Non-Invasive Cardiology
ana...@logwell.com
October 23, 2006. He was a true character, and will be missed sorely by his
many patients. Dr. Wayne did not like invasive treatments or tests for CAD
(angiograms, angioplasty, stents, bypasses). He pioneered the medical (drug)
treatment of CAD / angina. See his website at www.heartprotect.com if you are
not already familiar with his work.
Do any of the denizens of this group know of any like-minded cardiologists in
the eastern part of the US, preferably in the southeast US? These would be
doctors that avoid catheter techniques unless absolutely necessary, and who
favor medical treatment of CAD or angina whenever possible.
Thanks.
Syd H. Levine
s...@logwell.com
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
You have my condolences. Dr. Wayne and I have had some lively
discussions here on SMC so I am sad to read that he has passed away.
My condolences to his family too.
As for like-minded cardiologists, these would be the ones who describe
themselves as non-interventional or non-invasive. Dr. Wayne was
definitely a non-invasive cardiologist who was very outspokenly against
invasive cardiology (the use of catheters, balloons, and stents).
Fwiw, GOD made me an invasive non-interventional cardiologist (one who
does catheterizations but not angioplasty/stenting). However, I do
care for patients that are adamant about receiving only the
non-invasive approach and that is fine as far as I am concerned.
May GOD continue to help you with your needs, dear neighbor Syd whom I
love unconditionally.
Prayerfully in Christ's amazing love,
Andrew <><
--
Andrew B. Chung
Cardiologist, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit
As for knowing who are the very elect, these you will know by the
unconditional love they have for everyone including their enemies
(Matthew 5:44-45, 1 Corinthians 13:3, James 2:14-17).
http://HeartMDPhD.com/Love
ana...@logwell.com
before.
I spent some time on your website, and you appear to be quite the character as
well. It would appear your outspoken faith in G-d has drawn considerable
negative reaction from a Goggle search on your name. I am not terribly
concerned about that since many labeled Dr. Wayne a quack as well, and I credit
him with saving my life.
I am a bit confused about your statement that you do angiograms, but not
angioplasty or stenting. What is the point? For example, I have never had an
angiogram, but I am quite certain I have CAD as a middle aged diabetic.
However, I have managed to stay alive despite the dire warnings of the invasive
guys here locally by following Howard's medical regimen. So why bother with an
angiogran when the outcome in a patient like me is almost a foregone conclusion?
So if you do not do angioplasty or stenting, what is your preferred treatment
scheme? What do you think about Dr. Wayne's medical treatment approach? You
will note that in recent studies, medical treatment is only marginally less
effective than revascularization (and that is with what Dr. Wayne would
characterize as pediatric doses of Beta Blockers and possible an ACE Inhibitor).
Finally, how does one go about finding non-invasive and/or non-interventional
cardiologists? It would seem the only way to make big money in cardiology is in
the cath lab. I have been unable to find a single cardiologist in my immediate
area who does not think an angiogram is essential.
Looking forward to hearing more about your take on this matter.
Syd H. Levine
www.logwell.com
On 11 Nov 2006 18:09:04 -0800, "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <lov...@thetruth.com>
wrote:
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> I did not know Howard made it to Usenet. Had I known, I would have visited here
> before.
Howard was very outspoken here as am I.
> I spent some time on your website, and you appear to be quite the character as
> well. It would appear your outspoken faith in G-d has drawn considerable
> negative reaction from a Goggle search on your name.
Yes, I am very outspoken about GOD because to HIM, I owe everything
including my present life in this body that has already physically died
once at the hands of demon-possessed police officers as witnessed in
the light of midday by hundreds of witnesses on 02/03/1997.
In truth, there is no need strike out the middle letter of GOD here
because there is no possibility that you would play a part in the
defamation of HIS name by the tearing of paper since there are only
electrons here.
> I am not terribly
> concerned about that since many labeled Dr. Wayne a quack as well, and I credit
> him with saving my life.
Just as they have labelled and mocked my Great Physician, Whom I credit
with saving my life:
http://HeartMDPhD.com/healer.asp
> I am a bit confused about your statement that you do angiograms, but not
> angioplasty or stenting. What is the point?
Personal choice to not wield a hammer because of knowing that not every
problem is a nail.
> For example, I have never had an
> angiogram, but I am quite certain I have CAD as a middle aged diabetic.
Yes, you are correct that you have CAD.**even** if an invasive
cardiologist were to erroneously say that you do not after insisting
that your angiogram is normal by his/her eye.
> However, I have managed to stay alive despite the dire warnings of the invasive
> guys here locally by following Howard's medical regimen. So why bother with an
> angiogran when the outcome in a patient like me is almost a foregone conclusion?
My answering your question would entail resurrecting the many spirited
discussions that Howard and I have had in the past :-)
> So if you do not do angioplasty or stenting, what is your preferred treatment
> scheme?
Depends on the patient after the thoughtful consideration of everything
I know about him/her and the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
> What do you think about Dr. Wayne's medical treatment approach?
It seems to have worked for the patients who sought him out.
> You
> will note that in recent studies, medical treatment is only marginally less
> effective than revascularization (and that is with what Dr. Wayne would
> characterize as pediatric doses of Beta Blockers and possible an ACE Inhibitor).
Goes back to everything looking like a nail to carpenters.
> Finally, how does one go about finding non-invasive and/or non-interventional
> cardiologists? It would seem the only way to make big money in cardiology is in
> the cath lab. I have been unable to find a single cardiologist in my immediate
> area who does not think an angiogram is essential.
It saddens me to read this.
> Looking forward to hearing more about your take on this matter.
You've got it. Hope I have not disappointed you.
Perhaps the following on-line article published in the Atlanta
community where I reside and practice will give you more insight into
how I practice cardiology:
http://MabletonGA.OurLittle.net/DreadNought
The following link to a recent usenet post may possibly help you
overcome your diabetes:
http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit/overweight.asp
May GOD continue to heal your heart by curing your diabetes, dear
friend Syd whom I love unconditionally.
Prayerfully in Christ's amazing love,
Andrew <><
--
Andrew B. Chung
Cardiologist, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit
As for knowing who are the very elect, these you will know by the
unconditional love they have for everyone including their enemies
(Matthew 5:44-45, 1 Corinthians 13:3, James 2:14-17).
http://HeartMDPhD.com/Love
> Syd H. Levine
> www.logwell.com
ana...@logwell.com
On 12 Nov 2006 01:41:37 -0800, "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <lov...@thetruth.com>
wrote:
>ana...@logwell.com wrote:
>> I did not know Howard made it to Usenet. Had I known, I would have visited here
>> before.
>
>Howard was very outspoken here as am I.
*I had many spirited email interchanges with Howard. He was also unique in that
he spent several hours with a new patient doing echocardiograms, apex
cardiograms, EKGs, etc. himself. So I spent quite a bit of time discussing
matters in person with him.
>
>> I spent some time on your website, and you appear to be quite the character as
>> well. It would appear your outspoken faith in G-d has drawn considerable
>> negative reaction from a Goggle search on your name.
>
>Yes, I am very outspoken about GOD because to HIM, I owe everything
>including my present life in this body that has already physically died
>once at the hands of demon-possessed police officers as witnessed in
>the light of midday by hundreds of witnesses on 02/03/1997.
*Interesting; a case of being at the wrong place at the wrong time? Or was this
some kind of demonstration?
It saddens me to see how vicious the attacks on your faith have been here in
Usenet. But this is a fairly vicious corner of cyberspace, and such conduct is
the norm here.
>
>In truth, there is no need strike out the middle letter of GOD here
>because there is no possibility that you would play a part in the
>defamation of HIS name by the tearing of paper since there are only
>electrons here.
*Old habits die hard. His real name is lost to history due to an over abundance
of caution about saying it at an inappropriate time. I will reserve comment on
my personal beliefs in these matters.
>
>> I am not terribly
>> concerned about that since many labeled Dr. Wayne a quack as well, and I credit
>> him with saving my life.
>
>Just as they have labelled and mocked my Great Physician, Whom I credit
>with saving my life:
>
>http://HeartMDPhD.com/healer.asp
>
>> I am a bit confused about your statement that you do angiograms, but not
>> angioplasty or stenting. What is the point?
>
>Personal choice to not wield a hammer because of knowing that not every
>problem is a nail.
*Great quote from Abraham Maslow. The actual quote appears at the top of this
page at my website:
http://www.logwell.com/tech/servtips/good_tools.html
*I did notice in your FAQ a situation where you suggest that an angiogram was an
unjustified risk for a particular individual who was unwilling to undergo
revasculirazation. I was impressed by that.
>
>> For example, I have never had an
>> angiogram, but I am quite certain I have CAD as a middle aged diabetic.
>
>Yes, you are correct that you have CAD.**even** if an invasive
>cardiologist were to erroneously say that you do not after insisting
>that your angiogram is normal by his/her eye.
>
>> However, I have managed to stay alive despite the dire warnings of the invasive
>> guys here locally by following Howard's medical regimen. So why bother with an
>> angiogran when the outcome in a patient like me is almost a foregone conclusion?
>
>My answering your question would entail resurrecting the many spirited
>discussions that Howard and I have had in the past :-)
*Humor me; do a little resurrecting... Do you accept that medical treatment is
effective in many cases? If not medical treatment or revascularization, then
what other (real) options are there?
>
>> So if you do not do angioplasty or stenting, what is your preferred treatment
>> scheme?
>
>Depends on the patient after the thoughtful consideration of everything
>I know about him/her and the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
>
>> What do you think about Dr. Wayne's medical treatment approach?
>
>It seems to have worked for the patients who sought him out.
*Actually, Wayne had a truly substandard patient population. I was one of the
healthiest, and I had been told I had heart failure (untrue according to Wayne),
and I had been told there was a 99.9% chance I needed a bypass. Many of his
patients had been the victims of multiple stentings, and even multiple bypasses,
yet he managed to control their disease with medical treatment. It is reported
that not a single heart attack occurred in his patient population for a period
exceeding 20 years.
>
>> You
>> will note that in recent studies, medical treatment is only marginally less
>> effective than revascularization (and that is with what Dr. Wayne would
>> characterize as pediatric doses of Beta Blockers and possible an ACE Inhibitor).
>
>Goes back to everything looking like a nail to carpenters.
*It is impossible to make heads or tails out of this statement without some
insight into what you mean. I suspect you are suggesting there are multiple
treatment schemes and possibly multiple etiologies. Aside from quack cures,
what else is there beyond revascularization, medical treatment, or praying for
angoigenisis (I do not buy that silly looking EECP, btw)?
*You are probably aware that Howard was convinced that improperly diagnosed
and/or treated hypertension accounts for a large percentage of angina, and even
misdiagnosed heart failure. He went so far as to say that conventional
cardiologists were so bad at recognizing the problem, that the interpretation of
stress tests was often botched. Any opinion on this?
>
>> Finally, how does one go about finding non-invasive and/or non-interventional
>> cardiologists? It would seem the only way to make big money in cardiology is in
>> the cath lab. I have been unable to find a single cardiologist in my immediate
>> area who does not think an angiogram is essential.
>
>It saddens me to read this.
*It saddens AND angers me.
>
>> Looking forward to hearing more about your take on this matter.
>
>You've got it. Hope I have not disappointed you.
>
>Perhaps the following on-line article published in the Atlanta
>community where I reside and practice will give you more insight into
>how I practice cardiology:
>
>http://MabletonGA.OurLittle.net/DreadNought
*This is an article about an old fellow and a battleship. Wrong link?
>
>The following link to a recent usenet post may possibly help you
>overcome your diabetes:
>
>http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit/overweight.asp
*I am well aware of this. One of the most profoundly stupid recent developments
has been the adoption of a carb centered diet by the ADA. You are absolutely
right about work being an excellent appetite suppressor; my problem is that my
work has shifted in recent years and it is not as effective as it once was
(field work vs. lab work). And I sure do enjoy eating...and it shows!
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> *Responses Embedded Below
> Andrew wrote:
> >ana...@logwell.com wrote:
> >> I did not know Howard made it to Usenet. Had I known, I would have visited here
> >> before.
> >
> >Howard was very outspoken here as am I.
>
> *I had many spirited email interchanges with Howard. He was also unique in that
> he spent several hours with a new patient doing echocardiograms, apex
> cardiograms, EKGs, etc. himself. So I spent quite a bit of time discussing
> matters in person with him.
It gladdens my heart to read that Howard has been a blessing to you.
