药品GVP指南 3本套 药物警戒体系与质量+监测与报告+风险识别评估与控制 国家药品监督管理局药品评价中心著 中国医药科技出版社 epub 网盘 电子书 下载 全格式

展开

展开

展开

展开

展开

在线阅读地址：药品GVP指南 3本套 药物警戒体系与质量+监测与报告+风险识别评估与控制 国家药品监督管理局药品评价中心著 中国医药科技出版社在线阅读

在线听书地址：药品GVP指南 3本套 药物警戒体系与质量+监测与报告+风险识别评估与控制 国家药品监督管理局药品评价中心著 中国医药科技出版社在线收听

在线购买地址：药品GVP指南 3本套 药物警戒体系与质量+监测与报告+风险识别评估与控制 国家药品监督管理局药品评价中心著 中国医药科技出版社在线购买

PDF下载地址：药品GVP指南 3本套 药物警戒体系与质量+监测与报告+风险识别评估与控制 国家药品监督管理局药品评价中心著 中国医药科技出版社PDF下载

展开

展开

展开

查看其它书籍精彩书评

• 追寻香如故

  作者：yikee 发布时间：2011-11-09 17:00:24

         扬之水新出之《香识》一书，其实并不是一本新著，但该书编辑认为其还有单独成书的必要，实是嗅到了时下悄悄兴起的“香道”风潮。

  　　不能不说，扬之水女士新出之《香识》一书，其实并不是一本新著。正如作者在书中后记中自言“这里的七篇文章，差不多都是写在八年前……收入《古诗文名物新证》”，后屡为“煮雨文丛”稿约所敦促，“无以应命，遂将此一组单独抽出，增删补苴，以成为主题比较集中的一编”。我想，本书编辑认为可以单独成书的必要，实是嗅到了时下悄悄兴起的“香道”风潮。

  　　所谓香道，简而言之就是熏香之道。其既关注香的本体（香材、香味），又由此摄受与香相关的理论和实践；既是一套关于行香、用香的原则和规范，又具有美学意义和价值，兼具形而上的道性发挥，有如茶道之内涵和外延。

  　　现在很多爱好者一谈及香道，每每为日本香道所宗。造成这种现象，一方面是由于中国传统香道在近代急剧的社会变动中大为隐匿，使我们几乎无本可循；另一方面，日本在传统香道的继承和创新方面的确也有不少可取之处，一时成为香道的制高点，再朝向台湾、大陆回流。由是“所知障”，今天多数爱好者的行香、用香方法只好俱随了“日式”。其实中国历史上不但有宫廷贵族、文人雅士的行香，也有民间日常、床头案上之用香，均蔚然可观。

  　　如此，《香识》既出，书逢其时，从名物考证的角度为我们正本清源，厘清传统香道的本来面目，提供了最佳的读物。七篇之中，《两宋香炉源流》告诉我们，两宋名窑的仿古香炉，尺寸都很小，高矮多在十厘米左右，且上不加盖，宋人的日用焚香，都是用这一类小型香炉——这与近世所多见之大香炉印象有些不同。由此可知，后世流变出一类小炉唤“琴炉”者（所谓配合弹奏古琴雅致而设），待进入日本香道后，则成为香席中的要角——品香炉的前身。《印香与印香炉》是最好玩的一篇，她告诉我们古人是如何将香道玩到那么有趣和极致。而《宋人的沉香》篇也对我们拨开当下沉香市场的迷雾，甄别谬传，有极大的指导意义。

  　　梳理香道相关书籍，古有明代周嘉胄之《香乘》、宋代洪刍之《香谱》及陈敬之《陈氏香谱》，所幸以上三部经典之作近年出有白话合译本《香典》。美中不足，该版本只有译文，竟然未录三书原文，匪夷所思。再谈现代香道书籍，日文的先不论，开辟之作有台湾刘良佑先生的《香学会典》，以及林瑞萱老师的“香道三书”——《香道入门》、《香道美学》和《圣经的香道》，这些几乎成了香道爱好者的案头必备。刘以其深厚传统文化底蕴从香道文物研究入手，林从茶道（曾与其先生蔡荣章创立推广“无我茶会”）推而至香道，所以两者的香道书籍特色鲜明，各有所长。

