2013年1月11日 星期五

張艾嘉練功改善體質

張艾嘉練功改善體質

張艾嘉廿幾歲出道以來,因為對自己要求很高,故一直對全身的肌肉非常緊張,長期保持一種很警覺的狀態;再加上性格很好強,甚麼都想做到最好,做到一百分為止,故身體承受的壓力也很沉重。

年輕時,這種警覺還可以;長期累積下來,整個人繃得很緊,身體毛病多的是。

後來,她特別回到台北,跟着李鳳山師傅學習梅門養生功法(平甩功),李師傅趁她在台北期間,以六堂課程教導她密集地學習,讓她得到了正統而完整的氣功鍛練。

回到香港後,她不斷練習平甩功及氣功,她深深得益,最大的益處是調整了呼吸。

呼吸調整了後,整個人可以有規律、有韻律感地自我調適。

她明白到原來呼吸只要自然就好了,也讓她慢慢了解到放鬆的重要,原來所謂「放鬆」就是不要硬跟它鬥,只要順着來就可以了。

經過不斷練習,張艾嘉的體質明顯改善,首先她可以好睡、如廁正常、焦慮減少,人變得舒服、輕鬆。

現在每天固定早上練一個小時,再靜坐廿分鐘。

汪曼玲 晴報 娛樂 娛圈曼話 2013年01月11日

2013年1月9日 星期三

憶也斯

憶也斯

也斯去世的消息,來得有點突然。編者於昨晚將近深夜時分打電話通知,要我寫篇悼文,我一口答應。今晨起身後,想動筆寫點隨感,一時卻不知從何說起。最近幾個月,我和妻子倒是和也斯和他的夫人時有聯絡。我們早知道他和肺癌搏鬥已有三四年,但鬥志不懈,中西藥並用,我老婆趁機教他從台灣學來的「平甩功」,對老年人的身體保養大有助益,他也樂於從命。最近他還送了我他的新書:《後殖民食物與愛情》的修訂版。一個多月前,他參加港大為他舉辦的《形象香港》新版的發行儀式,頭戴小帽,面色看來憔悴,但依然興高采烈。聖誕前後他還在電郵中說請我為他的新課代課的事,可見他自己對生命前程毫無放棄之意。

如何受也斯啓蒙

他的衆多友人以「也斯告別人間滋味」為題公布他的死訊,倒是十分切題,因為也斯一輩子眷戀今生今世的各種人生滋味,從未提到來世。這一種「世俗」味,也成了他作品的特色。香港是一個世俗味極濃的大都市(如今卻幾乎墮落到市儈的地步),但在也斯作品的世界中,卻是色、香、味俱全,也是吸引我從海外「回歸」香港(而不是台灣)的理由之一。記得上世紀末在美國任教時,想讓學生從書本上接觸到一點香港,我選的第一篇香港短篇小說就是也斯的〈超越與傳真機〉,而且用的是英文譯本:Transcendence and the FaxMachine。讀來令人忍俊不禁,因為它呈現的是一個知識分子生活在物質文明猖獗的香港的一種無奈感,故事中的主角是個學者,寫了論文,想傳給國外的學者聯絡,不料傳真機傳回來的全是各種商業廣告!學生看完說這簡直是超現實主義的黑色幽默,原來卻是真的。直到今天,我每次手寫一篇文稿用傳真機傳給報紙編者,必會收到一張修補機器的廣告。最後實在受不住了,只好自己學電腦打字。

我曾如此公開說:我對於香港文化的認識的啓蒙老師就是也斯。帶我認識澳門的也是也斯。他的「教學」方法很簡單:食物和漫遊。以前我每次訪港,他都帶我到各種小食舖和餐館,中西都有,讓我體會到香港的真正「味道」。這也是他詩作的特色之一:例如《東西》和《帶一枚苦瓜旅行》中的「食事地誌」; 然後經由食物帶我觀看香港的舊屋、舊物和舊街。他的作品為這類舊事物罩上一層美的光環,讓意象式的文字直接喚起歷史的記憶。

