Re: Semi OT -- Quit Smoking
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> I know I've mentioned this before, but since the subject has come up
> lately, I thought I'd mention it again.
>
> We all know it's important to quit smoking, and we all know how hard
> it is. I, myself, had tried several times to quit and it was a
> disaster. I didn't make it past the first hour before I was running
> off to the store to buy cigs -- and my hubby and son were volunteering
> to do it for me! It was nasty -- and scary. I tried reading the
> stop-smoking ng, but that was full of scare tactics and drill
> sargeant-type stuff. I'm sure that works for some people, but it
> didn't work for me -- and I don't think it works for *most* people
> because they're still smoking! LOL!
>
> I don't remember now where I heard about this book, but it's "The Easy
> Way to Quit Smoking" by Alan Carr. I read this book last summer and
> had my last cig at noon on 01 Sept 2006. I haven't wanted a cig
> since. I have *thought* about having one, and then I remember, "Oh,
> that's right, I don't smoke anymore" -- and it isn't any more
> traumatic than that.
>
> There's no magic bullet here -- it's just plain common sense. One of
> the things he does is debunk how terrible it is to quit.
>
> Once you understand what's going on, it's really *easy* to quit. The
> book isn't full of horror stories and unreasonable demands. As a
> matter of fact, one of the first things he says is *not* to quit until
> after you finish the book -- keep smoking while you're reading it.
> Although I think you'll find that as you're reading you will want to
> smoke -- and think about smoking -- less and less.
>
> The last time I checked, this book was about $15 at the local book
> store and at that time it was about half the price of a carton of
> cigs. Now, in most states, that's probably one-third or one-fourth
> the cost of a carton.
>
> You might also want to have your kids read it. It really goes into
> why it's so hard to quit and how easy it is to get hooked. Hopefully,
> it will help keep them from starting in the first place.
>
> Finally, I'll add that all of my neighbors who smoke -- and didn't
> think I'd make it past the first day -- are really impressed that it's
> been nine months and counting. And they say the want to quit, too --
> but they won't read the book. It took me two weeks to read it (when
> in actuality it can be done in an afternoon) because the first day I
> started noticing changes and couldn't believe it was true! So I guess
> the first hurdle you have to get over is not to be afraid of books.
>
> ;-)
One thing that I tell my patients that has helped them quit is that
their craving the nicotine in cigarettes is not bad and so they are
not bad people for having the cravings.
Then I explain that there is a physiological basis for the craving
that comes from the beneficial effects of the nicotine-like
neurotransmitters that our bodies make. Thus, craving nicotine is good
from a medical standpoint.
Bottomline:
Craving nicotine is good because it is by GOD's design.
Indeed, it even logically follows from secular knowledge that "craving
nicotine is good" because a person, who is craving nicotine, is not
smoking nicotine-laden cigarettes, which is bad.
May GOD bless you in HIS mighty way making you hungrier than ever.
Prayerfully in Jesus' awesome love,
Andrew <><
--
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
http://EmoryCardiology.com
"Unlike the 2PD-OMER Approach, weight loss diets can't be combined
with well-balanced diets."
http://HeartMDPhD.com/Love/TheTruth
Professor Geoffrey Loftus, Saint Swithins Hospital
Holy fucking Chinese crippled bastard nephew of Jesus Christ on a
Segway, I'm not sure to respond with the lyrics from Steppenwolf's
"The Pusher" or Jerry Saunders' "They're Coming to
Take Me Away, Haha."
Cary Kittrell
Well, if other themes here haven't already made it obvious,
Andrew is quite susceptible to the self-denial-means-makes-you-
feel-SO-virtuous trip. It's an easy one to fall into.
Denying yourself something that you really crave MUST
be good, right? I mean look: this is really hard, so
I must be some kind of special person to be able to
maintain it.
Right now it's only passive mortification of the flesh...
food, nicotine, cravings, that sort of thing. Let's
just hope for his sake that it does not graduate to
active bits like horsehair shirts and self-flagellation.
Or even praying til your nose bleeds.
-- cary
Father Haskell
<and...@emorycardiology.com> wrote:
> One thing that I tell my patients that has helped them quit is that
> their craving the nicotine in cigarettes is not bad and so they are
> not bad people for having the cravings.
>
> Then I explain that there is a physiological basis for the craving
> that comes from the beneficial effects of the nicotine-like
> neurotransmitters that our bodies make. Thus, craving nicotine is good
> from a medical standpoint.
>
> Bottomline:
>
> Craving nicotine is good because it is by GOD's design.
>
> Indeed, it even logically follows from secular knowledge that "craving
> nicotine is good" because a person, who is craving nicotine, is not
> smoking nicotine-laden cigarettes, which is bad.
I kicked a pack a day Marlboro habit in three weeks on the patch,
PRECISELY because it killed the cravings.
Exactly how long have you been masquerading as a physician?
FWIW, nicotiana is a new world plant. If any god created it,
it was the Amerindians' god, not the biblegod. The biblegod
has nothing to do with it.
Chuck Stamford
"Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <and...@emorycardiology.com> wrote in message
news:1181476257....@n4g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>
> One thing that I tell my patients that has helped them quit is that
> their craving the nicotine in cigarettes is not bad and so they are
> not bad people for having the cravings.
>
> Then I explain that there is a physiological basis for the craving
> that comes from the beneficial effects of the nicotine-like
> neurotransmitters that our bodies make. Thus, craving nicotine is good
> from a medical standpoint.
>
> Bottomline:
>
> Craving nicotine is good because it is by GOD's design.
>
> Indeed, it even logically follows from secular knowledge that "craving
> nicotine is good" because a person, who is craving nicotine, is not
> smoking nicotine-laden cigarettes, which is bad.
You mean to tell me the entire forty years I smoked cigarettes I wasn't
craving nicotine? Wow, that's funny. It sure FELT like I was.
Now I'm not entirely sure you still HAVE any patients (being crazy like you
are), but if you do have any patients who smoke and want to quit, do them a
favor: don't coach them, and prescribe CHANTIX. If they have ANY desire to
quit at all, and they can tolerate the medication, it's going to take away
ALL of their nicotine cravings, leaving them only the psychological
associations of the past to deal with. Those can be pretty strong, but
nothing compared to the drug addiction.
I'm the biggest nicotine addict you ever saw. I started taking this stuff,
and two weeks later I put out my last cigarette, and haven't had a strong
nicotine craving (or cigarette) since, and it's been eight months now, and
six since I quit taking the drug. It's also worked well for several people
I've recommended it to who, with the oversight of their doctors, tried it
and also stopped smoking after only a week or two.
It's relatively new on the market; less than a year I believe. So if you
haven't heard of it, read up on it, and then start prescribing it, and then
just get out of the way and let it happen.
Chuck Stamford
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
> >
> > One thing that I tell my patients that has helped them quit is that
> > their craving the nicotine in cigarettes is not bad and so they are
> > not bad people for having the cravings.
> >
> > Then I explain that there is a physiological basis for the craving
> > that comes from the beneficial effects of the nicotine-like
> > neurotransmitters that our bodies make. Thus, craving nicotine is good
> > from a medical standpoint.
> >
> > Bottomline:
> >
> > Craving nicotine is good because it is by GOD's design.
> >
> > Indeed, it even logically follows from secular knowledge that "craving
> > nicotine is good" because a person, who is craving nicotine, is not
> > smoking nicotine-laden cigarettes, which is bad.
>
> You mean to tell me the entire forty years I smoked cigarettes I wasn't
> craving nicotine?
No.
During your entire forty years of smoking cigarettes, you were smoking
to get rid of (satisfy) your nicotine cravings.
If you knew in your heart that your nicotine cravings were good, you
would no longer be motivated to get rid of (satisfy) the cravings.
> Wow, that's funny. It sure FELT like I was.
Such is the power of satan's lie that "all the wants/desires/cravings/
hunger from GOD are bad" when it resides in our hearts.
> Now I'm not entirely sure you still HAVE any patients (being crazy like you
> are)
Your unwise choice to bear false witness simply shows that you are
lost:
http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit/dream.asp
The brethren of LORD Jesus Christ are neither perfect nor more
special...
...we are simply forgiven by GOD:
http://www.interviewwithgod.com/forgiven/
May you wisely choose to be forgiven too by publicly declaring with
your mouth that "Jesus is LORD:"
http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit/TheWay
Prayerfully in Jesus' awesome love,
Andrew <><
--
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
http://ABChung.LiveJournal.com
Cary Kittrell
> neighbor Chuck Stamford wrote:
> > Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
> > >
> > > One thing that I tell my patients that has helped them quit is that
> > > their craving the nicotine in cigarettes is not bad and so they are
> > > not bad people for having the cravings.