  　　大陆方面，近年则次第有山东傅京亮先生的《中国香文化》、天津陈云君先生的《燕居香语》和成都叶岚女士的《闻香》，此外还有《香学七讲》、《细说中国香文化》、《香品与香器使用大全》等书。其中《闻香》和《燕居香语》可谓在《香识》之外大陆香道书籍的代表作，不但资料充沛，有所传承，且有不少个人感悟和创新。此外，古籍《长物志》、《考槃余事》、《遵生八笺》等也是进入传统香道的重要参考书籍。值得一提的是，我曾经淘到一厚册由本省先贤、史学家茂名林天蔚先生所著《宋代香药贸易史稿》（香港中国学社1960年出版），始知前辈于斯研究之深入和严谨，叹为观止！

  　　《香识》后记中有一句话，虽然可能是扬之水不经意之语，愚以为却是全书之“眼”：“虽然原初之意在于访香而以今证古，却因此未敢轻易以当代经验去理解古人的沉香，也因此《香识》的关注点仍是古代，仍是两宋士人生活中与诗词相依偎的一缕香韵，那是现代生活中已经完全消失的气息”。以为结语。

  展开

• 告别痛经的秘方

  作者：纯白安妮 发布时间：2024-02-07 23:43:52

  

  

  

  

  

  

  身体的重要性不言而喻，是每一个人都应该去重视的，《痛经退散》是痛经女孩自救的攻略书，让我们与身体进行友好的对话，了解无痛经的真相同时寻求缓解的方式。

  女性朋友们不用再独自苦恼了，打开这本书就能带来新的希望，书中会有测试让你去通过传统中医的方式辨别你的痛经属于哪个种类。痛经种类有4种：一.生活习惯导致的血瘀型，这是由不良的生活习惯导致血液循环不畅并进一步的恶化，子宫内的血液循环不畅，这是也是现代人痛经主要类型，二.体寒阳虚导致的血瘀型，受寒时症状加重体寒引起的血液循环不畅是罪魁祸首，在夏季也很常见，三.压力积蓄型气滞导致的血瘀型，气机阻滞产生疼痛感，因压力的积血而进一步恶化容易并发出经前综合征，四.气血不足导致的气血两虚，血瘀型气血皆不足是原因所在，心有余而力不足，月经周期并不规律，月经量也不稳定。

  当知道自己是属于四种是属于哪一种？一切就有了方法，即使经期是正常的状态，是应该无痛感的，有痛感的情况下可以使用中医进行调理。当然最重要的是要养成良好的生活习惯远离痛经，每天要按压促进血液循环的穴位，留出空腹的时间，增加血液量，改善不利于身体健康的饮食习惯，每天运动总时长要达到30分钟，提高自身的睡眠质量，通过改善血液的循环与压力和平共处，同时消除眼部的疲劳，服用适合自己的中药进行调理，也要注重养心。

  妇科对每个女生来说都是如此的至关重要，了解自己的体质，才能知道调整的方式，中医的调理让生活变得更加美好。如果服用适合自己的中药，需要做好中医的辩证。而人际关系出现压力也会导致气滞和血瘀，这一点也要格外引起重视。让自己的体温上升，体质就能变得更好。

  这本书最后还配备了改善痛经的简单药膳和中药方剂，跟着这些去饮食一定能够促进血液循环，改善血瘀，让自己不再受到痛经的困扰。

  展开

• BOOK REVIEW: HANS ULRICH OBRIST: A BRIEF HISTORY OF CURATING

  作者：沧佽° 发布时间：2015-10-11 01:23:54

  Museums have long been considered as “the cemetery for art” and “the heaven for dead useless objects.” In his conversation with HOU, Seth Siegelaub stipulates that the old-fashioned definition of the functions of a museum is “historicization,” that museums are to “kill things” and “distance them from people by taking them out of their real everything context.” The reason why all the curators interviewed in this book are regarded as pioneers of curating is that they are all fighting against such a traditional definition of museums by doing exactly the opposite: to make works of art alive and bring them closer to people and their life, giving the museum an open and experimental character.

  There are quite a few points around the subject of art museums that are shared by these interviewees. Walter Zanini and Lucy Lippard both highlighted the importance of a curator being as close as possible to the artists; documentation and archives take considerable spaces and importance in the curatorial practices of Pontus Hultén and Harald Szeemann; one can easily observe a strong focus on interdisciplinarity and the inclusion of multimedia in shows organized by Jean Leering, Zanini and Hultén; etc.

  Apart from these, I would like to point out that I think Hultén really made his point on the role of collection to the curators and visitors (shared by Anne d’Harnoncourt and others): “I think the encounter between the collection and the temporary exhibition is an enriching experience… A collection isn’t a shelter into which to retreat. It’s a source of energy for the curator as much as the visitor.” I have to admit that I have since long treated the temporary exhibition separately from the collection. It is indeed hard for the public to establish such a link by themselves. Maybe what the curators should do is to reference works in a temporary exhibition to the permanent collection. Such a practice already exhibits in some museums (from my personal experiences, MFA Boston does a great job), but has not been fully exploited and requires more discretion. The programing of the temporary exhibitions should therefore also takes into consideration what can be on view in the permanent collection.