曾一起經歷的那個時刻

記得1989 年有一次在新加坡開會,並擔任文學獎的評審。大家心情都非常鬱悶,因為恰逢天安門事變,電視上傳來屠城後的一片蕭條,學生都不見了,我們為民運分子擔心,哪有心情想其他的事?幾位來自台港兩地的作家,各以不同的方式表達心中的不滿,有的慷慨激昂,有的唉聲嘆氣,唯有也斯依然保持冷靜。輪到我們這些評委上台演說時,也斯讀了一首詩,記得主題是舊家具(《想像香港》中收有此詩),表面上和天安門毫無關係,但我聽後本能地覺得寓意深遠,它從側面顛覆了歷史的事件和「大敍述」,將今日納入舊時的記憶∕遺忘的迴旋弔詭之中,似乎在暗示:幾十年後還有誰會記得?在大潮流裏沸騰的人,說不定事過境遷之後反而忘了,又被捲入另一波大潮流;唯有留戀「舊」家具、小東西的人才會保存歷史的記憶。至少這是我當時的本能解讀,可能是誤讀,不見得對。然而如今思之,何嘗不是如此?

置於一種心靈的國際版圖

也斯創作的另一個特點是他的「國際性」(cosmopolitanism),尤其是他的散文和小說,永遠是把香港本土置於一種心靈的國際版圖之中,敍述的方式就是遊蕩和流浪。又好像把波特萊爾(Baudelaire) 的「都市漫遊者」(flaneur)化為香港人──也斯的自畫像。記得他寄給我一本書稿要我作序,書名《布拉格明信片》,我讀後深有同感,因為我也曾在歐洲浪遊過,布拉格也是我心愛的城市,曾數度重遊。我甚至還寫了一篇「唱和」的回信,調侃他的啤酒癖。哪一個詩人不嗜杯中物?食物和酒是分不開的。我認為也斯是所有香港作家中吃過的各種美食最多,旅行最勤、也最有國際視野和多元文化敏感的人,甚至他的詩背後都有另一種的指涉和典故,語意雙關,所以最適合翻譯。他的作品早已被譯成十多種外國文字(見《香港文學外譯書目》)。

他已經進入香港文學史

我認為最能代表也斯小說的就是最近出版的《後殖民食物與愛情》,也是他以前作品總其成之作。所謂「後殖民」,在也斯的語彙中不是抽象理論(他常對我說:理論看多了就想回到創作),而是當今我們的處境──它的軸心依然是號稱「亞洲國際大都市」的香港。「食物」加上「愛情」的配料,呈現的是一種「浪漫之餘」的無奈和反諷。然而也斯並沒有把小說淪為玩世不恭的「後現代」文字遊戲,他的小說世界依然充滿了溫暖的人情味;他不像張愛玲,她筆下的香港是為上海人寫的;也斯卻是道地的香港人,無論他或他小說中的人物流浪到何處,也永遠回歸香港。

如今他已離開我們,告別人間滋味,浪迹天堂去了。值得他的衆多好友告慰的是:在他生前,大家不約而同已經肯定了他的成就,給予他多個文化界獎項,為他舉辦了多次討論會和慶祝活動。他已經進入香港文學史,不論你喜不喜歡他的作品,我們甚至可以斷言,也斯是自劉以鬯以後,對香港文學最有貢獻的作家。

李歐梵
明報 副刊世紀
2013年01月09日

2012年3月26日 星期一

美國前副總統切尼( Dick Cheney) 2012年03月24日 心臟病發

美前副總統切尼換心

2012年03月26日

切尼換心後正在醫院深切治療部留醫。路透社

美國前副總統切尼( Dick Cheney)前晚(周六晚)換心,現正在深切治療部留醫。

在總統喬治布殊( George W. Bush)年代出任其副手的切尼,現年71歲,是長期心臟病患者。

他曾五次心臟病發。

他於37歲首次心臟病發,1988年做心臟搭橋手術,之後兩次「通波仔」,2001年更植入心臟除顫器。

他在2010年因心臟衰竭植入人造心臟泵,其時他已不排除要換心。

美國心臟移植專家沃爾什說,切尼每次心臟病發都令負責泵血的心肌出現更大的「死亡區」,進而令心臟逐漸衰竭,無法運作。

首年存活率88%

切尼辦公室表示,切尼輪候心臟移植逾20個月,終於前晚在維珍尼亞州福爾斯徹奇一間醫院接受心臟移植,他現正在醫院深切治療部留醫及康復中。

家人並不知道捐心者身份,但將永遠感謝這份「生命的禮物」。

換心是項大手術,切尼之後要接受密切監察,也要服藥抑制免疫力,以防身體排斥新心臟。

醫生指稍後會為切尼的新心臟進行切片檢查,過程會增加受感染風險。

據統計,換心者首年存活率有88%、五年存活率75%,10年約為56%。

路透社/法新社

***

Dick Cheney's heart

For the first time, Dick Cheney speaks frankly and in detail about the heart disease that plagued him during his political career

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/dick-cheneys-heart/

Today Cheney says he's taking good care of his new heart. He spends much of his time back in Wyoming with his family - and playing rodeo hand to granddaughter Gracie.