> > >
> > > Then I explain that there is a physiological basis for the craving
> > > that comes from the beneficial effects of the nicotine-like
> > > neurotransmitters that our bodies make. Thus, craving nicotine is good
> > > from a medical standpoint.
> > >
> > > Bottomline:
> > >
> > > Craving nicotine is good because it is by GOD's design.
> > >
> > > Indeed, it even logically follows from secular knowledge that "craving
> > > nicotine is good" because a person, who is craving nicotine, is not
> > > smoking nicotine-laden cigarettes, which is bad.
> >
> > You mean to tell me the entire forty years I smoked cigarettes I wasn't
> > craving nicotine?
>
> No.
>
> During your entire forty years of smoking cigarettes, you were smoking
> to get rid of (satisfy) your nicotine cravings.
>
> If you knew in your heart that your nicotine cravings were good, you
> would no longer be motivated to get rid of (satisfy) the cravings.
Self-denial can also be quite addictive.
Can't it, Andrew?
Particularly because it can lead to illusory feelings of accomplishment
and virtue.
Can't it, Andrew?
-- cary
Cary Kittrell
Of course any god who had bothered thinking things through would
not have designed in nicotine craving in the first place, because
it is the craving which makes it extrordinarily difficult to
quit -- thus leading to hundreds of thousands of deaths a year.
Make that "hundreds of thousands of needless deaths a year":
if nicotine were no more addictive than cucumbers, anyone
could give up smoking, in an instant, on a whim, and for
the rest of their lives.
-- cary
Professor Geoffrey Loftus, Saint Swithins Hospital
> "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <and...@emorycardiology.com> wrote in messagenews:1181476257....@n4g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
What were you paying per day? The patch was about the same as a
2-pack day (2PD in Andyspeak) habit. Worked like a charm for me,
and you don't need a croaker's script to score it.
This sounds like a helluva reason to buy Pfizer stock. It promises
not
just to get millions of smokers off cigs, but shut up Andy, as well.
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
> > > Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
> > > >
> > > > One thing that I tell my patients that has helped them quit is that
> > > > their craving the nicotine in cigarettes is not bad and so they are
> > > > not bad people for having the cravings.
> > > >
> > > > Then I explain that there is a physiological basis for the craving
> > > > that comes from the beneficial effects of the nicotine-like
> > > > neurotransmitters that our bodies make. Thus, craving nicotine is good
> > > > from a medical standpoint.
> > > >
> > > > Bottomline:
> > > >
> > > > Craving nicotine is good because it is by GOD's design.
> > > >
> > > > Indeed, it even logically follows from secular knowledge that "craving
> > > > nicotine is good" because a person, who is craving nicotine, is not
> > > > smoking nicotine-laden cigarettes, which is bad.
> > >
> > > You mean to tell me the entire forty years I smoked cigarettes I wasn't
> > > craving nicotine?
> >
> > No.
> >
> > During your entire forty years of smoking cigarettes, you were smoking
> > to get rid of (satisfy) your nicotine cravings.
> >
> > If you knew in your heart that your nicotine cravings were good, you
> > would no longer be motivated to get rid of (satisfy) the cravings.
>
> Self-denial can also be quite addictive.
Knowing in your heart that cravings are good would not be self-denial
but rather a state of enlightenment.
May GOD continue to bless you in HIS mighty way making you hungrier
than ever.
Prayerfully in Jesus' awesome love,
Andrew <><
--
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
http://ABChung.LiveJournal.com
"Unlike the 2PD-OMER Approach, weight loss diets can't be combined
with well-balanced diets"
Professor Geoffrey Loftus, Saint Swithins Hospital
wrote:
Even more so if you dip them in heroin.
Cary Kittrell
Seventy to eighty percent of smokers say they would like to quit.
That's thirty-plus million Americans who continue this suicidal
habit, though they would do otherwise.
And that's because of the cravings.
A craving which leads to half a million premature deaths and
costs a hundred billion in lost productive every year is the
precise opposite of "good".
Even a self-denial junkie such as yourself should not have
a problem understanding that.
-- cary
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
Actually, it is satan's lie that "cravings are bad" that makes it
impossible to quit when this lie resides in the heart.
> Make that "hundreds of thousands of needless deaths a year":
> if nicotine were no more addictive than cucumbers, anyone
> could give up smoking, in an instant, on a whim, and for
> the rest of their lives.
Again, it is satan's lie that causes the addiction and not the
nicotine.
Truth is simple.
May GOD continue to bless in HIS mighty way you making you hungrier
than ever.
Prayerfully in Jesus' awesome love,
Andrew <><
--
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
http://ABChung.LiveJournal.com
"Unlike the 2PD-OMER Approach, weight loss diets can't be combined
with well-balanced diets"
skyeyes
"Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time, and annoys
the pig."
Words to live by, Cary. ;->
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
skyeyes at dakotacom dot net
Professor Geoffrey Loftus, Saint Swithins Hospital
Up to 1/2 of all residential fires can be traced to smoldering
cigarettes
dropped onto upholstered furniture.
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Incorrect.
It is because of satan's lie that "cravings are bad."
It is this lie that created the addiction which has enslaved thirty-
plus million Americans.
> A craving which leads to half a million premature deaths and
> costs a hundred billion in lost productive every year is the
> precise opposite of "good".
Craving not the cause of cigarette smoking just as hunger is not the
cause of overeating.
It is the lies about each that is being propagated by the source of
all lies, which is satan, who is murdering folks with his lies.
> Even a self-denial junkie such as yourself should not have
> a problem understanding that.
Being enlightened to know that hunger/craving is good because these
feelings are from GOD is not self-denial.
Professor Geoffrey Loftus, Saint Swithins Hospital
wrote:
> Again, it is satan's lie that causes the addiction and not the
> nicotine.
Then why does nicotine substitution help so many to quit smoking?
Cary Kittrell
Tell that to all the laboratory animals involved in addiction
research.
>
> > Make that "hundreds of thousands of needless deaths a year":
> > if nicotine were no more addictive than cucumbers, anyone
> > could give up smoking, in an instant, on a whim, and for
> > the rest of their lives.
>
> Again, it is satan's lie that causes the addiction and not the
> nicotine.
>
> Truth is simple.
Not after you're done "improving" it.
-- cary
Cary Kittrell
Isn't it funny, then, how a variety of animals used in addiction research
can also be convinced to believe in this "Satan's lie"?
I had not been aware that Satan has that much interest in Charles River rats.
--cary
panam...@hotmail.com
You a smoker, Andy? Know that feeling of searching through the trash
for cig butts with just a puff or two left? Keeping the empty packs
and a pad of rolling papers `just in case'? Wake up in the middle of
the night to punch a hole in the wall because the store is closed?
And then nicotene gum was invented. I didn't have to do those things
anymore.
You'd think someone with a medical education would understand the
biological mechanics of addiction. You're not just a bad person,
Andy...you're a piss-poor doctor as well.
-Panama Floyd, Atlanta.
aa#2015/KoBAAWA!
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
No, it is not funny.
> I had not been aware that Satan has that much interest in Charles River rats.
Inbred laboratory rats are not normal rats and the laboratory is not a
normal environment.
Leave packs of cigarettes out in the wild and you will not witness
addiction among the wild animals.
Truth is simple.
May GOD continue to bless you in HIS mighty way making you hungrier
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
People are not inbred laboratory animals.
> > > Make that "hundreds of thousands of needless deaths a year":
> > > if nicotine were no more addictive than cucumbers, anyone
> > > could give up smoking, in an instant, on a whim, and for
> > > the rest of their lives.
> >
> > Again, it is satan's lie that causes the addiction and not the
> > nicotine.
> >
> > Truth is simple.
>
> Not after you're done "improving" it.
Without the LORD, your opinion is meaningless (Ecclesiastes).
May GOD continue to bless you making you hungrier than ever.
Professor Geoffrey Loftus, Saint Swithins Hospital
Like hell.
http://www.unc.edu/~bwarenik/images/squirrel3.jpg
http://www.worth1000.com/entries/100000/100317AFIE_w.jpg
http://www.dinochick.com/alaska/smoking%20ground%20squirrel.jpg
Cary Kittrell
I'm sure it is not, as it neatly undermines your contention.