  The point that curators have the mission to help visitors establish a link between temporary exhibitions and collections also reveals the primary task of a curator or a museum director: to create a public and to make connections between art and the public, reckoned by Hultén, Leering and d’Harnoncourt. The issue of audience participation is therefore a central point here. For example, in the show Poetry Must Be Made By All! Transform the World! organized by Hultén in 1969, a wall was created for local organizations could affix documents stating their principles and goals. To me, audience participation goes beyond just making art closer to the public by facilitating exactly the reverse: bring the public closer to art. However, participation has to remain relevant in the context of the artwork and the exhibition. In Poetry (1969), the participation of local political groups is justified by the fact that the intention of the show was originally political. However, if we look back at the Céleste Boursier-Mougenot show at Palais de Tokyo, where visitors were invited to ride a boat inside the museum, the participation was purely entertaining, making Palais de Tokyo a playground.

  Inviting the public into the realization of exhibitions isn’t in itself sufficient unless the programming of exhibitions actually takes into account the interests of the people. People could be tired of playing meaningless games in the museums. It just makes them feel worse about the fact that they can’t comprehend contemporary art. I loved what Leering had said in his interview: “in a certain way, art was being “used” to get people to think and be aware of their own situations.” This explains why, for example, several shows organized by Hultén or Zanini in the 60s and 70s were very political in their nature. Those were issues that the public cared about at that time. I’m not saying that art should serve for something larger, such as politics or society. Rather, the role of the curators is to present the many different possibilities of thinking about these issues. I think people very often confuse between “political” shows and “propaganda” shows. Personally, I have always enjoyed the interaction between art and politics, like the Dinh Q. Lê: Memory for Tomorrow show I saw at the Mori Art Museum in Tokyo last summer.

  The issue of audience participation therefore opens up a deeper and larger debate on the democratization of a museum, as discussed widely by the 11 interviewees. The first level of the democratization of a museum lies again in its relation to the public. Talking about an unrealized project, d’Harnoncourt said hers was “to make the entire museum always free to the public.” Both d’Harnoncourt and Leering compared the “ideal” art museum of a public library: the principle is that everybody should have access to it. Johannes Cladders talks about the second level of democratization, which is to free the audience of the route of visit: “I want a museum that has no predetermined route.” A predetermined route implies an imposed vision. The public is therefore restricted in their appreciation of an exhibition. It also reduces possibilities of confrontation. The democratization of allowing people to wonder around and to move back and forth was perfectly experienced, for example, in the exhibition What’s Happening! (2015) at the National Gallery of Denmark (Read my piece here). The third interpretation of democratization lies in the possibility of liberating art from the museums by creating new exhibition spaces. For instance, the Museum in Progress in Vienna organized exhibition on billboards.

  The interviewees and HOU also made interesting points on aspects that are normally marginalized in discussions about exhibitions, such as the role of texts and catalogues. I tend to echo with d’Harnoncourt that “a thoughtful text of some kind is really helpful because even if you disagree with the text, it gives the visitor something to push back against.” Even though many artists today claim that the public only need to “sense” with their art, we have to admit that the practices of contemporary artists have had a strong tendency on the valorisation of extensive researches into history, society, religion and cultures. It is to somewhat extent almost impossible today to echo with an artwork without any given framework to understand. Among the 11 interviewees, we see quite a divergence in their attitudes towards catalogues. William Sandberg, Siegelaub and Lippard all produced wonderful publications accompanying their shows, while Szeemann, at some point, even stopped publishing catalogued and just printed newspapers. I reckon that a strategy of segmentation could be employed here. Many museums have been doing this. The Tinguely Museum in Basel and National Gallery of Denmark produce on one hand small newspaper-magazine style brochure free for the public and on the other hand, academic catalogues for a smaller group of people who would love to dig further into the subject, a perfect demonstration of a balance between the popular and the specialized field.

  In my opinion, however, HUO is not a good interviewer. He raised a few interesting questions in his conversations but often failed to question them further in order to discuss them more profoundly with the interviewees. For example, he raised the question of whether exhibition has become the new artwork. Such a question to me is beyond the innovation of exhibition design and penetrates to the deeper issue of the role of the curators and their relations to artists. Are curators becoming too powerful? Are artists sometimes overshadowed by curators? In my opinion, it is exactly what is happening today, for example, in the Inside show at Palais de Tokyo last year. (Read my article on this exhibition here.)

