宣和御医戴克臣侍翰林曰，得叔和小儿脉诀印本二集，一本云∶呼吸须将六至看，一
本云∶呼吸须将八至看。遂与内台高识参详字义，审察至数，就诊五岁儿常脉，一息六
至者是，八至者非。盖因镂板之际，误去六字上一点一画，下与八字相类，致此讹传。迨
与卒以学易，作五十以学易之误是也。尝考默庵张氏《脉诀》亦云∶小儿常脉一息只多
大人二至为平，即六至也。然一呼一吸之间，六至明矣。不然，姑俟来者考之。
郑氏议古人医书，不能无失。如钱氏治慢惊用栝蒌汤，与病不相主对，是谓之失。以
愚观之，所传药性，医者之通晓，纵有前证，未必肯用，但不容不讲明耳。殊不知钱氏既
没之后，其书成于仕路，故人阎孝忠编集刊行，屡经异代。况钱氏儒医，名闻朝野，施
治之法，如珠在贯，未尝少差。郑氏所指慢惊误用栝蒌汤，然本方下明载治肺热涎盛，非
为慢惊之设，阎孝忠岂不知此。其或居官录梓之日，失于参考，讹传此剂，致有前议。今
历年已远，卒难校正，若论五脏补泻之妙，却无瑕可指，及诸杂方，有功于世，不为不多，
《直诀》一书，信不诬矣。
张氏治小儿豆疮法，若才觉是其证，盒饭疏利。又云∶若才见出时，皆不可转利，自
立两说，遂使后人多生疑惑，以何为当，此张氏之论别矣。刘茂先曰∶婴孺豆疮一证属
里，首尾无下法。若下之则里虚，毒瓦斯何由而发泄，必至传变。大要爱护，庶获全安，此
茂先之言是也。然后学不可执一而取，当择其善者而从之。亦有孩儿禀赋素实，豆疮出
见，遍体红壮光泽，饮食快顺无外证，自然效速。如俗用符水神药，皆非良法，慎勿轻信耳。
宣和年间的御医戴克臣曾对翰林院官员说，他得到了《叔和小儿脉诀》的两个印本：一个版本写道：“呼吸须将六至看”，另一个版本却写道：“呼吸须将八至看”。于是他与内台的高识一起参详字义，审察“至数”（脉搏跳动的次数），通过诊察五岁儿童的正常脉象，确认一息六至是正确的，八至是错误的。这是因为在刻板印刷时，误将“六”字上的一点一画遗漏，导致字形与“八”相似，从而造成了这种错误的流传。这就像后来有人把“五十以学易”误写为“卒以学易”一样。我曾考证默庵张氏的《脉诀》，其中也写道：“小儿的正常脉象比大人多二至即为平和”，也就是六至。这样看来，在一呼一吸之间，六至是明确的。如果不是这样，那就留给后来的学者去考证吧。
郑氏评论古人的医书，认为不可能没有失误。例如钱乙治疗慢惊风使用栝蒌汤，这与病症不相符合，这就叫做失误。依我看来，药性的传承与应用，医者应当通晓，即使有前述症状，未必会肯使用，但这并不妨碍我们将其讲明辨析。殊不知钱乙去世之后，他的著作由仕路整理编集并刊行，中间经过了阎孝忠之手，屡经朝代更迭。况且钱乙是儒医，名闻朝野，其施治之法如珠串于线，未曾有过丝毫差错。郑氏所指出的慢惊风误用栝蒌汤一事，但原方下明确记载主治肺热涎盛，并非为慢惊风而设，阎孝忠难道不知道这一点吗？或许是在他任职记录并刻印书籍时，疏于参考校对，导致此方被错误地流传，从而引发了前面的议论。如今年代久远，很难再行校正，但若论及五脏补泻的妙处，却没有什么瑕疵可指摘；至于其他杂方，对世人有益之处，不可谓不多，《直诀》一书，确实没有虚假。
张氏治疗小儿痘疮的方法，说道如果刚察觉是痘疮证候，就应该疏利通便。又说：“如果刚看到痘疮发出时，都不可转用泻下法。”立下了两种说法，致使后人产生许多疑惑，不知以哪种为准，这是张氏论述中的矛盾之处。刘茂先说：“婴幼儿患痘疮这一证候属于里证，从头到尾都不宜用下法。如果使用下法，会导致里气虚弱，毒瓦斯如何能发泄出来？必然会导致病情传变。大体上要爱护患儿，才能保全平安。”这是刘茂先的观点，是正确的。但是后学者不可固执一端而取用，应当选择好的方法而遵循。也有孩子禀赋素来充实，痘疮发出时，遍体红壮光泽，饮食顺畅无外证，自然见效迅速。至于民间常用的符水神药，都不是良法，千万不要轻信。
During the Xuanhe era, Imperial Physician Dai Kechen said to officials of the Hanlin Academy that he had obtained two printed copies of *Uncle Shu's Pulse Instructions for Children*. One copy stated: "In respiration, one must observe six pulsations," while the other stated: "In respiration, one must observe eight pulsations." He then consulted with Gao Shi from the Neitai (Inner Court) to examine the character meanings and pulse counts. By diagnosing the normal pulse of a five-year-old child, they confirmed that six pulsations per respiration were correct, whereas eight were incorrect. This error occurred because, during the woodblock printing process, a dot and a stroke on top of the character "six" (六) were accidentally omitted, making it resemble the character "eight" (八), leading to this erroneous transmission. This is similar to the later mistake of writing "Zu yi xue yi" instead of "Wushi yi xue yi" (referring to Confucius studying the I Ching at fifty). I have examined Zhang Shi of Mo'an's *Pulse Instructions*, which also states: "The normal pulse in children is two pulsations more than adults, which is considered peaceful," i.e., six pulsations. Thus, within one inhalation and exhalation, six pulsations are clear. If not so, let future scholars verify it.