>
> > I had not been aware that Satan has that much interest in Charles River rats.
>
> Inbred laboratory rats are not normal rats and the laboratory is not a
> normal environment.
This just in: squirrel monkeys are also tragically susceptible to Satan's lies:
Although tobacco appears highly addictive in humans, there has been
persistent controversy about the ability of its psychoactive ingredient
nicotine to induce self-administration behavior in laboratory animals,
bringing into question nicotine's role in reinforcing tobacco smoking.
Because of ethical difficulties in inducing nicotine dependence in
na?ve human subjects, we explored reinforcing effects of nicotine in
experimentally-naive non-human primates given access to nicotine for
periods of time up to two years. Five squirrel monkeys with no
experimental history were allowed to intravenously self-administer
nicotine by pressing one of two levers. The number of presses on the
active lever needed to obtain each injection was fixed (fixed-ratio
schedule) or increased progressively with successive injections during
the session (progressive- ratio schedule), allowing evaluation of both
reinforcing and motivational effects of nicotine under conditions of
increasing response cost. Over time, a progressive shift toward high
rates of responding on the active lever, but not the inactive lever,
developed. The monkeys' behavior was clearly directed toward nicotine
self-administration, rather than presentation of environmental stimuli
associated with nicotine injection. Both schedules of reinforcement
revealed a high motivation to self- administer nicotine, with monkeys
continuing to press the lever when up to 600 lever-presses were needed
for each injection of nicotine. Thus, nicotine, by itself, in the
absence of behavioral or drug-exposure history, is a robust and highly
effective reinforcer of drug-taking behavior in a non-human primate
model predictive of human behavior. This supports the use of nicotinic
ligands for the treatment of smokers, and this novel preclinical model
offers opportunities to test future medications for the treatment of
nicotine dependence.
[Le Foll, Werthhiem, and Goldberg, PMID: 17311094]
-- cary
Cary Kittrell
Which is probably why drug testing is never performed on animals.
>
> > > > Make that "hundreds of thousands of needless deaths a year":
> > > > if nicotine were no more addictive than cucumbers, anyone
> > > > could give up smoking, in an instant, on a whim, and for
> > > > the rest of their lives.
> > >
> > > Again, it is satan's lie that causes the addiction and not the
> > > nicotine.
> > >
> > > Truth is simple.
> >
> > Not after you're done "improving" it.
>
> Without the LORD, your opinion is meaningless (Ecclesiastes).
And yet it is obviously correct.
Fancy that.
-- cary
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
The reason it is not funny is because the animals have souls too.
Many thanks, much praise, and all the glory to GOD for HIS compelling
you to cite a reference with evidence that nicotine craving is normal
physiology (i.e. by GOD's design).
May GOD continue to bless you in HIS mighty way making you hungrier
than ever.
Prayerfully in Jesus' awesome love,
Andrew <><
--
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
http://ABChung.LiveJournal.com
"Unlike the 2PD-OMER Approach, weight loss diets can't be combined
with well-balanced diets."
http://HeartMDPhD.com/Love/TheTruth
Cary Kittrell
Oh, I'm certain that they have souls to the same extent that humans do.
Which has nothing to do with the fact that animal research undermines
your contention.
Unless, of course, that you're telling us that the souls of animals
make them receptive to "Satan's lies".
Monkeys pushing a lever 600 times just to get a single hit, all because
Satan has convinced them that nicotine cravings are bad....
Of course it's normal physiology. That's just what I've been saying.
> (i.e. by GOD's design).
Onlyh if GOD just can't get enough of dead nicotine addicts.
-- cary
Professor Geoffrey Loftus, Saint Swithins Hospital
:. Ecclesiastes is bullshit. QED.
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
No.
> > > > > Make that "hundreds of thousands of needless deaths a year":
> > > > > if nicotine were no more addictive than cucumbers, anyone
> > > > > could give up smoking, in an instant, on a whim, and for
> > > > > the rest of their lives.
> > > >
> > > > Again, it is satan's lie that causes the addiction and not the
> > > > nicotine.
> > > >
> > > > Truth is simple.
> > >
> > > Not after you're done "improving" it.
> >
> > Without the LORD, your opinion is meaningless (Ecclesiastes).
>
> And yet it is obviously correct.
All righteousness comes from the LORD.
Without HIM, you are automatically wrong.
> Fancy that.
Truth is simple.
May GOD bless you in HIS mighty way making you hungrier than ever.
Prayerfully in Jesus' awesome love,
Andrew <><
--
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
http://ABChung.LiveJournal.com
"Unlike the 2PD-OMER Approach, weight loss diets can't be combined
with well-balanced diets."
http://HeartMDPhD.com/Love/TheTruth
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Without the LORD, your beliefs are meaningless (Ecclesiastes).
> Which has nothing to do with the fact that animal research undermines
> your contention.
>
> Unless, of course, that you're telling us that the souls of animals
> make them receptive to "Satan's lies".
>
> Monkeys pushing a lever 600 times just to get a single hit, all because
> Satan has convinced them that nicotine cravings are bad....
Cravings make creatures more capable.
This does not mean they are suffering from an addiction, which is a
"persistent compulsive use of a substance known by the user to be
harmful."
Source:
http://m-w.com/dictionary/addiction
Monkeys and other laboratory animals do not know that the nicotine is
harmful (actually the nicotine is not harmful) so that these animal
models of addiction do not truly represent human addiction to
cigarettes.
Again, the addiction to cigarettes is caused by satan's lie that
"craving is bad" which fuels the "persistent compulsive use of a
substance known by the user to be harmful."
Truth is simple.
May GOD bless you in HIS mighty way making you hungrier than ever.
Mark Earnest
"Cary Kittrell" <ca...@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote in message
news:f4n7p5$2l4$1...@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...
You mean polar opposite, don't you?
Chuck Stamford
"Professor Geoffrey Loftus, Saint Swithins Hospital"
<profess...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1181666419.2...@g37g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
I guess it depends on what one is paying for a pack of cigarettes and the
Chantix. Here, a pack goes for $4 and change, so that would be $240 per
month for a two a day addiction. As I recall, a month's supply of Chantix
goes for about half that here.
>
> This sounds like a helluva reason to buy Pfizer stock. It promises
> not
> just to get millions of smokers off cigs, but shut up Andy, as well.
One out of two wouldn't be terrible ;-)
Chuck Stamford
Professor Geoffrey Loftus, Saint Swithins Hospital
> "Professor Geoffrey Loftus, Saint Swithins Hospital"<professorlof...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Which is really a huge bargain at the end of three weeks,
when you've kicked the habit.
As for the patch, I wondered why they didn't sell them in
single dose packets alongside coffin nails in drug stores, or even
gas stations and convenience stores. $45 for two weeks of
21s seemed like the biggest gouge, even though it was far from
it if it worked. Probably LOTS more smokers would quit if
they could give the patch a shot for a couple of bucks.
Professor Geoffrey Loftus, Saint Swithins Hospital
Neurons are neurons, whether human or housefly. They all work
off the same chemistry.
Cary Kittrell
That too.
-- cary
Cary Kittrell
Isn't it just AMAZING that peer review didn't reject this paper
prima facie, given that the experimental design is fatally flawed due
to failure to check a well-known college dictionary?
Stop it; you're just embarrassing yourself now.
For example, the simple truth that people were addicted to nicotine
for centures before its harmful effects were known.
-- cary
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Such are the limitations of animal models of human behavior.
> Stop it; you're just embarrassing yourself now.
Without the LORD, your opinion is meaningless (Ecclesiastes).
> > (actually the nicotine is not harmful) so that these animal
During that earlier time period prior to the knowledge of harm,
cigarette smoking was not identified as an addiction.
Bottomline: You remain untruthful.
Your being untruthful simply shows that the Holy Spirit, Who is the
Spirit of Truth, is right to convict you:
http://HeartMDPhD.com/Convicts
Cary Kittrell
Actually, it's one of my favorite books. All angsty, like.
The problem isn't with Ecclesiastes; the problem is with
Andrew's all-purpose misuse of it.
-- cary
Olrik
Where? Not here in Québec (Canada), in any case. More than 60% of
fires are caused by overheating, cheap, portable electric heaters.
Then comes the forgotten boiling oil for home fries, arson and,
finally, smoking-related fires.