> >> I spent some time on your website, and you appear to be quite the character as
> >> well. It would appear your outspoken faith in G-d has drawn considerable
> >> negative reaction from a Goggle search on your name.
> >
> >Yes, I am very outspoken about GOD because to HIM, I owe everything
> >including my present life in this body that has already physically died
> >once at the hands of demon-possessed police officers as witnessed in
> >the light of midday by hundreds of witnesses on 02/03/1997.
>
> *Interesting; a case of being at the wrong place at the wrong time? Or was this
> some kind of demonstration?
Retrospectively, it was all according to GOD's will and plan for me.
> It saddens me to see how vicious the attacks on your faith have been here in
> Usenet. But this is a fairly vicious corner of cyberspace, and such conduct is
> the norm here.
GOD prepared me in many ways beforehand for this.
> >In truth, there is no need to strike out the middle letter of GOD here
> >because there is no possibility that you would play a part in the
> >defamation of HIS name by the tearing of paper since there are only
> >electrons here.
>
> *Old habits die hard. His real name is lost to history due to an over abundance
> of caution about saying it at an inappropriate time. I will reserve comment on
> my personal beliefs in these matters.
HIS real name is as written on our hearts when we have received HIS
love and not what we either write or type.
> >> I am not terribly
> >> concerned about that since many labeled Dr. Wayne a quack as well, and I credit
> >> him with saving my life.
> >
> >Just as they have labelled and mocked my Great Physician, Whom I credit
> >with saving my life:
> >
> >http://HeartMDPhD.com/healer.asp
> >
> >> I am a bit confused about your statement that you do angiograms, but not
> >> angioplasty or stenting. What is the point?
> >
> >Personal choice to not wield a hammer because of knowing that not every
> >problem is a nail.
>
> *Great quote from Abraham Maslow. The actual quote appears at the top of this
> page at my website:
> http://www.logwell.com/tech/servtips/good_tools.html
Yes.
Would add that those who use a hammer all the time are the ones who
will be the most proficient at doing so with the least amount of
collateral damage. For this reason, these folks are needed.
> *I did notice in your FAQ a situation where you suggest that an angiogram was an
> unjustified risk for a particular individual who was unwilling to undergo
> revasculirazation. I was impressed by that.
It is wise to have as much potential for benefit as possible to offset
risks.
> >> For example, I have never had an
> >> angiogram, but I am quite certain I have CAD as a middle aged diabetic.
> >
> >Yes, you are correct that you have CAD.**even** if an invasive
> >cardiologist were to erroneously say that you do not after insisting
> >that your angiogram is normal by his/her eye.
> >
> >> However, I have managed to stay alive despite the dire warnings of the invasive
> >> guys here locally by following Howard's medical regimen. So why bother with an
> >> angiogran when the outcome in a patient like me is almost a foregone conclusion?
> >
> >My answering your question would entail resurrecting the many spirited
> >discussions that Howard and I have had in the past :-)
>
> *Humor me; do a little resurrecting... Do you accept that medical treatment is
> effective in many cases?
Yes.
> If not medical treatment or revascularization, then
> what other (real) options are there?
Revascularization can be further subdivided into to non-invasive (EECP)
and invasive (stenting or surgical).
> >> So if you do not do angioplasty or stenting, what is your preferred treatment
> >> scheme?
> >
> >Depends on the patient after the thoughtful consideration of everything
> >I know about him/her and the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
> >
> >> What do you think about Dr. Wayne's medical treatment approach?
> >
> >It seems to have worked for the patients who sought him out.
>
> *Actually, Wayne had a truly substandard patient population. I was one of the
> healthiest, and I had been told I had heart failure (untrue according to Wayne),
> and I had been told there was a 99.9% chance I needed a bypass. Many of his
> patients had been the victims of multiple stentings, and even multiple bypasses,
> yet he managed to control their disease with medical treatment. It is reported
> that not a single heart attack occurred in his patient population for a period
> exceeding 20 years.
Optimal medical treatment of atherosclerotic vascular disease does
reduce risk of heart attack and strokes.
> >> You
> >> will note that in recent studies, medical treatment is only marginally less
> >> effective than revascularization (and that is with what Dr. Wayne would
> >> characterize as pediatric doses of Beta Blockers and possible an ACE Inhibitor).
> >
> >Goes back to everything looking like a nail to carpenters.
>
> *It is impossible to make heads or tails out of this statement without some
> insight into what you mean. I suspect you are suggesting there are multiple
> treatment schemes and possibly multiple etiologies. Aside from quack cures,
> what else is there beyond revascularization, medical treatment, or praying for
> angoigenisis (I do not buy that silly looking EECP, btw)?
Addressing overlooked sources of vascular inflammation which underlies
atherosclerosis and its progression. EECP is effective in promoting
the growth of collaterals thereby reducing stable angina symptoms.
> *You are probably aware that Howard was convinced that improperly diagnosed
> and/or treated hypertension accounts for a large percentage of angina, and even
> misdiagnosed heart failure. He went so far as to say that conventional
> cardiologists were so bad at recognizing the problem, that the interpretation of
> stress tests was often botched. Any opinion on this?
Howard has been more critical of our colleagues than I have been.
> >> Finally, how does one go about finding non-invasive and/or non-interventional
> >> cardiologists? It would seem the only way to make big money in cardiology is in
> >> the cath lab. I have been unable to find a single cardiologist in my immediate
> >> area who does not think an angiogram is essential.
> >
> >It saddens me to read this.
>
> *It saddens AND angers me.
Would attempt to console you with the understanding that many react
adversely to knowing the truth on both sides. It does take time to
know the truth. Without taking this time, an angiogram becomes
seemingly essential.
> >> Looking forward to hearing more about your take on this matter.
> >
> >You've got it. Hope I have not disappointed you.
> >
> >Perhaps the following on-line article published in the Atlanta
> >community where I reside and practice will give you more insight into
> >how I practice cardiology:
> >
> >http://MabletonGA.OurLittle.net/DreadNought
>
> *This is an article about an old fellow and a battleship. Wrong link?
The article is about someone who is not afflicted with cardiovascular
disease unlike most of his peers who have either succumbed to it or
continue to be suffering from it. If you read his story, you should be
able to understand how he has avoided this overly common ailment.
> >The following link to a recent usenet post may possibly help you
> >overcome your diabetes:
> >
> >http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit/overweight.asp
>
> *I am well aware of this. One of the most profoundly stupid recent developments
> has been the adoption of a carb centered diet by the ADA. You are absolutely
> right about work being an excellent appetite suppressor; my problem is that my
> work has shifted in recent years and it is not as effective as it once was
> (field work vs. lab work). And I sure do enjoy eating...and it shows!
I too enjoy eating but hunger is my friend so I stop eating before I am
full and go to bed hungry... so it does not show on me.
Helping people overcome their being brainwashed to falsely believe that
"hunger is bad" is something I have been compelled to do since 1997:
http://HeartMDPhD.com/wtloss.asp
May GOD continue to heal your heart by curing your diabetes, dear
friend Syd whom I love unconditionally.
Prayerfully in Christ's amazing love,
Andrew <><
ana...@logwell.com
>Would add that those who use a hammer all the time are the ones who
>will be the most proficient at doing so with the least amount of
>collateral damage. For this reason, these folks are needed.
**Perhaps, but I am forced to conclude that angiograms are grossly overused.
>> If not medical treatment or revascularization, then
>> what other (real) options are there?
>
>Revascularization can be further subdivided into to non-invasive (EECP)
>and invasive (stenting or surgical).
**Aha! You are a fan of EECP; I bet you have a machine?
>> >> You
>> >> will note that in recent studies, medical treatment is only marginally less
>> >> effective than revascularization (and that is with what Dr. Wayne would
>> >> characterize as pediatric doses of Beta Blockers and possible an ACE Inhibitor).
>> >
>> >Goes back to everything looking like a nail to carpenters.
**Maybe, but the fact remains that folks given medical treatment fair darn near
as well as those getting surgical revascularization. Howard and I have always
suspected that with non-pediatric doses, medical treatment would look much
better than surgical intervention. Further, many of those studies predate the
latest and greatest drugs. You will note that in countries with some form of
socialized medicine, surgical revascularization is not nearly as common as here
under our profit driven system, yet there is no significant difference in
survival numbers.
>> *It is impossible to make heads or tails out of this statement without some
>> insight into what you mean. I suspect you are suggesting there are multiple
>> treatment schemes and possibly multiple etiologies. Aside from quack cures,
>> what else is there beyond revascularization, medical treatment, or praying for
>> angoigenisis (I do not buy that silly looking EECP, btw)?
>
>Addressing overlooked sources of vascular inflammation which underlies
>atherosclerosis and its progression. EECP is effective in promoting
>the growth of collaterals thereby reducing stable angina symptoms.
**EECP is just too silly to work! I am an engineer, and the underlying
principle just does not wash. What EECP proves is that most any CAD patient if
kept alive long enough will benefit from angiogensis sooner or later. One must
not discount the placebo effect in evaluating the effectiveness of EECP. How
would you ever know if EECP promotes faster angiogenisis than mother nature?
Most of the new vessels are to small to see with an angiogram anyway (one of the
arguments for the angiogram being less than the gold standard it is considered
to be).
>> *You are probably aware that Howard was convinced that improperly diagnosed
>> and/or treated hypertension accounts for a large percentage of angina, and even
>> misdiagnosed heart failure. He went so far as to say that conventional
>> cardiologists were so bad at recognizing the problem, that the interpretation of
>> stress tests was often botched. Any opinion on this?
>
>Howard has been more critical of our colleagues than I have been.
**Hehe, not nearly as critical as I have been. I am persona non gratis in at
least one cardiology practice in Owensboro, Kentucky. It is difficult to look
at the statistics and conclude most cardiologists are not motivated by greed.
You are obviously a different kind of animal, as was Howard.
>> >> Finally, how does one go about finding non-invasive and/or non-interventional
>> >> cardiologists? It would seem the only way to make big money in cardiology is in
>> >> the cath lab. I have been unable to find a single cardiologist in my immediate
>> >> area who does not think an angiogram is essential.
>> >
>> >It saddens me to read this.
>>
>> *It saddens AND angers me.
>
>Would attempt to console you with the understanding that many react
>adversely to knowing the truth on both sides. It does take time to
>know the truth. Without taking this time, an angiogram becomes
>seemingly essential.
**As noted above, the angiogram and angioplasty turned cardiology into a very
profitable specialty. The kindest thing that can be said about most
cardiologists is that they do not know what they do not know. It goes downhill
fast from there...
Hawki
personally...having watched eecp numerous times...I feel the ONLY way it can
work is to provide increased blood supply due to the pressure...when one's
body literally jumps up off the bed...you know that eecp is pumping blood
with more force...
not to mention that those undergoing eecp complain of wicked headaches
during the treatment..
unless someone shows me otherwise...Idon't think there has ever been
angiographic proof of collateral circulation...
this is not placebo tho...
<ana...@logwell.com> wrote in message
news:q3uel2hclup26ts4j...@4ax.com...
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> **Additional Responses Embedded Below:
>
> >Would add that those who use a hammer all the time are the ones who
> >will be the most proficient at doing so with the least amount of
> >collateral damage. For this reason, these folks are needed.
>
> **Perhaps, but I am forced to conclude that angiograms are grossly overused.
That was Howard's opinion too.
> >> If not medical treatment or revascularization, then
> >> what other (real) options are there?
> >
> >Revascularization can be further subdivided into non-invasive (EECP)
> >and invasive (stenting or surgical).
>
> **Aha! You are a fan of EECP;
There is clinical evidence to support it being an option.
> I bet you have a machine?
No.
> >> >> You
> >> >> will note that in recent studies, medical treatment is only marginally less
> >> >> effective than revascularization (and that is with what Dr. Wayne would
> >> >> characterize as pediatric doses of Beta Blockers and possible an ACE Inhibitor).
> >> >
> >> >Goes back to everything looking like a nail to carpenters.
>
> **Maybe, but the fact remains that folks given medical treatment fair darn near
> as well as those getting surgical revascularization. Howard and I have always
> suspected that with non-pediatric doses, medical treatment would look much
> better than surgical intervention. Further, many of those studies predate the
> latest and greatest drugs. You will note that in countries with some form of
> socialized medicine, surgical revascularization is not nearly as common as here
> under our profit driven system, yet there is no significant difference in
> survival numbers.
The patient populations are also different so that it is not clear we
are comparing apples with apples.
