(Fwd) Pharmacopoeia of P.R.China 2005 Engish edition has been

[Guest guest]

Hi All,

 

The Pharmacopoeia of People's Republic of China, 2005 Engish edition,

is published. See the preface at

http://www.chisinfo.com/pharm2005.htm

 

Unfortunately, the price quoted (899 US$) puts this far beyond the

library budgets of most practitioners.

 

Have any Listers contacts in China who could purchase and post the

books at " Chinese prices " rather than the astronomical price quoted?

 

Best regards,

Phil

 

------- Forwarded message follows -------

" Chi Zhenguo " <mail

Pharmacopoeia of P.R.China 2005 Engish edition has been

published

Date sent: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 1:13:59 +0900

 

Dear , Thank you for your kind attention to Chinese

Pharmacopoeia. Today, I sincerely inform you that the Pharmacopoeia

of P.R.China 2005 has been published. It is in 3 volumes. For detailed

information, please visit http://www.chisinfo.com. Welcome to order this

new edition. Best regards, Chis http://www.chisinfo.com

mail

 

------- End of forwarded message -------Best regards,

 

Email: <

 

WORK : Teagasc, c/o 1 Esker Lawns, Lucan, Dublin, Ireland

Mobile: 353-; [in the Republic: 0]

 

HOME : 1 Esker Lawns, Lucan, Dublin, Ireland

Tel : 353-; [in the Republic: 0]

WWW : http://homepage.eircom.net/~progers/searchap.htm

 

Chinese Proverb: " Man who says it can't be done, should not interrupt

man doing it "

[Guest guest]

Looking at the sample page (p.143) shown at the website cited

(http://www.chisinfo.com), several questions arise...

 

What is a 'Pharmacopoeia', as distinct from a BenCao or Materia Medicae?

 

The information shown is long on 'description', 'identification', and very

short in the area of medical relevance, at least compared with, say, John

Chen's book. The one-liners here under the headings 'Actions' and

'Indications' are really minimal.

 

So, is the 'Pharmacopoeia' a different animal than a Materia Medicae, or a

substitute, an attempt to evolve the nature of a BenCao?

 

This book (judging from the sample page) shares with Chen's book the,

perhaps trivial characteristic of not showing pinyin accents. Chen's book

(Bensky's et al is comparable, but I'll refer to Chen's here as I use it

more these days) has much more extensive significant information. E.g. (not

in order of necessary importance):

mention of first historical source

alternative names (but, alas, only as pinyin, lacking Ch. chars)

multiple functions (actions),

treated in detail and embedding 'indications'

including combinations/modules of this particular herbs with others

contraindications/cautions

special comments, often comparing with variants (e.g. TuNiuXi vs

ChaunNiuXi vs HuaiNiuXi)

and function-category chapter intros and summaries characterizing the

group, and differentiating many of the principle members of the

group/category.

 

By comparison, this 'Pharmacopoeia', judging from the sample data, would be

of rudimentary clinical utitily.

 

Is this unfair? I.e. Does this book has some other function?

 

From the 'Preface' (at http://www.chisinfo.com/pharm2005.htm) it looks like

political and beaurocratic criteria dominant in it's evolution and

production. And scientific identification-analysis. Is this perhaps a main

function here?

 

Are there other official books complementing this kind of info with

clinical info as I cite above in comparison?

 

As this book appears, and from the point of view of a clinician (and

historian and scholar), I can't find any reason to put out $900 (or even

$90, for that matter) for such a tome.

 

IMNSHO,

 

[Guest guest]

Having looked at previous copies of the national Chinese

pharmacoepia, I would have to agree. The information given pales

when compared with the Bensky/Clavey Materia Medica, or with the

Chinese language Zhong yao da ci dian.

 

 

On Oct 28, 2005, at 7:10 PM, wrote:

 

> Are there other official books complementing this kind of info with

> clinical info as I cite above in comparison?

>

> As this book appears, and from the point of view of a clinician (and

> historian and scholar), I can't find any reason to put out $900 (or

> even

> $90, for that matter) for such a tome.