Olrik
Olrik
No wonder you're out of a job, chum. An alleged "doctor" who denies
biology? I know you're insane (just Google yourself), but I thought
you still had a few good neurons left...
> It is because of satan's lie that "cravings are bad."
>
> It is this lie that created the addiction which has enslaved thirty-
> plus million Americans.
And I guess it's still "satan"'s fault if even more americans are
"addicted" to food.
> > A craving which leads to half a million premature deaths and
> > costs a hundred billion in lost productive every year is the
> > precise opposite of "good".
>
> Craving not the cause of cigarette smoking just as hunger is not the
> cause of overeating.
>
> It is the lies about each that is being propagated by the source of
> all lies, which is satan, who is murdering folks with his lies.
Since everybody dies, I'm guessing that "satan" is the "Master of
God".
> > Even a self-denial junkie such as yourself should not have
> > a problem understanding that.
>
> Being enlightened to know that hunger/craving is good because these
> feelings are from GOD is not self-denial.
I feel better already knowing that my smoking habit is a gift from
your "god"...
;-)
Olrik
<snip the rest>
Chuck Stamford
"Professor Geoffrey Loftus, Saint Swithins Hospital"
news:1181701539.8...@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
I couldn't say; I can only go by my own experience, and when I tried the
patch, and then the gum, price didn't really enter into it. Neither worked
for me, and I'm not sure I even understand the concept behind them. If I
could be weaned off nicotine by simply not getting as much of it as I wanted
when I wanted it, why would I need a patch or gum? I could just smoke fewer
and fewer cigarettes until I didn't smoke any, right? I mean, I'm not
addicted to cigarettes for God sake; I'm a NICOTINE addict! How is giving
me nicotine going to fix that?
But here's the way I would argue the issue in the absence of a poll: if
you're trying to quit smoking because you truly believe it's going to
shorten your life considerably if you don't, and in any case you'll probably
have a protracted, financially ruinous, life ending disease in your future
if you don't, then what's the difference if the cure for the addiction costs
$50 per month or $500 or $5,000 if it cures you in a month or two? You know
what it costs to have a lung removed? For aggressive chemotherapy for some
advanced cancers? It's in the hundreds of thousands of dollars.
So anyone who makes a decision not to pursue a course of treatment for
nicotine addiction based on how much it costs, is a walking contradiction or
just flat broke. And if they're flat broke, how do they manage the two a
day habit?
Of course being a walking contradiction never stopped me from smoking, so...
Chuck Stamford
Professor Geoffrey Loftus, Saint Swithins Hospital
wrote:
> During that earlier time period prior to the knowledge of harm,
> cigarette smoking was not identified as an addiction.
"To cease smoking is the easiest thing I ever did. I ought to know
because I've done it a thousand times." ~Sam Clemens.
> Bottomline: You remain untruthful.
Bottom line: You fabricate your claims as you go along.
Professor Geoffrey Loftus, Saint Swithins Hospital
> I couldn't say; I can only go by my own experience, and when I tried the
> patch, and then the gum, price didn't really enter into it. Neither worked
> for me, and I'm not sure I even understand the concept behind them.
Probably by keeping nicotine saturation at a consistent, low level.
Taking a drag peaks nicotine above addictive levels -- note that
morphine won't become addictive as long as just enough is taken
to ease pain, and doses are taken frequently. That's how British
hospitals manage pain with strong narcotics, and they do not
create addicts.
> If I
> could be weaned off nicotine by simply not getting as much of it as I wanted
> when I wanted it, why would I need a patch or gum? I could just smoke fewer
> and fewer cigarettes until I didn't smoke any, right? I mean, I'm not
> addicted to cigarettes for God sake; I'm a NICOTINE addict! How is giving
> me nicotine going to fix that?
You're not supposed to smoke during the course of treatment. You
can't
regulate nicotine by smoking fewer cigs. Variables come into play,
like
how long and how deep you take a puff. Even how you hold the
cigarette
has an effect. "Light" cigarettes are self-defeating, because the
smoker
soon learns how to block the tiny ports etched into the sides of the
filter.
> But here's the way I would argue the issue in the absence of a poll: if
> you're trying to quit smoking because you truly believe it's going to
> shorten your life considerably if you don't, and in any case you'll probably
> have a protracted, financially ruinous, life ending disease in your future
> if you don't, then what's the difference if the cure for the addiction costs
> $50 per month or $500 or $5,000 if it cures you in a month or two? You know
> what it costs to have a lung removed? For aggressive chemotherapy for some
> advanced cancers? It's in the hundreds of thousands of dollars.
That assumes lung cancer. Emphysema and heart attack are
more likely to take you out. Throat cancer is probably survivable
once they cut out your voice box. What's a cancer kazoo cost
these days?
> So anyone who makes a decision not to pursue a course of treatment for
> nicotine addiction based on how much it costs, is a walking contradiction or
> just flat broke. And if they're flat broke, how do they manage the two a
> day habit?
Beats hell out of me, but I see lots of poor people who can somehow
afford it.
> Of course being a walking contradiction never stopped me from smoking, so...
Whatever works, do it. The patch worked for me. That, and the
psychological
push of not wanting to die at age 30 while feeding the coffers of the
filthiest
mass murderers since Pol Pot.
Professor Geoffrey Loftus, Saint Swithins Hospital
Shit-for-Brains would misuse the Betty Crocker Cookbook.
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> satan via a sockpuppet (demon) wrote:
> > convicted neighbor "Chuck Stamford" <shell__stamf...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> satan via sockpuppet (demon) wrote:
> >> > convicted neighbor "Chuck Stamford" <shell__stamf...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> >> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
> >>
> >> >> > their craving the nicotine in cigarettes is not bad and so they are
> >> >> > not bad people for having the cravings.
> >>
> >> >> > Then I explain that there is a physiological basis for the craving
> >> >> > that comes from the beneficial effects of the nicotine-like
> >> >> > neurotransmitters that our bodies make. Thus, craving nicotine is
> >> >> > good
> >> >> > from a medical standpoint.
> >>
> >> >> > Bottomline:
> >>
> >> >> > Craving nicotine is good because it is by GOD's design.
> >>
> >> >> > Indeed, it even logically follows from secular knowledge that
> >> >> > "craving
> >> >> > nicotine is good" because a person, who is craving nicotine, is not
> >> >> > smoking nicotine-laden cigarettes, which is bad.
> >>
> >> >> You mean to tell me the entire forty years I smoked cigarettes I
> >> >> wasn't
> >> >> craving nicotine? Wow, that's funny. It sure FELT like I was.
It was not the "craving nicotine" that compelled you to the self-
destructive behavior that defines an addiction.
The latter is a loss of free will.
Only satan's lie, that "cravings are bad," has the power to take away
your free will especially when it resides in your heart.
> >> >> Now I'm not entirely sure you still HAVE any patients (being crazy
> >> >> like
> >> >> you
> >> >> are),
(Your false witness is forgiven by me)
This simply shows that the Holy Spirit is right to convict you:
http://HeartMDPhD.com/Convicts
> >> >> but if you do have any patients who smoke and want to quit, do them a
Suggested reading:
http://whyquit.com/pr/082506.html
> >> > What were you paying per day? The patch was about the same as a
> >> > 2-pack day (2PD in Andyspeak) habit. Worked like a charm for me,
> >> > and you don't need a croaker's script to score it.
> >>
> >> I guess it depends on what one is paying for a pack of cigarettes and the
> >> Chantix. Here, a pack goes for $4 and change, so that would be $240 per
> >> month for a two a day addiction. As I recall, a month's supply of
> >> Chantix
> >> goes for about half that here.
> >
> > Which is really a huge bargain at the end of three weeks,
> > when you've kicked the habit.
> >
> > As for the patch, I wondered why they didn't sell them in
> > single dose packets alongside coffin nails in drug stores, or even
> > gas stations and convenience stores. $45 for two weeks of
> > 21s seemed like the biggest gouge, even though it was far from
> > it if it worked. Probably LOTS more smokers would quit if
> > they could give the patch a shot for a couple of bucks.
>
> I couldn't say; I can only go by my own experience, and when I tried the
> patch, and then the gum, price didn't really enter into it. Neither worked
> for me, and I'm not sure I even understand the concept behind them. If I
> could be weaned off nicotine by simply not getting as much of it as I wanted
> when I wanted it, why would I need a patch or gum? I could just smoke fewer
> and fewer cigarettes until I didn't smoke any, right? I mean, I'm not
> addicted to cigarettes for God sake; I'm a NICOTINE addict! How is giving
> me nicotine going to fix that?