> >> *It is impossible to make heads or tails out of this statement without some
> >> insight into what you mean. I suspect you are suggesting there are multiple
> >> treatment schemes and possibly multiple etiologies. Aside from quack cures,
> >> what else is there beyond revascularization, medical treatment, or praying for
> >> angoigenisis (I do not buy that silly looking EECP, btw)?
> >
> >Addressing overlooked sources of vascular inflammation which underlies
> >atherosclerosis and its progression. EECP is effective in promoting
> >the growth of collaterals thereby reducing stable angina symptoms.
>
> **EECP is just too silly to work! I am an engineer, and the underlying
> principle just does not wash.
All is not as it seems. There is reason to believe there is something
more than hemodynamics going on.
> What EECP proves is that most any CAD patient if
> kept alive long enough will benefit from angiogensis sooner or later.
It remains controversal whether the growth in collaterals is size
versus number.
> One must
> not discount the placebo effect in evaluating the effectiveness of EECP. How
> would you ever know if EECP promotes faster angiogenisis than mother nature?
Aside from there being no mother nature, one could compare with
unsynchronized (mock) leg compressions.
> Most of the new vessels are to small to see with an angiogram anyway (one of the
> arguments for the angiogram being less than the gold standard it is considered
> to be).
The angiogram is not used to evaluate the effectiveness of EECP toward
promoting increased collateral growth.
>
> >> *You are probably aware that Howard was convinced that improperly diagnosed
> >> and/or treated hypertension accounts for a large percentage of angina, and even
> >> misdiagnosed heart failure. He went so far as to say that conventional
> >> cardiologists were so bad at recognizing the problem, that the interpretation of
> >> stress tests was often botched. Any opinion on this?
> >
> >Howard has been more critical of our colleagues than I have been.
>
> **Hehe, not nearly as critical as I have been. I am persona non gratis in at
> least one cardiology practice in Owensboro, Kentucky. It is difficult to look
> at the statistics and conclude most cardiologists are not motivated by greed.
Statistics don't really allow us to peer into another's heart.
> You are obviously a different kind of animal, as was Howard.
Many thanks and praises to GOD for your kind words. The glory belongs
to HIM.
> >> >> Finally, how does one go about finding non-invasive and/or non-interventional
> >> >> cardiologists? It would seem the only way to make big money in cardiology is in
> >> >> the cath lab. I have been unable to find a single cardiologist in my immediate
> >> >> area who does not think an angiogram is essential.
> >> >
> >> >It saddens me to read this.
> >>
> >> *It saddens AND angers me.
> >
> >Would attempt to console you with the understanding that many react
> >adversely to knowing the truth on both sides. It does take time to
> >know the truth. Without taking this time, an angiogram becomes
> >seemingly essential.
>
> **As noted above, the angiogram and angioplasty turned cardiology into a very
> profitable specialty.
There sadly remains a growing demand for both procedures. In truth,
this growth is not being driven by cardiologists but by a growing
prevalence of cardiovascular disease.
> The kindest thing that can be said about most
> cardiologists is that they do not know what they do not know. It goes downhill
> fast from there...
We are doing the best we can to stem the tide on our dime:
It is my hope that my choice to remain openly Christian does not offend
you.
Would ask you to forgive all my iniquities if I have offended you by my
open relationship with the risen Christ Jesus.
May GOD continue to heal your heart by curing your diabetes, dear
neighbor Syd whom I love unconditionally.
ana...@logwell.com
Clinic did a study with placebo operations. I think this predated CABG
(bypassing), but involved a long since discarded procedure where irritants were
placed on the heart wall in the hopes the irritation would promote some
improvement. The procedure itself was bad enough, but produced improvements
nearly as good as modern CABG, presumably by placebo effect. Interestingly, the
placebo procedures, complete with actual surgery scars, worked just as well
(this could not be done under present ethical guidelines, I suspect). So do not
tell me that placebo effect is not profound, and present in the oddest of
circumstances. (From memory; do not have a cite available.)
There is little doubt in my mind that the improvements seen with EECP are indeed
placebo effect. Why do you believe placebo effect is NOT involved?
One major threshold would be to explain how the relatively short lived
treatments could promote angiogenisis. I do not doubt it causes headache in
many patients; heck it gives me a headache to watch the poor victims...err
patients flopping around like fish out of water.
ana...@logwell.com
On 12 Nov 2006 13:23:18 -0800, "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <lov...@thetruth.com>
wrote:
>There is clinical evidence to support it being an option.
>
>> I bet you have a machine?
>
>No.
***I am surprised and pleased to hear this. There is indeed clinical evidence,
but I fear it is merely evidence for the power of placebo.
>> >> >> You
>> >> >> will note that in recent studies, medical treatment is only marginally less
>> >> >> effective than revascularization (and that is with what Dr. Wayne would
>> >> >> characterize as pediatric doses of Beta Blockers and possible an ACE Inhibitor).
>> >> >
>> >> >Goes back to everything looking like a nail to carpenters.
>>
>> **Maybe, but the fact remains that folks given medical treatment fair darn near
>> as well as those getting surgical revascularization. Howard and I have always
>> suspected that with non-pediatric doses, medical treatment would look much
>> better than surgical intervention. Further, many of those studies predate the
>> latest and greatest drugs. You will note that in countries with some form of
>> socialized medicine, surgical revascularization is not nearly as common as here
>> under our profit driven system, yet there is no significant difference in
>> survival numbers.
>
>The patient populations are also different so that it is not clear we
>are comparing apples with apples.
***Yes, the patient populations in the various studies are different as well.
There is obvious selection bias where the best patients get diverted into the
surgical revascularization arm of many of these studies. Even with the lousiest
patients getting the medical treatment, medical treatment is as good or nearly
as good as the surgical intervention. In those meta studies looking at big
samplings of patients, it is obvious the interventional cardiologists have
selected the cream of the crop. Those deemed not eligible for stenting or
bypassing are generally the sad cases.
>> >> *It is impossible to make heads or tails out of this statement without some
>> >> insight into what you mean. I suspect you are suggesting there are multiple
>> >> treatment schemes and possibly multiple etiologies. Aside from quack cures,
>> >> what else is there beyond revascularization, medical treatment, or praying for
>> >> angoigenisis (I do not buy that silly looking EECP, btw)?
>> >
>> >Addressing overlooked sources of vascular inflammation which underlies
>> >atherosclerosis and its progression. EECP is effective in promoting
>> >the growth of collaterals thereby reducing stable angina symptoms.
>>
>> **EECP is just too silly to work! I am an engineer, and the underlying
>> principle just does not wash.
>
>All is not as it seems. There is reason to believe there is something
>more than hemodynamics going on.
***Of course there is....placebo effect!
>> What EECP proves is that most any CAD patient if
>> kept alive long enough will benefit from angiogensis sooner or later.
>
>It remains controversal whether the growth in collaterals is size
>versus number.
>
>> One must
>> not discount the placebo effect in evaluating the effectiveness of EECP. How
>> would you ever know if EECP promotes faster angiogenisis than mother nature?
>
>Aside from there being no mother nature, one could compare with
>unsynchronized (mock) leg compressions.
***Figure of speech; of course there is no "mother nature". The only way such a
study could work would be to find a group of test subjects who were total
idiots. They would have to believe the unsynchronized compressions were proper,
and it is doubtful an intelligent test subject would not figure out something
was amiss. I can think of no obvious way to test my hypothesis that the entire
thing is placebo effect. That of course does not eliminate the reality that
EECP has helped some patients just as the old sugar pills available in various
colors cured a host of diseases. Most doctors doing studies could benefit from
Clever Hans and Occam's Razor.
>> Most of the new vessels are to small to see with an angiogram anyway (one of the
>> arguments for the angiogram being less than the gold standard it is considered
>> to be).
>
>The angiogram is not used to evaluate the effectiveness of EECP toward
>promoting increased collateral growth.
***Of course they tried to find em that way before giving up. But we know the
angoigram procedure has resolution limits, so not finding em means little.
Incidentally, one of the hats I wear around here is that of HP and RSO, and I
can tell you that it is common practice for cath lab personnel to conveniently
forget to wear their badges so as not to exceed the occupational exposure limits
(not relevant to our discussion, but interesting).
>> >> *You are probably aware that Howard was convinced that improperly diagnosed
>> >> and/or treated hypertension accounts for a large percentage of angina, and even
>> >> misdiagnosed heart failure. He went so far as to say that conventional
>> >> cardiologists were so bad at recognizing the problem, that the interpretation of
>> >> stress tests was often botched. Any opinion on this?
>> >
>> >Howard has been more critical of our colleagues than I have been.
>>
>> **Hehe, not nearly as critical as I have been. I am persona non gratis in at
>> least one cardiology practice in Owensboro, Kentucky. It is difficult to look
>> at the statistics and conclude most cardiologists are not motivated by greed.
>
>Statistics don't really allow us to peer into another's heart.
***True, but we are forced to conclude one of a couple of things, neither of
which a doctor should be proud of.
>> You are obviously a different kind of animal, as was Howard.
>
>Many thanks and praises to GOD for your kind words. The glory belongs
>to HIM.
***I would be fibbing if I said your faith based medical practice does not give
me some pause for concern. But in discussing things with you, and examining
your website FAQ section, I find you are better grounded in science than the
vast majority of doctors I have encountered. I find I am liking you more all
the time!
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
>
> >There is clinical evidence to support it being an option.
> >
> >> I bet you have a machine?
> >
> >No.
>
> ***I am surprised and pleased to hear this. There is indeed clinical evidence,
> but I fear it is merely evidence for the power of placebo.
No. There is research data suggesting that it is more than just
placebo.
> >> >> >> You
> >> >> >> will note that in recent studies, medical treatment is only marginally less
> >> >> >> effective than revascularization (and that is with what Dr. Wayne would
> >> >> >> characterize as pediatric doses of Beta Blockers and possible an ACE Inhibitor).
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Goes back to everything looking like a nail to carpenters.
> >>
> >> **Maybe, but the fact remains that folks given medical treatment fair darn near
> >> as well as those getting surgical revascularization. Howard and I have always
> >> suspected that with non-pediatric doses, medical treatment would look much
> >> better than surgical intervention. Further, many of those studies predate the
> >> latest and greatest drugs. You will note that in countries with some form of
> >> socialized medicine, surgical revascularization is not nearly as common as here
> >> under our profit driven system, yet there is no significant difference in
> >> survival numbers.
> >
> >The patient populations are also different so that it is not clear we
> >are comparing apples with apples.
>
> ***Yes, the patient populations in the various studies are different as well.
> There is obvious selection bias where the best patients get diverted into the
> surgical revascularization arm of many of these studies. Even with the lousiest
> patients getting the medical treatment, medical treatment is as good or nearly
> as good as the surgical intervention. In those meta studies looking at big
> samplings of patients, it is obvious the interventional cardiologists have
> selected the cream of the crop. Those deemed not eligible for stenting or
> bypassing are generally the sad cases.
We each have our respective biases that can not be settled by
speculation on either side.
> >> >> *It is impossible to make heads or tails out of this statement without some
> >> >> insight into what you mean. I suspect you are suggesting there are multiple
> >> >> treatment schemes and possibly multiple etiologies. Aside from quack cures,
> >> >> what else is there beyond revascularization, medical treatment, or praying for
> >> >> angoigenisis (I do not buy that silly looking EECP, btw)?
> >> >
> >> >Addressing overlooked sources of vascular inflammation which underlies
> >> >atherosclerosis and its progression. EECP is effective in promoting
> >> >the growth of collaterals thereby reducing stable angina symptoms.
> >>
> >> **EECP is just too silly to work! I am an engineer, and the underlying
> >> principle just does not wash.
> >
> >All is not as it seems. There is reason to believe there is something
> >more than hemodynamics going on.
>
> ***Of course there is....placebo effect!
That would be less than hemodynamics. There are measurable improvements
that persist far longer than either placebo or hemodynamic effects.
Here is a good summary:
> >> What EECP proves is that most any CAD patient if
> >> kept alive long enough will benefit from angiogensis sooner or later.
> >
> >It remains controversal whether the growth in collaterals is size
> >versus number.
> >
> >> One must
> >> not discount the placebo effect in evaluating the effectiveness of EECP. How
> >> would you ever know if EECP promotes faster angiogenisis than mother nature?
> >
> >Aside from there being no mother nature, one could compare with
> >unsynchronized (mock) leg compressions.
>
> ***Figure of speech; of course there is no "mother nature".
There are those around here who believe in Mother Nature more than in
GOD.
These folks would promote Darwin's theory of evolution to law.