Dick Cheney: You wake up every morning with a smile on your face because you've got a new day you never expected to have. And there's a sense of wonderment. Nothing short of magical.

Sanjay Gupta: You know, magical, wonderment, you're words. Those aren't words you typically hear, or expect to hear from you...

2012年2月19日 星期日

Placebo Effect 安慰劑效應

維基百科 安慰劑效應
https://zh.wikipedia.org/zh-hk/%E5%AE%89%E6%85%B0%E5%8A%91%E6%95%88%E6%87%89

BBC Horizon 2015 The Power of the Placebo BBC Documentary

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_v6nPcHgBXQ




Treating Depression: Is there a placebo effect?


A Harvard scientist says the drugs used to treat depression are effective, but for many, it's not the active ingredient that's making people feel better. It's the placebo effect.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/treating-depression-is-there-a-placebo-effect/

Do antidepressants work? Since the introduction of Prozac in the 1980s, prescriptions for antidepressants have soared 400 percent, with 17 million Americans currently taking some form of the drug. But how much good is the medication itself doing? "The difference between the effect of a placebo and the effect of an antidepressant is minimal for most people," says Harvard scientist Irving Kirsch. Will Kirsch's research, and the work of others, change the $11.3 billion antidepressant industry? Lesley Stahl investigates.

The following script is from "Treating Depression" which aired on Feb. 19, 2012. Lesley Stahl is the correspondent. Richard Bonin, producer.

The medical community is at war - battling over the scientific research and writings of a psychologist named Irving Kirsch. The fight is about antidepressants, and Kirsch's questioning of whether they work.


Kirsch's views are of vital interest to the 17 million Americans who take the drugs, including children as young as six and to the pharmaceutical industry that brings in $11.3 billion a year selling them.

Irving Kirsch is the associate director of the Placebo Studies Program at Harvard Medical School, and he says that his research challenges the very effectiveness of antidepressants.

Irving Kirsch: The difference between the effect of a placebo and the effect of an antidepressant is minimal for most people.

Lesley Stahl: So you're saying if they took a sugar pill, they'd have the same effect?

Irving Kirsch: They'd have almost as large an effect and whatever difference there would be would be clinically insignificant.

Stahl: But people are getting better taking antidepressants. I know them.

Kirsch: Oh, yes.

Stahl: We all know them.

Kirsch: People get better when they take the drug. But it's not the chemical ingredients of the drug that are making them better. It's largely the placebo effect.

Irving Kirsch's specialty has been the study of the placebo effect: the taking of a dummy pill without any medication in it that creates an expectation of healing that is so powerful, symptoms are actually alleviated.

[Kirsch: This is the placebo response...]

Kirsch, who's been studying placebos for 36 years, says "sugar pills" can work miracles.

Kirsch: Placebos are great for treating a number of disorders: irritable bowel syndrome, repetitive strain injuries, ulcers, Parkinson's disease.

Even traumatic knee pain. In this clinical trial some patients with osteoarthritis underwent knee surgery. While others had their knees merely opened and then sewn right back up.

Kirsch: And here's what happened. In terms of walking and climbing, the people who got the placebo actually did better--

Stahl: Come on.

Kirsch: --than the people who got the real surgery.

Stahl: No.

Kirsch: And that lasted for a year. At two years after surgery, there was no difference at all between the real surgery and the sham surgery.

Stahl: Is it all in your head or--

Kirsch: Well, it's not all in your head because the placebos can also affect your body. So if you take a placebo tranquilizer, you're likely to have a lowering of blood pressure and pulse rate. Placebos can decrease pain. And we know that's not all in the mind also because we can track that using neuro-imaging in the brain as well.

He says the doctors who prescribe the pills become part of the placebo effect.

Kirsch: A clinician who cares, who takes the time, who listens to you, who asks questions about your condition and pays attention to what you say, that's the kind of care that can help facilitate a placebo effect.

He says he got into researching the effect of antidepressants by accident.

Kirsch: I was interested in evaluating the size of the placebo effect. I really didn't even care about the drug effect because everybody, including me, knew it worked. I used to refer patients to get prescriptions. I didn't change the focus of my work onto looking at the drug effect until I saw the data from our first analysis.