It is not.
Overcoming an addiction requires a change of heart, where satan's lie
that "cravings are bad" is driven out.
> But here's the way I would argue the issue in the absence of a poll: if
> you're trying to quit smoking because you truly believe it's going to
> shorten your life considerably if you don't, and in any case you'll probably
> have a protracted, financially ruinous, life ending disease in your future
> if you don't, then what's the difference if the cure for the addiction costs
> $50 per month or $500 or $5,000 if it cures you in a month or two? You know
> what it costs to have a lung removed? For aggressive chemotherapy for some
> advanced cancers? It's in the hundreds of thousands of dollars.
>
> So anyone who makes a decision not to pursue a course of treatment for
> nicotine addiction based on how much it costs, is a walking contradiction or
> just flat broke. And if they're flat broke, how do they manage the two a
> day habit?
>
> Of course being a walking contradiction never stopped me from smoking, so...
More important is the realization that it is not Chantix that cures an
addiction to cigarettes (see link above).
You will remain in my prayers, dear neighbor Chuck whom I love
unconditionally.
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
If that were true, would be impossible to explain the following:
http://HeartMDPhD.com/press.asp
> An alleged "doctor" who denies biology?
A doctor who understands the definition of addiction to be a
"persistent compulsive use of a substance known by the user to be
harmful:"
http://m-w.com/dictionary/addiction
> I know you're insane (just Google yourself), but I thought
> you still had a few good neurons left...
Your bearing false witness is forgiven by me.
This simply shows that the Holy Spirit is right to convict you:
http://HeartMDPhD.com/Convicts
> > It is because of satan's lie that "cravings are bad."
> >
> > It is this lie that created the addiction which has enslaved thirty-
> > plus million Americans.
>
> And I guess it's still "satan"'s fault if even more americans are
> "addicted" to food.
Neither eating nor overeating food is a "persistent compulsive use of
a substance known by the user to be harmful" because food is not a
substance known by the eater to be harmful.
> > > A craving which leads to half a million premature deaths and
> > > costs a hundred billion in lost productive every year is the
> > > precise opposite of "good".
> >
> > Craving not the cause of cigarette smoking just as hunger is not the
> > cause of overeating.
> >
> > It is the lies about each that is being propagated by the source of
> > all lies, which is satan, who is murdering folks with his lies.
>
> Since everybody dies, I'm guessing that "satan" is the "Master of
> God".
Incorrect.
The brethren of LORD Jesus Christ will never die because we have been
given eternal life since being forgiven by GOD:
http://www.interviewwithgod.com/forgiven/
Here's how to be forgiven by GOD too:
http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit/TheWay
> > > Even a self-denial junkie such as yourself should not have
> > > a problem understanding that.
> >
> > Being enlightened to know that hunger/craving is good because these
> > feelings are from GOD is not self-denial.
>
> I feel better already knowing that my smoking habit is a gift from
> your "god"...
Your addiction to cigarettes is due to satan taking your free will
away from you by planting his devious lie that "cravings are bad" in
the heart of your soul.
Suggested additional reading:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/1d34f35077b1fa99?
You remain in my prayers, dear neighbor Olrik whom I love
Cary Kittrell
Behold in wonder and amazemdnt: a "doctor~ who dedcides technical
questions by going to a popular dictionary instead of the research
literature.
Need a good lawyer? I know this guy whose never missed
an episode of "Law and Order". He ought to be terrific.
Diet: a regimen of eating and drinking sparingly so as to
reduce one's
weight <going on a diet>
Actually it's due to "Satan" dicking around with his
neurotransmitters, receptor sites, and reuptake mechanisms.
-- cary
Cary Kittrell
And yet you are embarrassing yourself.
>
> > > (actually the nicotine is not harmful)
So now we have a "cardiologist" who not only goes to a dictionary
when he needs a medical question answered, he also declares
a chemical which raises blood presure to be "not harmful".
What are we to make of this?
Ah: so since they (so you say) did not call it "addiction", thus
they had no problem at all giving up smoking if they decided
they'd like to?
Is that what you're telling us now?
-- cary
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
As a general rule, definitions of common words like addiction are
located in dictionaries and not in research literature.
Your apparent difficulty in understanding this along with your typing
difficulties do not bode well for your level of cognitive functioning.
Would suggest you inform your doctor(s) about your difficulties
especially if your tinnitus is getting worse and/or your anorexia has
returned.
You remain in my prayers, dear neighbor Cary whom I love
Cary Kittrell
> On Jun 12, 3:47 pm, c...@afone.as.arizona.edu (Cary Kittrell) wrote:
> > costs a hundred billion in lost productive every year is the
> > precise opposite of "good".
> >
> > a problem understanding that.
>
> the pig."
>
> Words to live by, Cary. ;->
Ah, but I DO have him dancing.
-- cary
Cary Kittrell
As an absolute rule, technical questions are decided by
scientists and not lexicographers (poor lexicographers!
playing a never-ending game of catch-up)
>
> Your apparent difficulty in understanding this along with your typing
> difficulties do not bode well for your level of cognitive functioning.
>
> Would suggest you inform your doctor(s) about your difficulties
> especially if your tinnitus is getting worse and/or your anorexia has
> returned.
Would suggest that you stop lying.
Oh, I know you won't, but nonetheless, I DO have to try to help.
-- cary
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Being truthful is not embarrassing.
> > > > (actually the nicotine is not harmful)
>
> So now we have a "cardiologist" who not only goes to a dictionary
> when he needs a medical question answered, he also declares
> a chemical which raises blood presure to be "not harmful".
Actually, nicotine typically does not cause elevations in blood
pressure..
> What are we to make of this?
Such is the clinical experience of physicians.
Retrospectively, we would not call it an addiction simply because it
did not fit the definition of such.
> thus
> they had no problem at all giving up smoking if they decided
> they'd like to?
Those who did not have issues (false belief that nicotine cravings are
bad) would have had no problems with stopping smoking as soon as they
were informed that their smoking was harmful.
> Is that what you're telling us now?
It remains my choice to continue to write truthfully.
You remain in my prayers, dear neighbor Cary whom I love
unconditionally.
Prayerfully in Jesus' awesome love,
Professor Geoffrey Loftus, Saint Swithins Hospital
Interesting that you expend so much energy rationalizing tobacco
as not just benign, but good. How many packs a day are you smoking?
Cary Kittrell
Exactly.
-- cary
jacquie
how many of the contestants smoked. I feel so sad when I see teens
smoking..I keep on thinking 5-10 years from now they wished they never
started. I don't know how people can afford to smoke any more. The people of
this state voted it to be a no smoking state(public buildings..restaurants
and bars ) Now the smokers are trying to get it overturned...what I would
like to know how come they weren't at the polls ,if they thought it was so
important...it is really hard to overturn a majority vote of the people.
Jacquie
"Cary Kittrell" <ca...@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote in message
news:f4n7p5$2l4$1...@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...
>> convicted neighbor Cary Kittrell wrote:
>> > Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
>> > > > Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > One thing that I tell my patients that has helped them quit is
>> > > > > that
>> > > > > their craving the nicotine in cigarettes is not bad and so they
>> > > > > are
>> > > > > not bad people for having the cravings.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Then I explain that there is a physiological basis for the
>> > > > > craving
>> > > > > that comes from the beneficial effects of the nicotine-like
>> > > > > neurotransmitters that our bodies make. Thus, craving nicotine is
>> > > > > good
>> > > > > from a medical standpoint.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Bottomline:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Craving nicotine is good because it is by GOD's design.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Indeed, it even logically follows from secular knowledge that
>> > > > > "craving
>> > > > > nicotine is good" because a person, who is craving nicotine, is
>> > > > > not
>> > > > > smoking nicotine-laden cigarettes, which is bad.
>> > > >
>> > > > wasn't
>> > > > craving nicotine?
>> > >
>> > > No.
>> > >
>> > > During your entire forty years of smoking cigarettes, you were
>> > > smoking
>> > > to get rid of (satisfy) your nicotine cravings.
>> > >
>> > > If you knew in your heart that your nicotine cravings were good, you
>> > > would no longer be motivated to get rid of (satisfy) the cravings.
>> >
>> > Self-denial can also be quite addictive.
>>
>> Knowing in your heart that cravings are good would not be self-denial
>> but rather a state of enlightenment.
>
> Seventy to eighty percent of smokers say they would like to quit.
