the fashion and prestige of Western medicine, envy it and degrade themselves to imitate others. Their pretentious frowning makes me want to vomit for three days.
Imitating Western medicine and copying Western disease names shows TCM lacks ambition. But beyond this, there are two major harms: harming others and harming oneself.
Harming others: TCM theory emphasizes the Twelve Zang-Fu organs, Twelve Meridians, Ying-Wei-Qi-Blood, and Jing-River-Shu-He acupoints. Ignoring these to talk only of atoms, cells, nerves, lymph glands, red blood cells, and white blood cells makes outsiders doubt TCM, leading them to abandon it. This shakes the foundation of human body theory. Regarding diseases, TCM distinguishes internal injuries and external contractions, Six Excesses and Seven Emotions, Cold-Heat-Exterior-Interior-Deficiency-Excess. Ignoring these to talk only of 'itis' and 'bacteria' makes outsiders doubt TCM again. This shakes the foundation of disease theory. This harms others.
Harming oneself: TCM diagnosis and prescription have clear sources, citing classics like *Shennong Bencao Jing*, *Huangdi Neijing*, *Nanjing*, *Shanghan Lun*, *Jingui Yaolue*, *Waitai Miyao*, and *Qianjin Fang*. New Western disease names lack textual basis. Which prescriptions should be used? This is a problem. Western disease names are established through trials and anatomy, and treatments are approved by medical associations. Using Western disease names but prescribing Chinese herbs randomly raises the question: Will Western medical groups agree that treating these diseases with herbal roots and barks is legal? This is another problem.
Using Western disease names implies one should not use Chinese herbs; using Chinese herbs implies one should not use Western disease names. This indecision is absurd, self-inflicted pain, and potentially legally dangerous.
My View on the Scientificization of TCM: I strongly support improving TCM and scientificizing it. However, the path must be self-determined, not following blindly like a monkey wearing a hat or a parrot mimicking speech. Scientificization must be original, creating a true scientific TCM, not borrowing someone else's reputation.
Someone asked: "Your words sound good, but action is hard. You criticize high talk without action. Since you advocate self-determination, please lead this effort and show us."
I replied: "If you are too polite to take this role, I will accept it. But first, please respect TCM's dignity. Do not plagiarize physiological terms or Western jargon to boast about being a 'scientific TCM reformer.' Undermining your own basis and aiding the enemy is not the way.
Science collects evidence, identifies causes, and establishes treatments. Certain diseases require certain medicines, eliminating empty talk. Our predecessors, such as Yu Dongfu, Ke Yunbo, and Zou Run'an, practiced this by rigorously analyzing cases and facts, which constitutes scientific TCM. Works like *Gujin Yi An An*, *Shanghan Laisu Ji*, and *Benjing Shuzheng* demonstrate this path, which leads to no error.
On Drug Properties: Both Chinese and Western medicines aim to cure diseases and relieve suffering, but their methods of identifying drug properties differ greatly due to different academic origins.
TCM evaluates drugs by color, smell, taste, and shape; nature (Cold, Hot, Warm, Cool); flavor (Sour, Bitter, Pungent, Sweet, Salty); category (Metal, Stone, Wood, Grass); and function (Diaphoresis, Vomiting, Purging, Downbearing).
Aromatic herbs soothe Qi and move meridians; pungent aromatics open the middle and dispel turbidity. Thick flavors enter Yin, thin flavors enter Yang. Pungent and Sweet flavors ascend; Bitter and Salty flavors descend; Sour and Astringent flavors disperse; Sweet and Bland flavors attack/drain. Roots generally ascend (e.g., Shengma, Gegen, Huangqi); seeds/fruits generally descend (e.g., Huren, Tingli, Xingren); flowers and leaves generally disperse (e.g., Juhua, Yinhua, Zhuye, Heye, Sangye). These are norms; deviations are variations.
Heart treats heart, sinew treats sinew, etc., are norms; deviations exist. Hollow items vent Qi; thorny items extinguish wind; sprouted items promote eruption; juicy items increase fluids. White enters Lung, Red enters Heart, Green enters Liver, Yellow enters Spleen, Black enters Kidney. These are norms; deviations exist.
These methods are backed by 5,000 years of empirical evidence, not mere philosophy or idealism.
Western medicine analyzes a single drug into 5-10 components like sugars, starches, and volatile oils. For example, Rougui, Guigui, Guizhi, and Danggui all contain volatile oils, differing only in quantity. In TCM, these herbs have distinct functions, and even Rougui and Guigui differ significantly.
Western medicine analyzes a drug into multiple components, creating new drugs with intensified or altered biases. Original herbs balance each other; separating them loses this natural relief, resulting in different efficacies.
TCM mixes herbs with different properties into a decoction, allowing direct action on the disease site. Thus, TCM values prescription organization (Jun Chen Zuo Shi) over individual herb properties, unlike Western medicine's reliance on specific drugs and rigid formulas.
TCM records cases and prescriptions openly, making knowledge accessible (e.g., Ginseng/Astragalus tonify, Nitrite/Rhubarb purge, Arsenic/Poison toxic). Western drug names are obscure and properties undocumented, confusing patients. This is another difference.
Patient's Perspective: A patient noted that TCM combines ~10 herbs into a decoction, while Western medicine analyzes one herb into 5-10 components. They have taken both for ten years. TCM's downsides are large volume and bitter taste. Western medicine's upsides are small volume, ease of swallowing, and sugar coatings.
However, Western drugs cause addiction. Sedatives require increasing doses; laxatives become necessary daily; soda tablets for digestion are needed every meal. Opium and morphine represent this dependency. Why?
I replied: Drugs possess biased energies from Heaven and Earth. Western analysis isolates components, losing mutual relief, creating extreme bias. Extreme bias becomes poison, leading to addiction. TCM does not have this flaw.
For pediatric convulsions (Jing Feng), acute cases are Heat/Excess, chronic cases are Cold/Deficiency. Acute herbs cannot treat chronic, and vice versa. Selling one pill for both is illogical.
External treatment for convulsions is safe, effective, and rapid, especially since children's organs are tender, and verbal communication is difficult. External therapy avoids internal risks, making it safer.