What he saw was that it almost didn't matter what kind of pill doctors gave patients.

Kirsch: We even looked at drugs that are not considered antidepressants: tranquilizers, barbiturates. And do you know what? They had the same effect as the antidepressants.

Stahl: Come on.

Kirsch: Really.

Kirsch was so surprised by his initial findings, he decided to do a second study - using data not only from the drug companies' clinical trials that had been published in medical journals.

This time he got data that weren't published but had been submitted to the FDA, which he got through the Freedom of Information Act.

Kirsch: These are the studies that showed no benefit of the antidepressant over the placebo. What they did is they took the more successful studies, they published most of them. They took their unsuccessful studies and they didn't publish them.

Stahl: So when you did your study, you put all the trials together?

Kirsch: That's right.

Stahl: You're looking at patients who took the real drug and patients who took the placebo.

Kirsch: Yes.

Stahl: Did they get equally better, or did the ones who took the pills get even a little better?

Kirsch: If they were mildly or moderately depressed, you don't see any real difference at all. The only place where you get a clinically meaningful difference is at these very extreme levels of depression.

Stahl: Now look, psychiatrists say the drug works.

Kirsch: Right.

Stahl: The drug companies and their scientists say the drug works. Maybe you're wrong.

Kirsch: Maybe. I'd add to that, by the way, patients say the drugs--

Stahl: Patients say the drug works.

Kirsch: --work. And, for the patients and the psychiatrists, it's clear why they would say the drug works. They take the drug; they get better. Our data show that as well.

Stahl: You're just saying why they get better.

Kirsch: That's right. And the reason they get better is not because of the chemicals in the drug. The difference between drug and placebo is very, very small; and in half the studies non-existent.

Kirsch and his studies have triggered a furious counterattack - mainly from psychiatrists, who are lining up to defend the use of antidepressants like Dr. Michael Thase, a professor of psychiatry at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, who has been a consultant to many of the drug companies.

Stahl: Irving Kirsch says that depressants are no better than placebo for the vast majority of people with depression, the vast majority. Do you agree with that?

Michael Thase: No, no. I don't agree. I think you're confusing, or he's confusing, the results of studies versus what goes on in practice.

He says that Kirsch's statistical analysis overlooks the benefits to individual patients.

[Thase with patient: Have a seat.]

And while he agrees there's a substantial placebo effect -

[Thase: Have you been keeping track of your depression scores?]

Especially for the mildly depressed, using a different methodology, he finds that the drugs help 14 percent of those moderately depressed, and even more for those severely depressed.

Thase: Our own work indicates pretty convincingly that this is a large and meaningful effect for a subset of the patients in these studies.

Stahl: But even by your own numbers more people, maybe twice as many people, are having a placebo effect than are actually being helped by the drug.

Thase: That's correct.

Stahl: In the moderate range?

Thase: That's correct.

Stahl: And this isn't troubling to you?

Thase: I wish our antidepressants were stronger. I hope we have better ones in the future. But that 14 percent advantage over and above the placebo is for a condition that afflicts millions of people, that represents hundreds of thousands of people who are better parents, who are better workers, who are happier and who are less likely to take their life.

Since the introduction of Prozac in the 1980s, prescriptions for these drugs have soared 400 percent -

[Commercial: I used to be happy, I remember being happy...]

-- with the drug companies having spent billions over the years advertising them.

Stahl: I don't know about you, but I'm seeing more women running through daisy fields after looking morose than ever before.

Dr. Walter Brown: Absolutely. There's a lot of hype out there.

Dr. Walter Brown is a clinical professor of psychiatry at Brown University's Medical School. He has co-authored two studies that largely corroborate Kirsch's findings.

Brown: The number of antidepressant prescriptions over the last decade has increased and most troublesome, the biggest increase is in the mildly depressed, who are the ones who are least likely to benefit from them.

He says they're getting virtually no benefit from the chemical in the pill. Like most experts, he says these drugs do work for the severely depressed, but he questions the widely held theory that depression is caused by a deficiency in the brain chemical called serotonin, which most of these pills target.

Brown: The experts in the field now believe that that theory is a gross oversimplification and probably is not correct.

Stahl: And the whole idea of antidepressants is built around this theory?

Brown: Yes, it is.

To approve any drug, the Food and Drug Administration merely requires that companies show their pill is more effective than a placebo in two clinical trials - even if many other drug trials failed.