>
> That's thirty-plus million Americans who continue this suicidal
> habit, though they would do otherwise.
>
> And that's because of the cravings.
>
> costs a hundred billion in lost productive every year is the
> precise opposite of "good".
>
> Even a self-denial junkie such as yourself should not have
> a problem understanding that.
>
>
>
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Actually technical questions are typically answered by technicians.
Would suggest you reread this thread as many times as required to
possibly achieve some semblance of understanding.
> > Your apparent difficulty in understanding this along with your typing
> > difficulties do not bode well for your level of cognitive functioning.
> >
> > Would suggest you inform your doctor(s) about your difficulties
> > especially if your tinnitus is getting worse and/or your anorexia has
> > returned.
>
> Would suggest that you stop lying.
It remains my choice to continue writing truthfully.
Many thanks, much praise, and all the glory to GOD for HIS compelling
you to unwittingly demonstrate that you have not been truthful.
HE definitely has you dancing about like a puppet on strings.
This simply shows that you remain convicted by the Holy Spirit:
http://HeartMDPhD.com/Convicts
Father Haskell
Go jump off the Seattle Space Needle and "free will" yourself
not to splat.
percy
Mine are a gift from the Mohawks.
Olrik
<some snippage for brevity>
> > > > Seventy to eighty percent of smokers say they would like to quit.
>
> > > > That's thirty-plus million Americans who continue this suicidal
> > > > habit, though they would do otherwise.
>
> > > > And that's because of the cravings.
>
> > > Incorrect.
>
> > No wonder you're out of a job, chum.
>
> If that were true, would be impossible to explain the following:
>
> http://TruthRUS.org/Guarantee
A Google cache link? Pathetic! You can't even maintain your scam on a
real server.
>
> http://HeartMDPhD.com/press.asp
An astonishing pack of lies, as always. Do you have anything more
recent than "April 2nd 2005"?
I'm also waiting for a peer-reviewed research about your "5 year study
involving more than 625,550 people".
>
> > An alleged "doctor" who denies biology?
>
> A doctor who understands the definition of addiction to be a
> "persistent compulsive use of a substance known by the user to be
> harmful:"
>
> http://m-w.com/dictionary/addiction
>
> > I know you're insane (just Google yourself), but I thought
> > you still had a few good neurons left...
>
> Your bearing false witness is forgiven by me.
So, you did not "Google" yourself. You'd see that you are, in fact,
quite insane. I hope that one day you'll snap out of your condition.
> This simply shows that the Holy Spirit is right to convict you:
>
> http://HeartMDPhD.com/Convicts
You're still keeping up that childish list?
> > > It is because of satan's lie that "cravings are bad."
>
> > > It is this lie that created the addiction which has enslaved thirty-
> > > plus million Americans.
>
> > And I guess it's still "satan"'s fault if even more americans are
> > "addicted" to food.
>
> Neither eating nor overeating food is a "persistent compulsive use of
> a substance known by the user to be harmful" because food is not a
> substance known by the eater to be harmful.
Food can be addictive, and food can be harmful. Every day, tens of
millions of people wolf down food that they know can be harmful to
themselves.
> > > > A craving which leads to half a million premature deaths and
> > > > costs a hundred billion in lost productive every year is the
> > > > precise opposite of "good".
>
> > > Craving not the cause of cigarette smoking just as hunger is not the
> > > cause of overeating.
>
> > > It is the lies about each that is being propagated by the source of
> > > all lies, which is satan, who is murdering folks with his lies.
>
> > Since everybody dies, I'm guessing that "satan" is the "Master of
> > God".
>
> Incorrect.
> The brethren of LORD Jesus Christ will never die because we have been
> given eternal life since being forgiven by GOD:
You're a liar. Even according to your atrocious, despicable dogma,
everybody gets "eternal life".
> http://www.interviewwithgod.com/forgiven/
>
> Here's how to be forgiven by GOD too:
>
> http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit/TheWay
Surprise! Another link that leads to Google!
>
> > > > Even a self-denial junkie such as yourself should not have
> > > > a problem understanding that.
>
> > > Being enlightened to know that hunger/craving is good because these
> > > feelings are from GOD is not self-denial.
>
> > I feel better already knowing that my smoking habit is a gift from
> > your "god"...
>
> Your addiction to cigarettes is due to satan taking your free will
> away from you by planting his devious lie that "cravings are bad" in
> the heart of your soul.
I also "crave" oxygen. Is it bad?
Olrik
<snip usual crap>
Olrik
He'll stop when he'll be cured. If he wants to, that is...
> Oh, I know you won't, but nonetheless, I DO have to try to help.
You know, I'm not a psychiatrist, but I wonder how long psychosis like
the one Chung has can last. Is there a point where even proper
medication won't help?
Olrik
> -- cary
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
> >
> >
> > http://TruthRUS.org/Guarantee
>
> A Google cache link? Pathetic! You can't even maintain your scam on a
> real server.
It is appropriate for the fact that the news story was carried by a
disinterested third party.
> > http://HeartMDPhD.com/press.asp
>
> An astonishing pack of lies, as always.
You are certainly welcome to inform Governor Perdue's office about his
being implicated in something you believe to be untruthful.
Bottomline:
You are untruthful.
This simply shows that the Holy Spirit is right to convict you:
http://HeartMDPhD.com/Convicts
Prayerfully in Jesus' awesome love,
Pastor Kutchie, ordained atheist minister
finally something went 'plop'.
This is what it smelled like:
> convicted neigbor Olrik wrote:
>> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
>>>
>>> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/fe30824a9fb0fbbe?
>>>
>>> http://TruthRUS.org/Guarantee
>>
>> A Google cache link? Pathetic! You can't even maintain your scam on a
>> real server.
>
> It is appropriate for the fact that the news story was carried by a
> disinterested third party.
>
Which one? the National Enquirer?
>>> http://HeartMDPhD.com/press.asp
>>
>> An astonishing pack of lies, as always.
>
> You are certainly welcome to inform Governor Perdue's office about his
> being implicated in something you believe to be untruthful.
>
Are we welcome to inform Governor Purdue of anything else about you? Only
it might cause you to be in even more trouble.
> Bottomline:
>
> You are untruthful.
>
Chung, If I were you (thank goodness I'm not, orange doesn't suit me) I'd
zip it.
Oh! and don't alter anything on any of your websites, or you'll be charged
with tampering with evidence and obstructing justice.
Olrik
wrote:
> convicted neigborOlrikwrote:
> > Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
>
> > >http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/fe30824a9fb0fbbe?
>
> > >http://TruthRUS.org/Guarantee
>
> > A Google cache link? Pathetic! You can't even maintain your scam on a
> > real server.
>
> It is appropriate for the fact that the news story was carried by a
> disinterested third party.
It's called the "classified"...
Anyway, who wrote the "story", Chung? A real journalist, or you? And
why is this "third party" does not honor the link anymore?
That "story" looks like a self-published attempt to a fraud.
> > >http://HeartMDPhD.com/press.asp
>
> > An astonishing pack of lies, as always.
>
> You are certainly welcome to inform Governor Perdue's office about his
> being implicated in something you believe to be untruthful.
It's called a "photo-op", idiot. And it even looks like the photo was
doctored (pun intended.)
> Bottomline:
>
> You are untruthful.
Nonsense. We all see through you. At best, you're psychotic, at worst,
a pathological liar.
> This simply shows that the Holy Spirit is right to convict you:
>
> http://HeartMDPhD.com/Convicts
Only a child would maintain such a list.
Olrik
<crap snipped, as usual>
Professor Geoffrey Loftus, Saint Swithins Hospital
> On Jun 14, 5:44 am, "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <lov...@thetruth.com>
> wrote:
> > You are certainly welcome to inform Governor Perdue's office about his
> > being implicated in something you believe to be untruthful.
>
> It's called a "photo-op", idiot. And it even looks like the photo was
> doctored (pun intended.)
What are the clues?
Olrik
Hospital" <professorlof...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Judge for yourself :
http://heartmdphd.com/gifs/perdue1.jpg
Look around Chung's head...
The shadows are all wrong... On both the guys...
Olrik
Professor Geoffrey Loftus, Saint Swithins Hospital
Something's not right with the focus. Chung looks
about 7 feet tall.
Cygnus, the medical consultant
> And why is this "third party" does not honor the link anymore?
Chunk was blasted out of mabletonga.ourlittle.net by James Shaw
himself, after numerous TOS abuses.