Charles Darwin capitalized "Mother Nature" and used it as more than a
figure of speech in framing his theory of evolution in his book, Origin
of the Species.
> The only way such a
> study could work would be to find a group of test subjects who were total
> idiots.
No. They would be paid for their time. Since it is non-invasive there
is not risk even if the compressions are not synchronized to their
cardiogram so that there would be no objections from IRBs overseeing
such work.
> They would have to believe the unsynchronized compressions were proper,
> and it is doubtful an intelligent test subject would not figure out something
> was amiss.
Actually, because most people don't feel their heartbeats when they are
at rest, they would not figure out something was amiss.
> I can think of no obvious way to test my hypothesis that the entire
> thing is placebo effect. That of course does not eliminate the reality that
> EECP has helped some patients just as the old sugar pills available in various
> colors cured a host of diseases. Most doctors doing studies could benefit from
> Clever Hans and Occam's Razor.
There are the canine studies that can not be ignored. Here is one
recent example:
> >> Most of the new vessels are to small to see with an angiogram anyway (one of the
> >> arguments for the angiogram being less than the gold standard it is considered
> >> to be).
> >
> >The angiogram is not used to evaluate the effectiveness of EECP toward
> >promoting increased collateral growth.
>
> ***Of course they tried to find em that way before giving up. But we know the
> angoigram procedure has resolution limits, so not finding em means little.
> Incidentally, one of the hats I wear around here is that of HP and RSO, and I
> can tell you that it is common practice for cath lab personnel to conveniently
> forget to wear their badges so as not to exceed the occupational exposure limits
> (not relevant to our discussion, but interesting).
Such is the self-sacrificing love that some people have for serving
people. All praises and glory to GOD, Who created them.
> >> >> *You are probably aware that Howard was convinced that improperly diagnosed
> >> >> and/or treated hypertension accounts for a large percentage of angina, and even
> >> >> misdiagnosed heart failure. He went so far as to say that conventional
> >> >> cardiologists were so bad at recognizing the problem, that the interpretation of
> >> >> stress tests was often botched. Any opinion on this?
> >> >
> >> >Howard has been more critical of our colleagues than I have been.
> >>
> >> **Hehe, not nearly as critical as I have been. I am persona non gratis in at
> >> least one cardiology practice in Owensboro, Kentucky. It is difficult to look
> >> at the statistics and conclude most cardiologists are not motivated by greed.
> >
> >Statistics don't really allow us to peer into another's heart.
>
> ***True, but we are forced to conclude one of a couple of things, neither of
> which a doctor should be proud of.
Those who are employees should either remain subordinate or be willing
to accept the consequences of being insubordinate in standing up for
the truth. The latter is typically termination as was the case for me
soon after 9/11/2001, which I gladly accepted to glorify my Maker, who
is the truth. Instead of judging those who choose to remain
subordinate even when it means departure from the truth, it remains my
choice to refrain and love them instead.
> >> You are obviously a different kind of animal, as was Howard.
> >
> >Many thanks and praises to GOD for your kind words. The glory belongs
> >to HIM.
>
> ***I would be fibbing if I said your faith based medical practice does not give
> me some pause for concern. But in discussing things with you, and examining
> your website FAQ section, I find you are better grounded in science than the
> vast majority of doctors I have encountered.
GOD made me in the shape of a scientist **and** a physician.
HIS being LORD of my life means receiving all the amazing blessings
that come from being in HIS will. It is a LORD-based life that I have
from placing my faith in HIM. My being a physician is only a small
part of this LORD-based life.
> I find I am liking you more all the time!
It is my hope that what attracts you is the uncovered light emanating
from my heart and not the physical shape of this lump of clay, which
changes per HIS will.
What is in my heart would give you eternal life if you ask for the same
from GOD.
Joe Doe
ana...@logwell.com wrote:
th his work.
>
> Do any of the denizens of this group know of any like-minded cardiologists in
> the eastern part of the US, preferably in the southeast US? These would be
> doctors that avoid catheter techniques unless absolutely necessary, and who
> favor medical treatment of CAD or angina whenever possible.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Syd H. Levine
> s...@logwell.com
Check out William Davis's site at www.trackyourplaque.org and his blog at
http://heartscanblog.blogspot.com/. He is on a crusade to use calcium
scores as a tracking tool but his therapeutic approach seems to be in
the direction you seek. I have no knowledge of the guy and only know
about him through his web presence and book "Track your Plaque. He is
obviously trying to make a little money on his approach through his site
but much of the information on the blog seems sensible and biased
towards a non interventional approach.
Also check out Richard Fogoros's pages on about.com he is generally
very balanced has his ear to the ground even though he is retired (his
columns had negative info on DES before any of the major studies were
released i.e he brought up the possibility of late thrombosis very early
simply based on clinical gossip). Anyway, he has a positive view on
EECP for angina and has a nice contrast of interventional vs non
interventional approaches. Both these topics are adressed on the first
two links at the bottom of the page called "Secret Cardiology"
http://heartdisease.about.com/od/reducingcardiacrisk/a/secretcardiolog.ht
m
Roland
ana...@logwell.com
wrote:
>No. There is research data suggesting that it is more than just
>placebo.
I have seen much of it, and it sure looks like placebo effect is the principle
mechanism at work. My engineering intuition tells me EECP is nonsense. But I
have no horse in this race, and I hope I am wrong and it proves to be a wildly
successful treatment. I counsel against the holding of one's breath in this
matter, however...
>> ***Yes, the patient populations in the various studies are different as well.
>> There is obvious selection bias where the best patients get diverted into the
>> surgical revascularization arm of many of these studies. Even with the lousiest
>> patients getting the medical treatment, medical treatment is as good or nearly
>> as good as the surgical intervention. In those meta studies looking at big
>> samplings of patients, it is obvious the interventional cardiologists have
>> selected the cream of the crop. Those deemed not eligible for stenting or
>> bypassing are generally the sad cases.
>
>We each have our respective biases that can not be settled by
>speculation on either side.
But no speculation is involved in the simple reality that patients fare as well
on proper medical treatment as on heroic measures such as stenting or CABG. And
it hurts and costs so much less !
>That would be less than hemodynamics. There are measurable improvements
>that persist far longer than either placebo or hemodynamic effects.
Never underestimate placebo; just about any disease you want to discuss has been
cured by it at one time or another. And nobody is immune to it, not even a
seasoned skeptic like me.
>These folks would promote Darwin's theory of evolution to law.
As a scientist do you accept that evolution is real and merely the manifestation
of G-d's will (substitute words of you choosing)? Quite frankly, I would be
concerned about anyone's capacity for logical thought who outright rejects
evolution. Being a geophysicist, I have a fair familiarity with the fossil
record and there are no holes in the record as often claimed by creationists.
However, if you concede evolution is part of His plan, I would certainly have
less concern.
>> Incidentally, one of the hats I wear around here is that of HP and RSO, and I
>> can tell you that it is common practice for cath lab personnel to conveniently
>> forget to wear their badges so as not to exceed the occupational exposure limits
>> (not relevant to our discussion, but interesting).
>
>Such is the self-sacrificing love that some people have for serving
>people. All praises and glory to GOD, Who created them.
Interesting take. Since the doses involved are probably within the hormetic
range, I do not worry too much about such practices, but the regulators sure get
upset. Interestingly, in multiple studies, radiologists live longer than other
doctors, and the population in general. So do air crews who receive elevated
doses as a result of high altitude exposure to cosmic rays.
>> ***True, but we are forced to conclude one of a couple of things, neither of
>> which a doctor should be proud of.
>
>Those who are employees should either remain subordinate or be willing
>to accept the consequences of being insubordinate in standing up for
>the truth. The latter is typically termination as was the case for me
>soon after 9/11/2001, which I gladly accepted to glorify my Maker, who
>is the truth. Instead of judging those who choose to remain
>subordinate even when it means departure from the truth, it remains my
>choice to refrain and love them instead.
About five years ago, I sat in Dr. Gupta's office in Owensboro, Kentucky (an
invasive and interventional cardiologist), and was subjected to a explanation
about the irregularities on my stress test, and my echocardiogram. I was told
to report to the cath lab before the week was out, or face the high probability
of death. I was further told there was a 99% chance CABG was my only chance of
living any length of time. Utter nonsense, and really nothing more than medical
terrorism (the working title of Howard's last book was Medical Terrorism, btw,
but the publisher nixed it). It is very difficult for me not to criticize
cardiologists like Dr, Gupta. You will be amused to know Dr. Gupta went so far
as hiring a local attorney to contact me after he found out I traveled to San
Diego. Not much to love there...
>> I find I am liking you more all the time!
>
>It is my hope that what attracts you is the uncovered light emanating
>from my heart and not the physical shape of this lump of clay, which
>changes per HIS will.
Heh, well you are cute (my soul mate says you look like you are about 12), but
it certainly is not the ole lump of clay aspect that makes you interesting. I
thought I had found the strangest cardiologist in the universe in Howard, but
you may give him a run for the money!
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> Andrew wrote:
>
> >No. There is research data suggesting that it is more than just
> >placebo.
>
> I have seen much of it, and it sure looks like placebo effect is the principle
> mechanism at work. My engineering intuition tells me EECP is nonsense. But I
> have no horse in this race, and I hope I am wrong and it proves to be a wildly
> successful treatment. I counsel against the holding of one's breath in this
> matter, however...
Actually, the placebo effect is not a mechanism.
> >> ***Yes, the patient populations in the various studies are different as well.
> >> There is obvious selection bias where the best patients get diverted into the
> >> surgical revascularization arm of many of these studies. Even with the lousiest
> >> patients getting the medical treatment, medical treatment is as good or nearly
> >> as good as the surgical intervention. In those meta studies looking at big
> >> samplings of patients, it is obvious the interventional cardiologists have
> >> selected the cream of the crop. Those deemed not eligible for stenting or
> >> bypassing are generally the sad cases.
> >
> >We each have our respective biases that can not be settled by
> >speculation on either side.
>
> But no speculation is involved in the simple reality that patients fare as well
> on proper medical treatment as on heroic measures such as stenting or CABG.
That depends on the patient.
> And
> it hurts and costs so much less !
Again, that depends on the patient.
> >That would be less than hemodynamics. There are measurable improvements
> >that persist far longer than either placebo or hemodynamic effects.
>
> Never underestimate placebo;
I don't.
> just about any disease you want to discuss has been
> cured by it at one time or another.
That would be GOD and not placebo.
> And nobody is immune to it, not even a
> seasoned skeptic like me.
"My LORD **and** my GOD!" -- Archetypal skeptic "doubting" Thomas upon
seeing the risen Christ Jesus.
> >These folks would promote Darwin's theory of evolution to law.
>
> As a scientist do you accept that evolution is real and merely the manifestation
> of G-d's will (substitute words of you choosing)?
Evolution as posited by Charles Darwin remains an unproven theory built
on the false assumption that things happen by chance (aka luck,
fortune, Mother Nature) and not by GOD.
In the Holy Spirit, I know that nothing happens by chance (Proverbs
16:33).
> Quite frankly, I would be
> concerned about anyone's capacity for logical thought who outright rejects
> evolution. Being a geophysicist, I have a fair familiarity with the fossil
> record and there are no holes in the record as often claimed by creationists.
There are no transitional fossils.
> However, if you concede evolution is part of His plan, I would certainly have
> less concern.
"The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the
LORD." (Proverbs 16:33)
> >> Incidentally, one of the hats I wear around here is that of HP and RSO, and I
> >> can tell you that it is common practice for cath lab personnel to conveniently
> >> forget to wear their badges so as not to exceed the occupational exposure limits
> >> (not relevant to our discussion, but interesting).
> >
> >Such is the self-sacrificing love that some people have for serving
> >people. All praises and glory to GOD, Who created them.
>
> Interesting take. Since the doses involved are probably within the hormetic
> range, I do not worry too much about such practices, but the regulators sure get
> upset. Interestingly, in multiple studies, radiologists live longer than other
> doctors, and the population in general. So do air crews who receive elevated
> doses as a result of high altitude exposure to cosmic rays.
GOD's blessing for self-sacrificing folks.
> >> ***True, but we are forced to conclude one of a couple of things, neither of
> >> which a doctor should be proud of.
> >
> >Those who are employees should either remain subordinate or be willing
> >to accept the consequences of being insubordinate in standing up for
> >the truth. The latter is typically termination as was the case for me
> >soon after 9/11/2001, which I gladly accepted to glorify my Maker, who
> >is the truth. Instead of judging those who choose to remain
> >subordinate even when it means departure from the truth, it remains my
> >choice to refrain and love them instead.