Brown: The FDA for antidepressants has a fairly low bar. A new drug can be no better than placebo in 10 trials, but if two trials show it to be better, it gets approved.

Stahl: Does that make sense to you?

Brown: That's not the way I would do it if I were the king. But I'm not.

Dr. Tom Laughren, director of the FDA's division of psychiatry products, defends the approval process.

Stahl: We're told you discard the negatives. Is that not right?

Tom Laughren: We consider everything that we have. We look at those trials individually--

Stahl: But how are you knowing that the two positives deserve bigger strength in the decision?

Laughren: Getting that finding of a positive study by chance, if there isn't really an effect, is very low. I mean, that's basic statistics and that's the way clinical trials are interpreted. A separate question is whether or not the effect that you're seeing is clinically relevant.

Stahl: Okay. Is it clinically relevant?

Laughren: The data that we have shows that the drugs are effective.

Stahl: But what about the degree of effectiveness?

Laughren: I think we all agree that the changes that you see in the short-term trials, the difference between improvement in drug and placebo is rather small.

Stahl: It's a moderate difference.

Laughren: It's a small, it's a modest difference.

It's so modest - that in Great Britain the National Health Service decided to dramatically revamp the way these drugs are prescribed. It did so after commissioning its own review of clinical trials.

Tim Kendall: We came to the conclusion that for mild to moderate depression, these drugs probably weren't worth having.

Stahl: At all.

Kendall: Not really.

Dr. Tim Kendall, a practicing psychiatrist and co-director of the commission that did the review says that like Irving Kirsch - they were surprised by what they found in the drug companies' unpublished data.

Kendall: With the published evidence, it significantly overestimated the effectiveness of these drugs and it underestimated the side effects.

Stahl: The FDA would say that some of these unpublished studies are unpublished because there were flaws in the way the trials were conducted.

Kendall: This is a multibillion dollar industry. I doubt that they are spending $10 million per trial to come up with a poor methodology. What characterizes the unpublished is that they're negative. Now I don't think it's that their method is somehow wrong; it's that their outcome is not suitable from the company's point of view.

Because of the review, new public health guidelines were issued. Now drugs are given only to the severely depressed as the first line of treatment. For those with mild to moderate depression, the British government is spending nearly half a billion dollars training an army of talk therapists.

[Instructor: If you wanna go a little faster, you can.]

Physical exercise is another treatment prescribed for the mildly depressed.

Kendall: By the end of 10 weeks, you get just as good a change in their depression scores, as you do at the end of 10 or 12 weeks with an antidepressant.

None of the drug companies we spoke to was willing to go on camera, but Eli Lilly told us in an email that drug trials show antidepressants work better than placebos over the long term and that "numerous studies have shown that patients on placebos are more likely to relapse" back into depression. The industry's trade association, PhRMA, wrote us: "antidepressants have been shown to be tremendously effective."

But if Irving Kirsch has his way, the drug companies will have to completely rethink their $11.3 billion business.

Stahl: You're throwing a bomb into this. This is huge what you're saying.

Kirsch: I know that. The problem is that you can get the same benefit without drugs. I think more are beginning to agree. And I think things have begun to change.

Everyone in this story says that if you're depressed, you should see your doctor, and if you're already on these powerful drugs, you shouldn't stop taking them on your own.


2011年9月26日 星期一

肺腺癌後勤練平甩功兩年半來沒中斷蕭萬長:做來不易卻對健康很有益

肺腺癌後勤練平甩功兩年半來沒中斷   蕭萬長:做來不易卻對健康很有益

副總統蕭萬長昨天在一項活動中說,自己是平甩功的受益者,2年半前一場大病後,他選擇做平甩功,2年半來沒中斷。

蕭萬長、國民黨榮譽主席吳伯雄、台北市長郝龍斌、交通部長毛治國、宏碁創辦人施振榮、尼加拉瓜大使達比亞、國民黨籍立委周守訓等人都出席梅門德藝天地開幕,這是推廣平甩功的李鳳山師父傳承養生文化的園區,由台鐵委託經營,此處原是台鐵麗水街宿舍,曾是「巨流河」作者齊邦媛及其夫婿羅裕昌的舊居。

蕭萬長先前曾患肺腺癌,他致詞時透露,自己是平甩功的受益者,2年半前一場大病之後,「很多人建議我做這種運動、吃那種偏方,最後選擇平甩功」,平甩功說起來容易、做起來不容易,但他「2年半沒中斷」,「各位看到我,就知道有沒有幫助」;蕭萬長這席話搏得現場滿堂喝彩。