Zheng commented on ancient medical texts, stating they inevitably contain errors. For instance, Qian Yi used Gualou Tang (Trichosanthes Decoction) to treat slow convulsion (Man Jing Feng), which did not correspond to the disease; this is called an error. In my opinion, knowledge of herb properties should be understood by physicians. Even if the aforementioned symptoms existed, they might not necessarily use the formula, but this does not preclude explaining it clearly. Little do people know that after Qian Yi passed away, his works were compiled and published by Shi Lu, specifically edited and printed by Yan Xiaozhong, surviving through multiple dynasties. Moreover, Qian Yi was a scholar-physician renowned throughout the court and common society. His treatment methods were like pearls on a string, never deviating slightly. Regarding Zheng's claim that Gualou Tang was mistakenly used for slow convulsion, the original text under this formula clearly states it treats lung heat with abundant phlegm-rheum, not for slow convulsion. Would Yan Xiaozhong not have known this? Perhaps when he was recording and printing books during his official tenure, he failed to cross-reference carefully, causing this formula to be erroneously transmitted, thus triggering the previous discussion. Now, many years have passed, making correction difficult. However, regarding the subtleties of tonifying and purging the five zang organs, there are no flaws to point out. As for various miscellaneous formulas, their benefits to the world are considerable. The book *Zhi Jue* (Direct Instructions) is indeed trustworthy.
Regarding Zhang's method for treating smallpox in children, he stated that as soon as the syndrome is identified, one should use purgative or draining methods. He also said: "When the rash first appears, purgative methods should not be used." By presenting two contradictory statements, he caused much confusion among later generations, leaving them unsure which approach to follow. This represents a discrepancy in Zhang's discourse. Liu Maoxian said: "Smallpox in infants and toddlers belongs to interior syndromes; from beginning to end, purgative methods should not be used. If purged, the interior will become deficient, and how can the toxic factors be vented? It will inevitably lead to disease progression. Generally, one must protect the child to ensure complete safety." Liu Maoxian's words are correct. However, junior practitioners should not adhere rigidly to one view but should select the better approach to follow. There are also children with robust constitutions whose smallpox rashes appear bright red and lustrous over the whole body, with smooth digestion and no exterior symptoms, leading to rapid natural recovery. Folk remedies such as talisman water and divine medicines are not good methods; one must be cautious and not easily believe them.