Apparently, Quackie was ranting about his battles with BellSouth,
Google, and other 'demons' (on top of his 419 "guarantee" scam), on a
webpage that was intended to be used for "items of local interest".
Any and all articles written by or about Chung were immediately
vaporized by Mr. Shaw, after it was pointed out to him that Chung's
libelous remarks towards Google and BellSouth might not reflect well
on his business, as his site was hosting it.
Or so I'm told. ;-)
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
> > > Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
> >
> > > >http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/fe30824a9fb0fbbe?
> >
> > > >http://TruthRUS.org/Guarantee
> >
> > > A Google cache link? Pathetic! You can't even maintain your scam on a
> > > real server.
> >
> > It is appropriate for the fact that the news story was carried by a
> > disinterested third party.
>
> It's called the "classified"...
No.
> Anyway, who wrote the "story", Chung? A real journalist, or you?
Neither.
> And why is this "third party" does not honor the link anymore?
Server problems.
> That "story" looks like a self-published attempt to a fraud.
It is not.
> > > >http://HeartMDPhD.com/press.asp
> >
> > > An astonishing pack of lies, as always.
> >
> > You are certainly welcome to inform Governor Perdue's office about his
> > being implicated in something you believe to be untruthful.
>
> It's called a "photo-op", idiot.
Your name-calling simply shows that you remain convicted by the Holy
Spirit:
http://HeartMDPhD.com/Convicts
John Baker
Not just the shadows. The signs of digital manipulation are so obvious
it's surprising that even Chung thought this pic would fool anyone.
>
>Olrik
>
Cygnus, the medical consultant
wrote:
> > And why is this "third party" does not honor the link anymore?
>
> Server problems.
mabeltonga.ourlittle.net, the original host of the link, does not have
'server problems' ; your account was destroyed by holy fire from James
Shaw, who runs the website, for numerous TOS violations.
http://mabletonga.ourlittle.net/
Behold -- PROOFS! That webpage is alive and well -- the only thing
that seems to my missing is any mention of YOU anywhere, including the
archives.
CabinBoy
> In article <1181691225.504305.160...@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com> "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <l...@thetruth.com> writes:
>
>
>
>
>
> > convicted neighbor Cary Kittrell wrote:
> > > Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
> > > > > Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
> > > > > > their craving the nicotine in cigarettes is not bad and so they are
> > > > > > not bad people for having the cravings.
>
> > > > > > Then I explain that there is a physiological basis for the craving
> > > > > > that comes from the beneficial effects of the nicotine-like
> > > > > > neurotransmitters that our bodies make. Thus, craving nicotine is good
> > > > > > from a medical standpoint.
>
> > > > > > Bottomline:
>
> > > > > > Craving nicotine is good because it is by GOD's design.
>
> > > > > > Indeed, it even logically follows from secular knowledge that "craving
> > > > > > nicotine is good" because a person, who is craving nicotine, is not
> > > > > > smoking nicotine-laden cigarettes, which is bad.
>
> > > > > not have designed in nicotine craving in the first place, because
> > > > > it is the craving which makes it extrordinarily difficult to
> > > > > quit -- thus leading to hundreds of thousands of deaths a year.
>
> > > > Actually, it is satan's lie that "cravings are bad" that makes it
> > > > impossible to quit when this lie resides in the heart.
>
> > > > > Make that "hundreds of thousands of needless deaths a year":
> > > > > if nicotine were no more addictive than cucumbers, anyone
> > > > > could give up smoking, in an instant, on a whim, and for
> > > > > the rest of their lives.
>
> > > > Again, it is satan's lie that causes the addiction and not the
> > > > nicotine.
>
> > > Isn't it funny, then, how a variety of animals used in addiction research
> > > can also be convinced to believe in this "Satan's lie"?
>
> > No, it is not funny.
>
> I'm sure it is not, as it neatly undermines your contention.
>
>
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
You people are all nutters! Dr. Chung is playing you like a fiddle.
Of course nicotine is bad for you - although it is in fact, the tar
which presents the most biological problems in modern cigarettes. Of
course cigarettes are highly addictive (more than cocaine or heroin).
What he is trying to get you to see is that the nicotine
molecules' (nicotinic acetylcholine) fit into its complementary
protein receptor is not a bad thing because God designed our bodies to
function in this manner. What is bad is that the nicotine molecule in
cigarettes (which is not natural) replaces a natural one and binds to
its natural receptor and this is where the problem lies.
This is also why natural rats (the kind found in sewers and
washington, D.C.) aren't normally addicted to nicotine - because it
does not occur in nature.
The membrane receptors of one's brain (and other parts of the CNS and
PNS) are naturally looking for specific molecular structures, say for
example, one that looks like Pee Wee Herman. What the chemicals in
cigarettes do is dress up Jack Nicholson as Pee Wee Herman and trick
the brain receptors into thinking that Jack is really Pee Wee. We all
know that Jack isn't Pee Wee and cannot do that cool dance with the
hands, etc. but if the brain sees the Pee Wee-Jack often enough, it
will think that Jack is really Pee Wee and starts craving Jack
instead.
This is why addiction is so difficult to overcome and this is also why
plasma phoresis is a terrific, if expensive and invasive method of
helping methamphetamine addicts overcome their addiction, which we
don't use because the insurance companies are strangling medicine
here.
There is a very interesting first hand account of the history of
smoking in the U.S. and the evolution of the current fight against
"big tobacco" and its damaging effects on the population (squirrels
and rats notwithstanding). It may be found at:
http://dms.dartmouth.edu/koop/
Cheers!
CB
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Actually, all the glory belongs to GOD, Who is the Author of all
reality.
> Of course nicotine is bad for you - although it is in fact, the tar
> which presents the most biological problems in modern cigarettes. Of
> course cigarettes are highly addictive (more than cocaine or heroin).
> What he is trying to get you to see is that the nicotine
> molecules' (nicotinic acetylcholine) fit into its complementary
> protein receptor is not a bad thing because God designed our bodies to
> function in this manner. What is bad is that the nicotine molecule in
> cigarettes (which is not natural) replaces a natural one and binds to
> its natural receptor and this is where the problem lies.
>
> This is also why natural rats (the kind found in sewers and
> washington, D.C.) aren't normally addicted to nicotine - because it
> does not occur in nature.
>
> The membrane receptors of one's brain (and other parts of the CNS and
> PNS) are naturally looking for specific molecular structures, say for
> example, one that looks like Pee Wee Herman. What the chemicals in
> cigarettes do is dress up Jack Nicholson as Pee Wee Herman and trick
> the brain receptors into thinking that Jack is really Pee Wee. We all
> know that Jack isn't Pee Wee and cannot do that cool dance with the
> hands, etc. but if the brain sees the Pee Wee-Jack often enough, it
> will think that Jack is really Pee Wee and starts craving Jack
> instead.
Again, the craving is not the bad thing. Falsely believing that
craving/wanting something is bad compells us to willfully engage in
harmful behavior, which is the bad thing.
May GOD bless you in HIS mighty way making you hungrier than ever.
Prayerfully in Jesus' awesome love,
Andrew <><
--
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
http://ABChung.LiveJournal.com
"Unlike the 2PD-OMER Approach, weight loss diets can't be combined
with well-balanced diets"
Cygnus, the medical consultant
> You people are all nutters! Dr. Chung is playing you like a fiddle.
Uh huh. Exactly the behavior one should expect from a devout christian
and a medical professional.
???
Father Haskell
No shit. I've found the source file:
http://www.mixedup.com/elvis-nixon_hj50.jpg
Cary Kittrell
I sometimes wonder just that -- is it actually Chung The Ubertroll?
And yes, sometimes he clearly throws something nutty out just
to watch the frenzy.
But for the most part, that's not the case. He's humorless,
rigid, pretty much a limbic system with feet. He's generally
more earnest than you think.
(did you know, for example, that the Holy Spirit went back in
time and gave me a deviated septum in my mother's womb, thus
altering reality -- all to "afflict" me because I had, in our
present timeline, just now become "convicted"?. No, I am
not making this up)
> Of course nicotine is bad for you - although it is in fact, the tar
> which presents the most biological problems in modern cigarettes. Of
> course cigarettes are highly addictive (more than cocaine or heroin).
> What he is trying to get you to see is that the nicotine
> molecules' (nicotinic acetylcholine) fit into its complementary
> protein receptor is not a bad thing because God designed our bodies to
> function in this manner. What is bad is that the nicotine molecule in
> cigarettes (which is not natural) replaces a natural one and binds to
> its natural receptor and this is where the problem lies.