蕭萬長說,齊邦媛是台灣的文學之母,她的夫婿羅裕昌曾是台鐵資深工程師,對台鐵自動化、電氣化工程有很大貢獻,這個地方是科學與文化、理性與感性的結合,很有靈氣。

吳伯雄說,雖然他自己也學平甩功,但是因為比較懶,所以成果不及蕭萬長。

吳伯雄說,這塊地他很熟悉,這裡將近20年沒人住,晚上經過都覺得陰森森,原本是養蚊子的地方,但今天卻是陽光普照、磁場很好,李鳳山不管是對人或對物,都能化腐朽為神奇。

梅門德藝天地改建過程,一度引發「違建」爭議,台北市議員李新指出,現在沒有違章的問題,一切依法完成。

台灣新生報 中醫藥天地 2011年09月26日

2011年9月3日 星期六

長跑人瑞秘訣無壓力


英國印度裔人瑞辛格( Fauja Singh)已經100歲,但仍老當益壯,更是全球最年長的馬拉松跑手。他的健康長壽秘訣是多吃薑汁咖喱、喝大量茶,最重要是無壓力生活。

他說:「既然有些東西你無法改變,為何要憂慮?為所擁有的東西感恩,遠離思想負面的人,保持微笑,繼續跑步。」

他現時每日跑16公里,2003年以5小時40分跑畢多倫多馬拉松賽,創下90歲以上男子的最快世界紀錄。他原居住在印度,中年移居英國,開始認真練跑,89歲至今完成過七次馬拉松賽。

英國《每日郵報》

蘋果日報

2011年09月03日


如果有令人氣憤的事 人應快樂地面對 

如果心身因此動怒 傷害只會是自己及身邊的人

既然有些東西你無法改變 為何要憂慮?

為所擁有的東西感恩

遠離思想負面的人

保持微笑 繼續跑步 

遠離壓力 吃薑汁咖喱 喝多啲茶 就是佢養生秘訣 

全球最年長的馬拉松跑手

由89歲至今完成過七次馬拉松賽

每日跑 16公里

2003年以 5小時 40分跑畢多倫多馬拉松賽

創下 90歲以上男子的最快世界紀錄 

身心健康 快樂



2011年6月11日 星期六

經脈受寒 類風濕

經脈受寒 類風濕

經過多次抽血檢查,得到莫醫生鍥而不捨地為去追查病源,最後的化驗報告顯示我的類風濕指數奇高,理應是屬於七八十歲的病患,大部份的關節亦應

早已扭曲變形,但正因為我所知道的家族史中並無人患上類風濕,除了腰間及右手中指關節時有腫痛外,其它一切正常,我缺乏類風濕病患的曲型病徵,所以一直都無循此途徑追查。

做了數年病患,努力讀醫書做功課,用身體做實驗,對此症亦略有心得。根據西醫理論,類風濕關節炎的病因不明,是病者的免疫系統侵襲自己的關節組織,持續惡化會導致關節活動能力喪失。

中醫則認為類風濕是由於經脈受寒氣阻塞而導致的,寒氣當然亦分外寒和內寒,醫治的方法就是咬住一個「寒」字不放,只要把阻塞住經脈的寒氣去掉,就能解決疼痛。

這些年來,知道了問題所在後,每天便乖乖地準時吃藥,開始練習適合風濕病患者的太極拳,每天早晚都做15分鐘平甩功,讓氣血到達四肢末梢。保持情緒樂觀,做足保暖措施,絕不立於風口,出入冷氣場所,必備圍巾或小外套。

(這裏要多口講句,香港所有公共交通工具和商場係咪有病呀?冷氣開到勁大,既不環保又嚴重危害健康。

看看今日孩子們多有濕疹等各種皮膚病,這都是寒氣入侵的表徵!)冬天或下雨天,家中會常備紅糖薑湯,有空亦會在家做溫灸療法;但最重要當然是盡力保護身上各大小關節,絕不手持重物,不扭毛巾,不轉扭瓶瓶罐罐,不揹負皮手袋,因為所有的關節一旦變形殘障後便無法復元。

如果家族有人曾患類風濕關節炎,有晨僵,有對稱性的關節同時出現腫腫痛楚,請在你的關節變形前,立即去檢查吧!

鍾慧冰
新報 名筆薈 紅豆冰時間
2011年06月11日