>
> About five years ago, I sat in Dr. Gupta's office in Owensboro, Kentucky (an
> invasive and interventional cardiologist), and was subjected to a explanation
> about the irregularities on my stress test, and my echocardiogram. I was told
> to report to the cath lab before the week was out, or face the high probability
> of death. I was further told there was a 99% chance CABG was my only chance of
> living any length of time. Utter nonsense, and really nothing more than medical
> terrorism (the working title of Howard's last book was Medical Terrorism, btw,
> but the publisher nixed it). It is very difficult for me not to criticize
> cardiologists like Dr, Gupta. You will be amused to know Dr. Gupta went so far
> as hiring a local attorney to contact me after he found out I traveled to San
> Diego. Not much to love there...
It remains my choice to refrain from judging others per the kind and
helpful suggestion of LORD Jesus Christ (Matthew 7:1-2) and love them
unconditionally instead.
> >> I find I am liking you more all the time!
> >
> >It is my hope that what attracts you is the uncovered light emanating
> >from my heart and not the physical shape of this lump of clay, which
> >changes per HIS will.
>
> Heh, well you are cute (my soul mate says you look like you are about 12), but
> it certainly is not the ole lump of clay aspect that makes you interesting.
All praises and glory belongs to GOD, Whom I love with all my heart,
soul, mind, and strength:
http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit/fear.asp
> I
> thought I had found the strangest cardiologist in the universe in Howard, but
> you may give him a run for the money!
Just as my LORD is not of this world, I am no longer of this world.
In the Holy Spirit, I know that if you choose to lose all your visceral
adipose tissue (VAT) by eating less down to the optimal amount, which
is by GOD's design, HE will cure your diabetes.
ana...@logwell.com
wrote:
>ana...@logwell.com wrote:
>> Andrew wrote:
>>
>> >No. There is research data suggesting that it is more than just
>> >placebo.
>>
>> I have seen much of it, and it sure looks like placebo effect is the principle
>> mechanism at work. My engineering intuition tells me EECP is nonsense. But I
>> have no horse in this race, and I hope I am wrong and it proves to be a wildly
>> successful treatment. I counsel against the holding of one's breath in this
>> matter, however...
>
>Actually, the placebo effect is not a mechanism.
We are now arguing semantics. As I said, my engineering background informs me
to be skeptical about EECP, but I hope I am wrong.
>
>> >> ***Yes, the patient populations in the various studies are different as well.
>> >> There is obvious selection bias where the best patients get diverted into the
>> >> surgical revascularization arm of many of these studies. Even with the lousiest
>> >> patients getting the medical treatment, medical treatment is as good or nearly
>> >> as good as the surgical intervention. In those meta studies looking at big
>> >> samplings of patients, it is obvious the interventional cardiologists have
>> >> selected the cream of the crop. Those deemed not eligible for stenting or
>> >> bypassing are generally the sad cases.
>> >
>> >We each have our respective biases that can not be settled by
>> >speculation on either side.
>>
>> But no speculation is involved in the simple reality that patients fare as well
>> on proper medical treatment as on heroic measures such as stenting or CABG.
>
>That depends on the patient.
Of course there are optimal treatments for each patient, but as a general
observation the above statement is true. Too damn many invasive procedures are
being run in the US for the sake of profit.
>
>> And
>> it hurts and costs so much less !
>
>Again, that depends on the patient.
I am pretty sure that laying one's chest open hurts worse than taking a pill.
But I am overly sensitive that way...
>
>There are no transitional fossils.
>
Absolutely untrue. I will take you fossil hunting someday. Gould has written
about this myth at length.
>
>In the Holy Spirit, I know that if you choose to lose all your visceral
>adipose tissue (VAT) by eating less down to the optimal amount, which
>is by GOD's design, HE will cure your diabetes.
I certainly have plenty of VAT to lose. However, I would point out there are
skinny folks with Type II, so loosing all your VAT is not a certain cure.
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
>Andrew wrote:
> >ana...@logwell.com wrote:
> >> Andrew wrote:
> >>
> >> >No. There is research data suggesting that it is more than just
> >> >placebo.
> >>
> >> I have seen much of it, and it sure looks like placebo effect is the principle
> >> mechanism at work. My engineering intuition tells me EECP is nonsense. But I
> >> have no horse in this race, and I hope I am wrong and it proves to be a wildly
> >> successful treatment. I counsel against the holding of one's breath in this
> >> matter, however...
> >
> >Actually, the placebo effect is not a mechanism.
>
> We are now arguing semantics. As I said, my engineering background informs me
> to be skeptical about EECP, but I hope I am wrong.
GOD is infinitely greater than any engineer and in charge of all things
including what you would call "the placebo effect."
> >> >> ***Yes, the patient populations in the various studies are different as well.
> >> >> There is obvious selection bias where the best patients get diverted into the
> >> >> surgical revascularization arm of many of these studies. Even with the lousiest
> >> >> patients getting the medical treatment, medical treatment is as good or nearly
> >> >> as good as the surgical intervention. In those meta studies looking at big
> >> >> samplings of patients, it is obvious the interventional cardiologists have
> >> >> selected the cream of the crop. Those deemed not eligible for stenting or
> >> >> bypassing are generally the sad cases.
> >> >
> >> >We each have our respective biases that can not be settled by
> >> >speculation on either side.
> >>
> >> But no speculation is involved in the simple reality that patients fare as well
> >> on proper medical treatment as on heroic measures such as stenting or CABG.
> >
> >That depends on the patient.
>
> Of course there are optimal treatments for each patient, but as a general
> observation the above statement is true. Too damn many invasive procedures are
> being run in the US for the sake of profit.
The cardiologist does not make a profit from sending someone to
surgery.
> >> And
> >> it hurts and costs so much less !
> >
> >Again, that depends on the patient.
>
> I am pretty sure that laying one's chest open hurts worse than taking a pill.
> But I am overly sensitive that way...
Not under general anesthesia.
> >There are no transitional fossils.
>
> Absolutely untrue.
That's not what I discern.
There have also been no newly emergent species since Origin of the
Species was published by Charles Darwin in 1859 which is some nearly
147 years ago. The theory predicted an ongoing process. It has failed
in this prediction because all that has been seen since 147 years ago
are extinctions and no new emergences.
> I will take you fossil hunting someday. Gould has written
> about this myth at length.
It is existence and not non-existence that would be mythological.
> >
> >In the Holy Spirit, I know that if you choose to lose all your visceral
> >adipose tissue (VAT) by eating less down to the optimal amount, which
> >is by GOD's design, HE will cure your diabetes.
>
> I certainly have plenty of VAT to lose. However, I would point out there are
> skinny folks with Type II, so loosing all your VAT is not a certain cure.
There are people with skinny arms and legs with type-2 diabetes. On
closer examination, these folks still have significant amounts of VAT.
Even a single ounce of VAT is pathological and potentially significant
especially if a person has insulin resistance already.
Are you familiar with counting the omer ?
If you are, then you should know that by GOD's design, the omer is the
optimal amount of food for everyone.
ana...@logwell.com
wrote:
>GOD is infinitely greater than any engineer and in charge of all things
>including what you would call "the placebo effect."
And I would not argue otherwise.
>
>The cardiologist does not make a profit from sending someone to
>surgery.
Now you are pulling my leg. First, the invasive cath based interventions are
what has transformed cardiology into an incredibly profitable specialty.
Second, if you are not getting a referral fee for CABGs you send to the surgeon,
you are getting ripped off man (in the words of Cheech and Chong). But
seriously, PCI and to a lesser extent CABG referrals fees make invasive
treatments seem like a really good idea to way too many cardiologists.
>
>> >> And
>> >> it hurts and costs so much less !
>> >
>> >Again, that depends on the patient.
>>
>> I am pretty sure that laying one's chest open hurts worse than taking a pill.
>> But I am overly sensitive that way...
>
>Not under general anesthesia.
You are pulling my leg again. First general anesthetic carries its own risks,
and second, I have never heard of a CABG victim without some discomfort, and
tons of inconvenience. Some die, and that is pretty dern inconvenient. How
many of your angiogram patients jump up and declare how much fun that little
exercise has been?
>
>> >There are no transitional fossils.
>>
>> Absolutely untrue.
>
>That's not what I discern.
You can find them yourself. I have been a rockhound for 50 years, and there are
transitional forms found every day.
>
>There have also been no newly emergent species since Origin of the
>Species was published by Charles Darwin in 1859 which is some nearly
>147 years ago. The theory predicted an ongoing process. It has failed
>in this prediction because all that has been seen since 147 years ago
>are extinctions and no new emergences.
Untrue. Speciation is an ongoing process easily discernible to any observant
individual. There are scores of example of observed steps toward the emergence
of new species (there is a funny one about an insect that had developed a taste
for boring into lead covered telephone cables, and several involving transitions
seen in city dwelling species).
>
>Are you familiar with counting the omer ?
>
I am just becoming aware of this as a result of your website. Fascinating
concept in its simplicity.
Ace Berserker
1) Consider why Chung, ostensibly a 'practicing cardiologist', has the
time to post to Usenet literally hundreds of times a day - every day:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/about
Note his use of multiple nyms/e mail addresses in order to evade the
filters of those who have asked him repeatedly to stop cross-posting
off topic religious diatribes to myriad newsgroups.
2) Ask yourself why this 'professional' is carrying out personal
vendettas on his website:
http://HeartMDPhD.com/Convicts
3) Consider why not ONE other legitimate cardiologist bothers to post
in SMC any more.
4) Consider why a rational, working professional would post private
correspondence from a former employer on Usenet:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.diabetes/msg/d559bc684dd89f72?dmode=source
5) Consider why the libelous statements about Dr. Hildner (see above)
are still on his website, blocked from public view by a password
(issued ONLY by Chung for a $777 "donation").
6) Consider that not one shred of documentation exists corroborating
Chung's story of being mauled by "demon-possessed police" in 1997,
precipitating his sudden and drastic religious perv... uh, CONVersion.
Feel free to poke through the Google Groups archives and realize what
kind of person you're engaging with.
ana...@logwell.com
>Syd -
>
>1) Consider why Chung, ostensibly a 'practicing cardiologist', has the
>time to post to Usenet literally hundreds of times a day - every day:
>
>http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/about
He types fast? Why would you care how he uses his time?
>
>Note his use of multiple nyms/e mail addresses in order to evade the
>filters of those who have asked him repeatedly to stop cross-posting
>off topic religious diatribes to myriad newsgroups.
>
>2) Ask yourself why this 'professional' is carrying out personal
>vendettas on his website:
>
>http://HeartMDPhD.com/Convicts
Big deal. Considering the hate speech I have seen in here directed at him, that
seems mild.
>
>3) Consider why not ONE other legitimate cardiologist bothers to post
>in SMC any more.
I have known exactly two cardiologists out of many who would even take the time
to communicate directly with the public. Most doctors are self-important ego
freaks; at least Chung takes the time to try to be helpful.
>
>4) Consider why a rational, working professional would post private
>correspondence from a former employer on Usenet:
>
>http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.diabetes/msg/d559bc684dd89f72?dmode=source
Very interesting letter. It is transparent as glass, and is nothing more than a
thinly veiled attempt to intimidate this young man. I have no idea what the
facts of the original dispute may have been, but I do not need to know them to
recognize what this older doctor was trying to do (apparently the hospital
wanted Chung to follow some record entry procedure he perceived to be
dishonest).
>
>5) Consider why the libelous statements about Dr. Hildner (see above)
>are still on his website, blocked from public view by a password
>(issued ONLY by Chung for a $777 "donation").
What is it to you?
>
>6) Consider that not one shred of documentation exists corroborating
>Chung's story of being mauled by "demon-possessed police" in 1997,
>precipitating his sudden and drastic religious perv... uh, CONVersion.
>
What is it to you?
>
>Feel free to poke through the Google Groups archives and realize what
>kind of person you're engaging with.
I am pretty good at making my own decisions about things; have been doing it
much longer than you have been alive, I am sure. Perhaps you have a
constructive recommendation for a doctor in the southeast not blindly dedicated
to invasive / interventional cardiology? I am here because my doctor passed
away, and Dr. Chung is at least willing to treat patients who are unmoved by PCI
or CABG options.
Why in the world do you hate this young doctor so much?
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> Andrew wrote:
>
> >GOD is infinitely greater than any engineer and in charge of all things
> >including what you would call "the placebo effect."