A plausible point -- but actually not what Chung keeps
harping on. He says, not that the basic design is good,
but that the cravings it causes are in and of themselves
good. (you know;, those cravings which are so intense that
they render most people unable to quit)
All this is not surprising if you see it as part of the
broader picture, which is his incessent harping
that "hunger is good" and that "the hungrier you
are the healthier you are" and "the hungriest people
are the healthiest people" and "may GOD make you hungrier
than you have ever been in your life".
In other words: he's a mortification-of-the-flesh junkie.
If it feels bad, it must be good. If it feels REALLY
bad, then just think how virtuous you must be!!
Nicotine cravings are just another hair in the hair shirt.
>
> This is also why natural rats (the kind found in sewers and
> washington, D.C.) aren't normally addicted to nicotine - because it
> does not occur in nature.
Oh, nicotine certainly does occur in nature. It's a nifty
insecticide.
Lighting up doesn't occur in nature.
>
> The membrane receptors of one's brain (and other parts of the CNS and
> PNS) are naturally looking for specific molecular structures, say for
> example, one that looks like Pee Wee Herman. What the chemicals in
> cigarettes do is dress up Jack Nicholson as Pee Wee Herman and trick
> the brain receptors into thinking that Jack is really Pee Wee. We all
> know that Jack isn't Pee Wee and cannot do that cool dance with the
> hands, etc. but if the brain sees the Pee Wee-Jack often enough, it
> will think that Jack is really Pee Wee and starts craving Jack
> instead.
Um, yeah, I do know my basic brain chemistry...
>
> This is why addiction is so difficult to overcome and this is also why
> plasma phoresis is a terrific, if expensive and invasive method of
> helping methamphetamine addicts overcome their addiction, which we
> don't use because the insurance companies are strangling medicine
> here.
That one, on the other hand, I am not aware of. Whassup with that?
>
> There is a very interesting first hand account of the history of
> smoking in the U.S. and the evolution of the current fight against
> "big tobacco" and its damaging effects on the population (squirrels
> and rats notwithstanding). It may be found at:
>
> http://dms.dartmouth.edu/koop/
Koop, as in Big C? I'll check it out. I always did
like that boy (and was Ronnie ever in for a big
surprise!)
-- cary
CabinBoy
Yep! One of my favorite peeps and one reason I am going to med
school.
I cannot, for the life of me, make heads or tails of the "be hungry"
mantra. Some "cravings" if one wants to term them that, are good -
fresh air in a New York elevator after a lunch of fava beans for
example. But I don't get how that relates to smoking? Smoking
cigarettes is a very tough habit to kick, but it is surprising how
much of our country's medical establishment relies on the effects of
smoking to fund medical services. I do part-time work for a CME
company in infectious disease and some of our speakers who are top
oncologists have built their practice model around treating pulmonary
disorders caused by smoking! Perhaps their patients are really
healthy and don't know it!
CB
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
>
>
> I cannot, for the life of me, make heads or tails of the "be hungry"
> mantra.
Hunger is good because it is from GOD (Deuteronomy 8:3).
"Blessed are you who hunger now for you will be satisfied." -- LORD
Jesus Christ (Luke 6:21)
Amen.
> Some "cravings" if one wants to term them that, are good -
> fresh air in a New York elevator after a lunch of fava beans for
> example. But I don't get how that relates to smoking? Smoking
> cigarettes is a very tough habit to kick, but it is surprising how
> much of our country's medical establishment relies on the effects of
> smoking to fund medical services. I do part-time work for a CME
> company in infectious disease and some of our speakers who are top
> oncologists have built their practice model around treating pulmonary
> disorders caused by smoking! Perhaps their patients are really
> healthy and don't know it!
They are not really dying until they permanently lose the craving for
the nicotine.
Thus the craving for nicotine is good while suppressing (satisfying)
the craving by smoking nicotine-laden cigarettes is bad.
Father Haskell
wrote:
> neighbor Jeff Coken (CabinBoy) wrote:
>
> > Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
>
> > >http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/ed442d3216b3af21?
>
> > I cannot, for the life of me, make heads or tails of the "be hungry"
> > mantra.
>
> Hunger is good because it is from GOD (Deuteronomy 8:3).
>
> "Blessed are you who hunger now for you will be satisfied." -- LORD
> Jesus Christ (Luke 6:21)
>
> Amen.
>
> > Some "cravings" if one wants to term them that, are good -
> > fresh air in a New York elevator after a lunch of fava beans for
> > example. But I don't get how that relates to smoking? Smoking
> > cigarettes is a very tough habit to kick, but it is surprising how
> > much of our country's medical establishment relies on the effects of
> > smoking to fund medical services. I do part-time work for a CME
> > company in infectious disease and some of our speakers who are top
> > oncologists have built their practice model around treating pulmonary
> > disorders caused by smoking! Perhaps their patients are really
> > healthy and don't know it!
>
> They are not really dying until they permanently lose the craving for
> the nicotine.
>
> Thus the craving for nicotine is good while suppressing (satisfying)
> the craving by smoking nicotine-laden cigarettes is bad.
Cigarettes taste like shit. If you didn't crave them, you wouldn't
smoke them.
Divine Messenger
God has left the building. Chung has left reality.
God is gone!
I told you before, he was subject to a factory recall.
Gods'R'Us had no option but to issue a recall after constant complaints
about several thousand years of indifferent ineffectiveness and well
documented poor parenting skills. They said that he was beyond repair and
that we should just carry on as we have been - without him.
>
> Prayerfully in Jesus' awesome love,
Jesus may have been a nice guy, very gullible of course (mommy a virgin???)
but he, being the object of those poor parenting skills is dead. He won't
be coming back any more than any other dead person will be.
D.M.
Divine Messenger
>> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
>>
>>> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/ed442d3216b3af21?
>> I cannot, for the life of me, make heads or tails of the "be hungry"
>> mantra.
>
> Hunger is good because it is from GOD (Deuteronomy 8:3).
So is death, disease, bigotry, despair, pain, hatred, fear, guilt etc., so
what the fuck are you talking about?
>
> "Blessed are you who hunger now for you will be satisfied." -- LORD
> Jesus Christ (Luke 6:21)
Make up your mind you slow witted dunce, this indicates that hunger is to
be sated.
>
> Amen.
>
>> Some "cravings" if one wants to term them that, are good -
>> fresh air in a New York elevator after a lunch of fava beans for
>> example. But I don't get how that relates to smoking? Smoking
>> cigarettes is a very tough habit to kick, but it is surprising how
>> much of our country's medical establishment relies on the effects of
>> smoking to fund medical services. I do part-time work for a CME
>> company in infectious disease and some of our speakers who are top
>> oncologists have built their practice model around treating pulmonary
>> disorders caused by smoking! Perhaps their patients are really
>> healthy and don't know it!
>
> They are not really dying until they permanently lose the craving for
> the nicotine.
>
> Thus the craving for nicotine is good while suppressing (satisfying)
> the craving by smoking nicotine-laden cigarettes is bad.
>
> May GOD bless you in HIS mighty way making you hungrier than ever.
God is gone!
I Keep telling you, he was subject to a factory recall.
Gods'R'Us had no option but to issue a recall after constant complaints
about several thousand years of indifferent ineffectiveness and well
documented poor parenting skills. They said that he was beyond repair and
that we should just carry on as we have been - without him.
>
> Prayerfully in Jesus' awesome love,
Jesus may have been a nice guy, very gullible of course (mommy a virgin???)
but he, being the object of those poor parenting skills is dead. He won't
DM
Professor Geoffrey Loftus, Saint Swithins Hospital
> God is gone!
>
> I told you before, he was subject to a factory recall.
>
> Gods'R'Us had no option but to issue a recall after constant complaints
> about several thousand years of indifferent ineffectiveness and well
> documented poor parenting skills. They said that he was beyond repair and
> that we should just carry on as we have been - without him.
Chunky's lawyer sued. He was a choking hazard.
Cary Kittrell
Well, research involving over a half-million people can't
be wrong, can it? (make that "more than 625,550 people")
And that's what -- no, I am not making this up -- that's
what Andrew claims he has to back up his "2PD-OMER"
non-diet.
(http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.diabetes/msg/29137a9fb027c044?dmode=source )
Coming soon to a peer-reviewed journal near you.
Or not.
-- cary