  I would like to end my review with the energetic statement of Cladders, that summarizes very well the passion that is shared by all of the 11 interviewees:

  "I have always believed that it is the artist who creates a work, but a society that turns it into a work of art, an idea that is already in Duchamp and a lot of other places… So it was always clear to me that I did not need to do anything for works already declared art by common consent. Instead, I was interested in those that had not found that consent and so that were still works, not works of art…Art must move forward!"

  展开

• 看杰克•李奇的冒险故事连汗毛都会竖起来！

  作者：电影考古队 发布时间：2011-03-25 11:13:46

  李查德的每本小说都值得一读再读，读得久不是因为都市有多复杂难懂，而是书真的很有分量，而且李奇这个冷面硬汉真是太让人着迷了。

  汗毛竖起来，因为场面的火爆，更因为杰克•李奇的冷静与判断。

  这个“浪子神探”杰克•李奇的性格很具好莱坞英雄主义的味道，应该也有很多人（譬如丹尼尔•克雷格、克利夫•欧文或者休•杰克曼）可以出演。

  小说开始一百页的描写很有镜头感，往往由一个点引入一个面，比如《暗夜回声》的偷窥者，《模拟刺客》的刺杀场面。如果有一点疲倦的话，此刻也绝对会看得人精神一振。

  故事很曲折，节奏很明快，场面也很火爆，李奇既有战争机器般的冷血，也有冷漠背后的柔情，然而这个冷面的硬汉，更有着超强逻辑分析的大脑，也许你觉得他像西部片中的正义牛仔、横扫街头的辣手警探、万里追凶的独行侠，但这些都不能概括杰克•李奇，因为他是独一无二的。

  也许你还没有看过他的故事，不妨翻开第一页，好看是如假包换的。

  展开

• 又一次农奴革命

  作者：lovelyegg 发布时间：2012-09-10 11:42:36

  没想到我是第一个除了官方托写书评的。桑德森的书大陆引进了两部，一部是单本的《伊岚翠》，另外就是这个《迷雾之子》三部曲，都是万语出的。迷雾之子目前只看完了第一部-最后帝国，如有信息或理解出错见谅。

  桑德森到底是有多喜欢写农奴改革呀，伊岚翠和迷雾之子系列的背景设定都在于此。而且最后帝国的结束，很明显，农奴改革貌似终于从男猪小团队的努力煽动，终于变成了全体斯卡人的自发革命，但最后的胜利果实显然被贵族出身的改良派窃取了，而且新政府-也就是男二还是个没有实际经验的秀才型领导。

  男猪作为一个前期革命的受害者和幸存者，很完美的策划了行动，也很完美的隐藏了自我解脱的秘密，最后在大庭广众下牺牲自我，升华成一个具有象征意义的英雄，一个新宗教的殉道者，引发了被奴役千年的农奴们革命的决心和热情，于是他们终于暴动了。

  女主是个有点黑历史的盗贼出身，桑德森还给她安排了轰轰烈烈的人生，包括一段非常恶俗狗血的爱情。显然女主的爱情对于故事的发展有很重要的作用，但这麻雀变凤凰，丑小鸭爱上王子的情节多少有些不自然。诚然，男二那身份地位以及叛逆的性格行为，确实是一个让人有些心动的形象。但假扮贵妇就忘了出身，甚至替贵族说好话的行为，女主颇有些忘本的感觉。

  全书虽然只是第一部，但基本上讲了一个完整的故事，其中第四部是最精彩的。大段打斗的场面描写很过瘾，很适合拍成动作片欣赏。当然最后女主面对强大的传说中的神，有些置之死地而后生的意思，不过还是胜利了。对于御主大帝所隐瞒的那些东西，也就是第二部的主要内容了。

  桑德森的魔法设定还是很不错的，伊岚翠里的符文系统，迷雾里的金属系统，都很让人眼前一新。不过第一部来看，文笔还是稍微差了一点。

  翻译总体来说中规中矩，基本流畅。但译者就像分解从句似的，用了过多的标点分割句子，而且显然有些标点有问题。看懂没问题，但实在称不上什么像样的翻译，而且里面有些错误。最明显的应该就是关于“白蜡”的说法。这个白蜡应该是白镴，没见过通用的，而且铅锡合金才符合金属系统的设定。书里有地图却不是拉页的，看起来非常不便。

  展开