>
> And I would not argue otherwise.
>
> >
> >The cardiologist does not make a profit from sending someone to
> >surgery.
>
> Now you are pulling my leg.
No, I am not.
> First, the invasive cath based interventions are
> what has transformed cardiology into an incredibly profitable specialty.
Interventional cardiology is not surgery.
> Second, if you are not getting a referral fee for CABGs you send to the surgeon,
> you are getting ripped off man (in the words of Cheech and Chong).
I am not nor do I know of anyone who is.
> But
> seriously, PCI and to a lesser extent CABG referrals fees make invasive
> treatments seem like a really good idea to way too many cardiologists.
Nor referral fees for PCI either.
> >> >> And
> >> >> it hurts and costs so much less !
> >> >
> >> >Again, that depends on the patient.
> >>
> >> I am pretty sure that laying one's chest open hurts worse than taking a pill.
> >> But I am overly sensitive that way...
> >
> >Not under general anesthesia.
>
> You are pulling my leg again.
No. There should be neither pain nor awareness of anything during
general anesthesia.
> First general anesthetic carries its own risks,
> and second, I have never heard of a CABG victim without some discomfort
Not during the procedure.
> , and
> tons of inconvenience. Some die, and that is pretty dern inconvenient. How
> many of your angiogram patients jump up and declare how much fun that little
> exercise has been?
Sarcasm aside, this would be the case for most invasive testing
procedures from colonoscopy to bone marrow biopsy.
> >> >There are no transitional fossils.
> >>
> >> Absolutely untrue.
> >
> >That's not what I discern.
>
> You can find them yourself. I have been a rockhound for 50 years, and there are
> transitional forms found every day.
Incomplete fossils of juvenile creatures or creatures that had acquired
deformities during their lifetime from either injuries or disease can
and have been mistaken for transitional forms.
> >There have also been no newly emergent species since Origin of the
> >Species was published by Charles Darwin in 1859 which is some nearly
> >147 years ago. The theory predicted an ongoing process. It has failed
> >in this prediction because all that has been seen since 147 years ago
> >are extinctions and no new emergences.
>
> Untrue.
You do the math with the current rate of extinctions subtracted from to
the current rate of speciation, the result is a negative number when
Darwin's TOE predicted a positive number.
> Speciation is an ongoing process easily discernible to any observant
> individual. There are scores of example of observed steps toward the emergence
> of new species (there is a funny one about an insect that had developed a taste
> for boring into lead covered telephone cables, and several involving transitions
> seen in city dwelling species).
Meanwhile, during the past 147 years the biodiversity has dramatically
decreased and not increased as predicted by Darwin's TOE.
> >Are you familiar with counting the omer ?
>
> I am just becoming aware of this as a result of your website.
Actually "counting the omer" is not describe on my web site.
> Fascinating concept in its simplicity.
The 2PD-OMER Approach is simple because the cause of obesity is simple.
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
<snip>
> Why in the world do you hate this young doctor so much?
It has been prophesied that those who are of this world will hate the
brethren of LORD Jesus Christ, Who is not of this world.
"When they hate you, remember they hated ME first." -- LORD Jesus
Christ
Chinese Water Torturer
I don't. I hate his off-topic proselytizing, his inane bible-based
disaster predictions plastered all over Usenet, his self-righteous
condescension, plus the sneaking suspicion that he gets his jollies by
intentionally pissing off NG posters.
The self-styled martyr quacked:
> It has been prophesied that those who are of this world will hate the
> brethren of LORD Jesus Christ, Who is not of this world.
>
> "When they hate you, remember they hated ME first." -- LORD Jesus
> Christ
Ah, yes. Yet another Chung-penned bible quote. Got a publisher yet?
ana...@logwell.com
wrote:
Do you have nothing else to worry about? I am baffled by the nastiness seen in
this news group.
Chinese Water Torturer
Who's worried?
>I am baffled by the nastiness seen in this news group.
You wouldn't be, if you were ever harassed by Chung. Call it karma.
ana...@logwell.com
wrote:
>Interventional cardiology is not surgery.
Semantics and nit picking. The heart programs in many hospitals keep them
afloat. Many cath labs have a 50 or 75 procedure per year quota to maintain
privileges. Before PCI, cardiology was a backwater specialty, now it is a big
money specialty. You need not be defensive about these realities; I am not
accusing you of wrong doing. But the same cannot be said about many other
cardiologists. Love em all you like, but do not defend the indefensible.
>
>> Second, if you are not getting a referral fee for CABGs you send to the surgeon,
>> you are getting ripped off man (in the words of Cheech and Chong).
>
>I am not nor do I know of anyone who is.
Your old teacher omitted one of your lessons. Referral fees are the norm
according to Howard and other reliable sources. If you do not take them, then
good for you! Incidentally, kick backs from the drug companies was common also
until recently (a government investigation cooled off the practice).
>
>> But
>> seriously, PCI and to a lesser extent CABG referrals fees make invasive
>> treatments seem like a really good idea to way too many cardiologists.
>
>Nor referral fees for PCI either.
Here I meant the direct fees from PCI. In Owensboro, we have another
cardiologist named Vora. One joke that circulates about him is that he never
met a stent that did not need a patient. In his case, doing an unholy number of
invasive procedures has enabled him to build a multi-million dollar facility
dedicated to PCI in that small town.
>
>> >> >> And
>> >> >> it hurts and costs so much less !
>> >> >
>> >> >Again, that depends on the patient.
>> >>
>> >> I am pretty sure that laying one's chest open hurts worse than taking a pill.
>> >> But I am overly sensitive that way...
>> >
>> >Not under general anesthesia.
>>
>> You are pulling my leg again.
>
>No. There should be neither pain nor awareness of anything during
>general anesthesia.
>
>> First general anesthetic carries its own risks,
>> and second, I have never heard of a CABG victim without some discomfort
>
>Not during the procedure.
There is a very real risk every time general anesthesia is used, and you know
it. And there is considerable patient discomfort and inconvenience during
recuperation from CABG, and to a lesser extent the various PCI variants. They
are being grossly over used, and that is the simple bottom line.
>
>> , and
>> tons of inconvenience. Some die, and that is pretty dern inconvenient. How
>> many of your angiogram patients jump up and declare how much fun that little
>> exercise has been?
>
>Sarcasm aside, this would be the case for most invasive testing
>procedures from colonoscopy to bone marrow biopsy.
Hmmm, I wonder how many bone marrow biopsies are done every day as compared to
angoigrams? Colonoscopy is not really in the same class.
>
>> >> >There are no transitional fossils.
>> >>
>> >> Absolutely untrue.
>> >
>> >That's not what I discern.
>>
>> You can find them yourself. I have been a rockhound for 50 years, and there are
>> transitional forms found every day.
>
>Incomplete fossils of juvenile creatures or creatures that had acquired
>deformities during their lifetime from either injuries or disease can
>and have been mistaken for transitional forms.
Stems from listening to your gurus who have no real understanding of what fossil
beds often look like. For instance, I can take you to road cuts where thousands
of some particular form can be found in a short time, yet if it is inconvenient,
detractors will claim the specimen is not representative (despite there being
thousand more). There really is no dispute over the alleged transitional forms;
the argument is desperate and simply a non-starter.
>
>> >There have also been no newly emergent species since Origin of the
>> >Species was published by Charles Darwin in 1859 which is some nearly
>> >147 years ago. The theory predicted an ongoing process. It has failed
>> >in this prediction because all that has been seen since 147 years ago
>> >are extinctions and no new emergences.
>>
>> Untrue.
>
>You do the math with the current rate of extinctions subtracted from to
>the current rate of speciation, the result is a negative number when
>Darwin's TOE predicted a positive number.
Proves nothing. If (and it is a big if) current extinctions are at a high rate,
they are anthropogenic in nature. So what? Speciation is an obviously slow
process. In fact, historically there have been episodes of mass extinction
where a significant percentage of life on earth was wiped out, but that does not
negate evolution or natural extinction. Many scientists who choose a path of
faith like to think of these processes as part of G-d's plan, but I will reserve
comment on my take on such matters.
>
>> Speciation is an ongoing process easily discernible to any observant
>> individual. There are scores of example of observed steps toward the emergence
>> of new species (there is a funny one about an insect that had developed a taste
>> for boring into lead covered telephone cables, and several involving transitions
>> seen in city dwelling species).
>
>Meanwhile, during the past 147 years the biodiversity has dramatically
>decreased and not increased as predicted by Darwin's TOE.
Why must bio diversity increase to be consistent with natural selection? In
fact, evolution would demand a decrease in bio diversity under many scenarios.
G-d may have a master plan, but natural selection does not care. It is merely
a process that guarantees the best adapted forms occupy a particular niche. As
soon as you think of it like "giraffes developed long necks to eat vegetation in
high trees", you are lost.
>
>> >Are you familiar with counting the omer ?
>>
>> I am just becoming aware of this as a result of your website.
>
>Actually "counting the omer" is not describe on my web site.
I misspoke. I meant your website was the first mention of it I had encountered.
ana...@logwell.com
wrote:
I'll bite; how has he harassed you?
I have reviewd hundreds of messages in this News Group, and it looks pretty
clear who has been doing the harassing around here (not a personal attack on
you, but Chung's detractors in general).
Dr. Chung and I do not agree on everything, but he has been nothing but
respectful, kind, and informative in my interchange with him here in SMC. He is
incredibly knowlegeable (even Dr. Hildner concedes this in the letter for which
you so thoughtfully provided a link).
What's the beef?
Kumar
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> ana...@logwell.com wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > Why in the world do you hate this young doctor so much?
>
> It has been prophesied that those who are of this world will hate the
> brethren of LORD Jesus Christ, Who is not of this world.
>
> "When they hate you, remember they hated ME first." -- LORD Jesus
> Christ
>
> May GOD continue to heal your heart by curing your diabetes, dear
> neighbor Syd whom I love unconditionally.
>
> Prayerfully in Christ's amazing love,
>
> Andrew <><
> --
> Andrew B. Chung
> Cardiologist, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
> http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit
>
> As for knowing who are the very elect, these you will know by the
> unconditional love they have for everyone including their enemies
In view of prevailing contraversies and commercializations, I can't
base my life on routine current medication programes which are "not yet
become absolute or complete or atleast persistant", therefore dig so
much. I want to live and die with knowledge. I always search for
healing substances and techniques either with least possible
adversitie/risks or which become "absolute(free from imperfection)",
final or atleast persistent/stable for some prolonged time.
Kumar
feeding of cardboard into the machine that makes boxes, poor mouthed:
> I find posting on usenet very depressing.
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> Andrew wrote:
>
> >Interventional cardiology is not surgery.
>
> Semantics and nit picking.
It is an oft misunderstood issue.
> The heart programs in many hospitals keep them
> afloat. Many cath labs have a 50 or 75 procedure per year quota to maintain
> privileges. Before PCI, cardiology was a backwater specialty, now it is a big
> money specialty. You need not be defensive about these realities; I am not
> accusing you of wrong doing. But the same cannot be said about many other
> cardiologists. Love em all you like, but do not defend the indefensible.
GOD's purpose for me here remains to inform and not the defend self or
others.
> >> Second, if you are not getting a referral fee for CABGs you send to the surgeon,
> >> you are getting ripped off man (in the words of Cheech and Chong).
> >
> >I am not nor do I know of anyone who is.
>
> Your old teacher omitted one of your lessons. Referral fees are the norm
> according to Howard and other reliable sources. If you do not take them, then
> good for you! Incidentally, kick backs from the drug companies was common also
> until recently (a government investigation cooled off the practice).
... nor do I know of anyone who is.
> >
> >> But
> >> seriously, PCI and to a lesser extent CABG referrals fees make invasive
> >> treatments seem like a really good idea to way too many cardiologists.
> >
> >Nor referral fees for PCI either.
>
> Here I meant the direct fees from PCI. In Owensboro, we have another
> cardiologist named Vora. One joke that circulates about him is that he never
> met a stent that did not need a patient. In his case, doing an unholy number of
> invasive procedures has enabled him to build a multi-million dollar facility
> dedicated to PCI in that small town.
It remain my choice to refrain from judging others per the kind and
thoughtful suggestion of my LORD (Matthew 7:1-2).
> >
> >> >> >> And
> >> >> >> it hurts and costs so much less !
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Again, that depends on the patient.
> >> >>
> >> >> I am pretty sure that laying one's chest open hurts worse than taking a pill.
> >> >> But I am overly sensitive that way...
> >> >
> >> >Not under general anesthesia.
> >>
> >> You are pulling my leg again.
> >
> >No. There should be neither pain nor awareness of anything during
> >general anesthesia.
> >
> >> First general anesthetic carries its own risks,
> >> and second, I have never heard of a CABG victim without some discomfort
> >
> >Not during the procedure.
>
> There is a very real risk every time general anesthesia is used, and you know
> it. And there is considerable patient discomfort and inconvenience during
> recuperation from CABG, and to a lesser extent the various PCI variants. They
> are being grossly over used, and that is the simple bottom line.
They would not be were there not a demand for it.
> >> , and
> >> tons of inconvenience. Some die, and that is pretty dern inconvenient. How
> >> many of your angiogram patients jump up and declare how much fun that little
> >> exercise has been?
> >
> >Sarcasm aside, this would be the case for most invasive testing
> >procedures from colonoscopy to bone marrow biopsy.
>
> Hmmm, I wonder how many bone marrow biopsies are done every day as compared to
> angoigrams?
Depends on doctor.
> Colonoscopy is not really in the same class.
Why not ?
> >
> >> >> >There are no transitional fossils.
> >> >>
> >> >> Absolutely untrue.
> >> >
> >> >That's not what I discern.
> >>
> >> You can find them yourself. I have been a rockhound for 50 years, and there are
> >> transitional forms found every day.
> >
> >Incomplete fossils of juvenile creatures or creatures that had acquired
> >deformities during their lifetime from either injuries or disease can
> >and have been mistaken for transitional forms.
>
> Stems from listening to your gurus who have no real understanding of what fossil
> beds often look like. For instance, I can take you to road cuts where thousands
> of some particular form can be found in a short time, yet if it is inconvenient,
> detractors will claim the specimen is not representative (despite there being
> thousand more). There really is no dispute over the alleged transitional forms;
> the argument is desperate and simply a non-starter.
Between the fossil record and the DNA record, the latter has been
proven scientifically to be more reliable.
The DNA record goes against Darwin's TOE.
Francis Collins of the Human Genome Project knows this and this is why
he has become an outspoken critic of Darwin's TOE.
> >> >There have also been no newly emergent species since Origin of the
> >> >Species was published by Charles Darwin in 1859 which is some nearly
> >> >147 years ago. The theory predicted an ongoing process. It has failed
> >> >in this prediction because all that has been seen since 147 years ago
> >> >are extinctions and no new emergences.
> >>
> >> Untrue.
> >
> >You do the math with the current rate of extinctions subtracted from to
> >the current rate of speciation, the result is a negative number when
> >Darwin's TOE predicted a positive number.
>
> Proves nothing. If (and it is a big if) current extinctions are at a high rate,
> they are anthropogenic in nature. So what? Speciation is an obviously slow
> process. In fact, historically there have been episodes of mass extinction
> where a significant percentage of life on earth was wiped out, but that does not
> negate evolution or natural extinction. Many scientists who choose a path of
> faith like to think of these processes as part of G-d's plan, but I will reserve
> comment on my take on such matters.
When a theory fails to predict, it is wise to discard it and move on.
> >> Speciation is an ongoing process easily discernible to any observant
> >> individual. There are scores of example of observed steps toward the emergence
> >> of new species (there is a funny one about an insect that had developed a taste
> >> for boring into lead covered telephone cables, and several involving transitions
> >> seen in city dwelling species).
> >
> >Meanwhile, during the past 147 years the biodiversity has dramatically
> >decreased and not increased as predicted by Darwin's TOE.
>
> Why must bio diversity increase to be consistent with natural selection? In
> fact, evolution would demand a decrease in bio diversity under many scenarios.
> G-d may have a master plan, but natural selection does not care.
There is no natural selection.
There is GOD selection (Proverbs 16:33).
> It is merely
> a process that guarantees the best adapted forms occupy a particular niche. As
> soon as you think of it like "giraffes developed long necks to eat vegetation in
> high trees", you are lost.
GOD created both the giraffes and the trees that would feed them at the
same time.
> >> >Are you familiar with counting the omer ?
> >>
> >> I am just becoming aware of this as a result of your website.
> >
> >Actually "counting the omer" is not describe on my web site.
>
> I misspoke. I meant your website was the first mention of it I had encountered.
I am surprised that you were not familiar with "omer" prior to seeing
the word referenced on my web site.
See Exodus 16:16
ana...@logwell.com
wrote:
>> There is a very real risk every time general anesthesia is used, and you know
>> it. And there is considerable patient discomfort and inconvenience during
>> recuperation from CABG, and to a lesser extent the various PCI variants. They
>> are being grossly over used, and that is the simple bottom line.
>
>They would not be were there not a demand for it.
The demand has been manufactured. The real issue is informed consent. The
cardiologists I have dealt with (other than Howard) simply do not tell patients
that there are alternatives to PCI or CABG. When I asked Gupta if there were
any drug treatments, he said none that really worked and suggested I could try
statins, but I better be on the cath table the next day. Not a word about
trying a Beta Blocker or EECP or anything else.
I respect your position that you are not here to criticize these doctors.
However the good Lord has moved me to speak out about this inexcusable abuse of
patient trust. You will note I even have a little information on my home page
about this problem (www.logwell.com). That little blurb resulted in scores of
emails over the last few years, and a number of folks making trips to San Diego
to see Howard.
>
>> Colonoscopy is not really in the same class.
>
>Why not ?
Well the equipment goes in a different entrance for starters. No potential
allergic reactions or kidney damage from contrast agent. No radiation dose (not
that I worry too much about a few rays). That said, I am not too thrilled about
having a colonoscopy, either. Heck, I am such a wuss, I would not consent to a
fluoroscein retinal angiogram at Johns Hopkins, so you get an idea of my dislike
for invasive procedures.
>
>Between the fossil record and the DNA record, the latter has been
>proven scientifically to be more reliable.
>
>The DNA record goes against Darwin's TOE.
>
Finding fossils is more fun that playing with DNA. But the DNA record certainly
does support the concept of natural selection (or whatever you choose to call
it). Look at how much of the DNA is the same in all mammals for instance.
>There is no natural selection.
>
>There is GOD selection (Proverbs 16:33).
>
>> It is merely
>> a process that guarantees the best adapted forms occupy a particular niche. As
>> soon as you think of it like "giraffes developed long necks to eat vegetation in
>> high trees", you are lost.
>
>GOD created both the giraffes and the trees that would feed them at the
>same time.
Giraffes did not grow long necks to feed on trees any more than the trees grew
tall to avoid being eaten by shorter grazers. Natural selection (or whatever
you want to cal it) is grossly misunderstood.
>I am surprised that you were not familiar with "omer" prior to seeing
>the word referenced on my web site.
I was familiar with the word, but had not heard about this interesting nutrition
concept.
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> Andrew wrote:
>
> >> There is a very real risk every time general anesthesia is used, and you know
> >> it. And there is considerable patient discomfort and inconvenience during
> >> recuperation from CABG, and to a lesser extent the various PCI variants. They
> >> are being grossly over used, and that is the simple bottom line.
> >
> >They would not be were there not a demand for it.
>
> The demand has been manufactured.
Manufactured by whom and how ?
> The real issue is informed consent. The
> cardiologists I have dealt with (other than Howard) simply do not tell patients
> that there are alternatives to PCI or CABG. When I asked Gupta if there were
> any drug treatments, he said none that really worked and suggested I could try
> statins, but I better be on the cath table the next day. Not a word about
> trying a Beta Blocker or EECP or anything else.
Many commercially available preprinted consent forms for PCI or CABG
include medical therapy and EECP listed.
> I respect your position that you are not here to criticize these doctors.
> However the good Lord has moved me to speak out about this inexcusable abuse of
> patient trust. You will note I even have a little information on my home page
> about this problem (www.logwell.com). That little blurb resulted in scores of
> emails over the last few years, and a number of folks making trips to San Diego
> to see Howard.
Hope Howard was grateful for your support.
> >> Colonoscopy is not really in the same class.
> >
> >Why not ?
>
> Well the equipment goes in a different entrance for starters.
So does a bone marrow biopsy.
> No potential
> allergic reactions or kidney damage from contrast agent.
There is the danger of perforation leading to sepsis and death.
> No radiation dose (not
> that I worry too much about a few rays). That said, I am not too thrilled about
> having a colonoscopy, either. Heck, I am such a wuss, I would not consent to a
> fluoroscein retinal angiogram at Johns Hopkins, so you get an idea of my dislike
> for invasive procedures.
EECP is definitely not invasive and yet you dislike it as well.
> >Between the fossil record and the DNA record, the latter has been
> >proven scientifically to be more reliable.
> >
> >The DNA record goes against Darwin's TOE.
>
> Finding fossils is more fun that playing with DNA.
Not in my personal experience.
> But the DNA record certainly
> does support the concept of natural selection (or whatever you choose to call
> it).
Actually, it does not.
> Look at how much of the DNA is the same in all mammals for instance.
Indeed, some genes have identical DNA sequences so that investigators
are hard pressed to explain the morphological species identifying
differences.
> >There is no natural selection.
> >
> >There is GOD selection (Proverbs 16:33).
> >
> >> It is merely
> >> a process that guarantees the best adapted forms occupy a particular niche. As
> >> soon as you think of it like "giraffes developed long necks to eat vegetation in
> >> high trees", you are lost.
> >
> >GOD created both the giraffes and the trees that would feed them at the
> >same time.
>
> Giraffes did not grow long necks to feed on trees any more than the trees grew
> tall to avoid being eaten by shorter grazers. Natural selection (or whatever
> you want to cal it) is grossly misunderstood.
Those who believe in natural selection misunderstand it because it does
not exist.
> >I am surprised that you were not familiar with "omer" prior to seeing
> >the word referenced on my web site.
>
> I was familiar with the word, but had not heard about this interesting nutrition
> concept.
Have you ever counted the omer ?
May GOD continue to help us with our needs, dear neighbor Syd whom I
ana...@logwell.com
wrote:
>ana...@logwell.com wrote:
>> Andrew wrote:
>>
>> >> There is a very real risk every time general anesthesia is used, and you know
>> >> it. And there is considerable patient discomfort and inconvenience during
>> >> recuperation from CABG, and to a lesser extent the various PCI variants. They
>> >> are being grossly over used, and that is the simple bottom line.
>> >
>> >They would not be were there not a demand for it.
>>
>> The demand has been manufactured.
>
>Manufactured by whom and how ?
Oh c'mon. Who do you think I am suggesting manufactured the demand for these
VERY expensive and usually unnecessary procedures? The how is easy.
>
>> The real issue is informed consent. The
>> cardiologists I have dealt with (other than Howard) simply do not tell patients
>> that there are alternatives to PCI or CABG. When I asked Gupta if there were
>> any drug treatments, he said none that really worked and suggested I could try
>> statins, but I better be on the cath table the next day. Not a word about
>> trying a Beta Blocker or EECP or anything else.
>
>Many commercially available preprinted consent forms for PCI or CABG
>include medical therapy and EECP listed.
Indeed, but I never saw one, and I am talking more about the contact with the
doctor that leads to the decision to grant consent. Once you grant consent,
they insist on absolute authority to proceed with angioplasty / stenting while
the patient is in no condition to make a rational decision. But without
information, no rational decision is possible. A couple of words on a
pre-printed form hardly constitutes proper informed consent.
>
>> >> Colonoscopy is not really in the same class.
>> >
>> >Why not ?
>>
>> Well the equipment goes in a different entrance for starters.
>
>So does a bone marrow biopsy.
But not everybody and his uncle is trying to get rich doing those on practically
ever tom, Dick, and Harry that wanders in their office.
>
>> No potential
>> allergic reactions or kidney damage from contrast agent.
>
>There is the danger of perforation leading to sepsis and death.
>
>> No radiation dose (not
>> that I worry too much about a few rays). That said, I am not too thrilled about
>> having a colonoscopy, either. Heck, I am such a wuss, I would not consent to a
>> fluoroscein retinal angiogram at Johns Hopkins, so you get an idea of my dislike
>> for invasive procedures.
>
>EECP is definitely not invasive and yet you dislike it as well.
Did you study logical fallacy during your obviously well rounded education? You
are engaging here in one of the classic logical fallacies. Besides, I never
said I did not like it, only that I was extremely skeptical about it. As a
scientist, I must remain open to the possibility it is efficacious. But as I
said before, I am not holding my breath.
>
>Have you ever counted the omer ?
Not yet.
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
>Andrew wrote:
> >ana...@logwell.com wrote:
> >> Andrew wrote:
> >>
> >> >> There is a very real risk every time general anesthesia is used, and you know
> >> >> it. And there is considerable patient discomfort and inconvenience during
> >> >> recuperation from CABG, and to a lesser extent the various PCI variants. They
> >> >> are being grossly over used, and that is the simple bottom line.
> >> >
> >> >They would not be were there not a demand for it.
> >>
> >> The demand has been manufactured.
> >
> >Manufactured by whom and how ?
>
> Oh c'mon. Who do you think I am suggesting manufactured the demand for these
> VERY expensive and usually unnecessary procedures? The how is easy.
If I knew your thoughts, I would not be asking.
Are you suggesting that a group of cardiologists got together to
conspire to brainwash everyone into believing that they want to have an
angiogram ?
If so, how do you think they accomplished this brainwashing ?
> >> The real issue is informed consent. The
> >> cardiologists I have dealt with (other than Howard) simply do not tell patients
> >> that there are alternatives to PCI or CABG. When I asked Gupta if there were
> >> any drug treatments, he said none that really worked and suggested I could try
> >> statins, but I better be on the cath table the next day. Not a word about
> >> trying a Beta Blocker or EECP or anything else.
> >
> >Many commercially available preprinted consent forms for PCI or CABG
> >include medical therapy and EECP listed.
>
> Indeed, but I never saw one, and I am talking more about the contact with the
> doctor that leads to the decision to grant consent. Once you grant consent,
> they insist on absolute authority to proceed with angioplasty / stenting while
> the patient is in no condition to make a rational decision. But without
> information, no rational decision is possible. A couple of words on a
> pre-printed form hardly constitutes proper informed consent.
Agree. So you now wish to travel into the "he says she says" realm
beyond what is written down.
> >> >> Colonoscopy is not really in the same class.
> >> >
> >> >Why not ?
> >>
> >> Well the equipment goes in a different entrance for starters.
> >
> >So does a bone marrow biopsy.
>
> But not everybody and his uncle is trying to get rich doing those on practically
> ever tom, Dick, and Harry that wanders in their office.
Folks don't just wander into a subspecialist's office. They are
referred.
> >
> >> No potential
> >> allergic reactions or kidney damage from contrast agent.
> >
> >There is the danger of perforation leading to sepsis and death.
> >
> >> No radiation dose (not
> >> that I worry too much about a few rays). That said, I am not too thrilled about
> >> having a colonoscopy, either. Heck, I am such a wuss, I would not consent to a
> >> fluoroscein retinal angiogram at Johns Hopkins, so you get an idea of my dislike
> >> for invasive procedures.
> >
> >EECP is definitely not invasive and yet you dislike it as well.
>
> Did you study logical fallacy during your obviously well rounded education?
Yes.
Noting inconsistences in your biases is not an exercise in logic.
> You
> are engaging here in one of the classic logical fallacies.
Not really.
> Besides, I never
> said I did not like it, only that I was extremely skeptical about it. As a
> scientist, I must remain open to the possibility it is efficacious. But as I
> said before, I am not holding my breath.
I do not have a problem with your negative bias against it.
> >Have you ever counted the omer ?
>
> Not yet.
Fwiw, counting the omer is **not** the same as the 2PD-OMER Approach in
case this is confusing anyone following this thread.
Ace Berserker
ana...@logwell.com wrote:
> Did you study logical fallacy during your obviously well rounded education? You
> are engaging here in one of the classic logical fallacies.
LOFL
Welcome to ChungWorld.
ana...@logwell.com
wrote:
>
>Are you suggesting that a group of cardiologists got together to
>conspire to brainwash everyone into believing that they want to have an
>angiogram ?
>
>If so, how do you think they accomplished this brainwashing ?
No, there was no formal meeting. But just ask, and you will hear nearly the
same tale from nearly every victim. "The got to me in the nick of time" or "the
blockage was so bad, I might have only had days to live". I have heard these
kinds of stories more times than I can count. I even heard it when my dad had a
quadruple bypass, a procedure he never fully recovered from. So the way it is
done is no mystery.
PCI and CABG is big business. Medical treatment makes very little money for
cardiologists or surgeons. Most doctors are not evil, but most are motivated by
the bottom line at least somewhat (some more than others).
You can play dumb about this, but you know the truth. That hospital in Ocala
did not want you to fib in patient's charts just for fun; I guarantee there was
a bottom line motivation. Money is king in the hospital game.
My argument is simply that PCI and CABG procedures are grossly overused. Why
they are grossly overused is mere speculation on my part, but greed seems a
likely factor.
>> >> The real issue is informed consent. The
>> >> cardiologists I have dealt with (other than Howard) simply do not tell patients
>> >> that there are alternatives to PCI or CABG. When I asked Gupta if there were
>> >> any drug treatments, he said none that really worked and suggested I could try
>> >> statins, but I better be on the cath table the next day. Not a word about
>> >> trying a Beta Blocker or EECP or anything else.
>> >
>> >Many commercially available preprinted consent forms for PCI or CABG
>> >include medical therapy and EECP listed.
>>
>> Indeed, but I never saw one, and I am talking more about the contact with the
>> doctor that leads to the decision to grant consent. Once you grant consent,
>> they insist on absolute authority to proceed with angioplasty / stenting while
>> the patient is in no condition to make a rational decision. But without
>> information, no rational decision is possible. A couple of words on a
>> pre-printed form hardly constitutes proper informed consent.
>
>Agree. So you now wish to travel into the "he says she says" realm
>beyond what is written down.
I am not sure what you mean, but informed consent is a cornerstone of medical
ethics. For instance, how many cardiologists or surgeons tell CABG patients
they have about a 75% chance of some cognitive diminution? (This from a study
reported this very day on Dr. Wang's mailing list). In most of those cases,
medical treatment would have worked without any cognitive damage (heck, I
suspect Beta Blockers have made me smarter).
>
>Folks don't just wander into a subspecialist's office. They are
>referred.
>
And that is relevant how?
I know I am not a typical patient, but I have done just that. There are
specialist and subspecialist who will refuse to see a patient not referred, but
there are ways around that if you are clever. But most of the time they will see
you if the case sounds odd or interesting. I was able to get in to see a world
renowned professor specialist at Johns Hopkins on a couple of days notice.
Incidentally, that was a big disappointment, and I now see an eye lady out of
Barnes-Jewish who is a real gem.
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> Andrew wrote:
> >
> >Are you suggesting that a group of cardiologists got together to
> >conspire to brainwash everyone into believing that they want to have an
> >angiogram ?
> >
> >If so, how do you think they accomplished this brainwashing ?
>
> No, there was no formal meeting.
This means that you do believe that there have been informal meetings
to conspire to brainwash people.
> But just ask, and you will hear nearly the
> same tale from nearly every victim. "The got to me in the nick of time" or "the
> blockage was so bad, I might have only had days to live".
Yes, I hear the same thing even after I correct them by saying that
only GOD determines how long we have to remain here in this world.
Once I overheard my patient say to our pastor that prior to his having
bypass surgery, he felt he was a walking time-bomb about to go off at
any moment. I corrected him by saying that we are all walking
time-bombs about to be retired by GOD at any moment. Our pastor could
not help himself with a spontaneous hearty laugh.
The brainwashing is coming from elsewhere and not from doctors except
possibly indirectly.
> I have heard these
> kinds of stories more times than I can count. I even heard it when my dad had a
> quadruple bypass, a procedure he never fully recovered from. So the way it is
> done is no mystery.
You heard your dad's doctor(s) tell him that without the bypass surgery
that he would have only days to live?
> PCI and CABG is big business. Medical treatment makes very little money for
> cardiologists or surgeons. Most doctors are not evil, but most are motivated by
> the bottom line at least somewhat (some more than others).
The brainwashing is coming from elsewhere.
> You can play dumb about this, but you know the truth.
Yes, I do know the truth.
Most assuredly, without doubt, I know GOD to be kind, just, and right.
> That hospital in Ocala did not want you to fib in patient's charts just for fun;
The hospitals in Ocala where not involved in my employers' attempt to
coerce me into falsifying the records of my patients.
> I guarantee there was
> a bottom line motivation.
In my case, it was not a bottom-line motivation.
> Money is king in the hospital game.
Money is lord for many.
> My argument is simply that PCI and CABG procedures are grossly overused. Why
> they are grossly overused is mere speculation on my part, but greed seems a
> likely factor.
GOD's purpose for me here remains to inform and not to either argue or
convince.
> >> >> The real issue is informed consent. The
> >> >> cardiologists I have dealt with (other than Howard) simply do not tell patients
> >> >> that there are alternatives to PCI or CABG. When I asked Gupta if there were
> >> >> any drug treatments, he said none that really worked and suggested I could try
> >> >> statins, but I better be on the cath table the next day. Not a word about
> >> >> trying a Beta Blocker or EECP or anything else.
> >> >
> >> >Many commercially available preprinted consent forms for PCI or CABG
> >> >include medical therapy and EECP listed.
> >>
> >> Indeed, but I never saw one, and I am talking more about the contact with the
> >> doctor that leads to the decision to grant consent. Once you grant consent,
> >> they insist on absolute authority to proceed with angioplasty / stenting while
> >> the patient is in no condition to make a rational decision. But without
> >> information, no rational decision is possible. A couple of words on a
> >> pre-printed form hardly constitutes proper informed consent.
> >
> >Agree. So you now wish to travel into the "he says she says" realm
> >beyond what is written down.
>
> I am not sure what you mean, but informed consent is a cornerstone of medical
> ethics. For instance, how many cardiologists or surgeons tell CABG patients
> they have about a 75% chance of some cognitive diminution? (This from a study
> reported this very day on Dr. Wang's mailing list). In most of those cases,
> medical treatment would have worked without any cognitive damage (heck, I
> suspect Beta Blockers have made me smarter).
Those referred for CABG are often those who have failed medical therapy
alone.
> >Folks don't just wander into a subspecialist's office. They are
> >referred.
>
> And that is relevant how?
To your comment about folks wandering in and ending up with an unwanted
procedure.
> I know I am not a typical patient, but I have done just that. There are
> specialist and subspecialist who will refuse to see a patient not referred, but
> there are ways around that if you are clever. But most of the time they will see
> you if the case sounds odd or interesting. I was able to get in to see a world
> renowned professor specialist at Johns Hopkins on a couple of days notice.
> Incidentally, that was a big disappointment, and I now see an eye lady out of
> Barnes-Jewish who is a real gem.
Even in your case, you did not just wander into the subspecialist's
office.
ana...@logwell.com
wrote:
>
>This means that you do believe that there have been informal meetings
>to conspire to brainwash people.
Logical fallacy again. But there are of course conferences and various
manufacturers promoting invasive procedures that have the effect of informal
meetings. I have never suggested overt conspiracy, simply greedy individuals
pushing procedures in their own best financial interests. Were it not so, we
would see the same rates of PCI and CABG in Canada and the UK (where socialized
medicine largely removes the profit motive for these procedures) as here in the
US. And do not loose sight of the fact their survival rates are very nearly the
same as in the US.
>
>You heard your dad's doctor(s) tell him that without the bypass surgery
>that he would have only days to live?
Absolutely. And I previously reported what Dr. Gupta told me personally: that
I was at risk just walking to my car, not to even think about mowing the lawn,
and that he already knew before the angiogram there was a 99% probability I
would have to have CABG.
>
>> PCI and CABG is big business. Medical treatment makes very little money for
>> cardiologists or surgeons. Most doctors are not evil, but most are motivated by
>> the bottom line at least somewhat (some more than others).
>
>The brainwashing is coming from elsewhere.
Where, pray tell?
>
>The hospitals in Ocala where not involved in my employers' attempt to
>coerce me into falsifying the records of my patients.
>
>> I guarantee there was
>> a bottom line motivation.
>
>In my case, it was not a bottom-line motivation.
Of course it was. They did not like you newfound enthusiasm about religion
creeping into the charts? The did not like the infusion of discussion of G-d's
will? Some variation of this theme? Whatever it was, the real bottom line was
the bottom line. Some fear your honesty would get them in trouble or accused of
malpractice, or something of similar effect.
I would imagine your faith prevented you from putting up much of a fight (I get
this impression from some of what I have read about the episode). But I sure
would have liked to represent you in the administrative adjudication of the case
(I used to do allot of administrative law work, but no longer).
>Those referred for CABG are often those who have failed medical therapy
>alone.
Ahhh, but there is a stacked deck. The typical pediatric doses of Beta
Blockers, and other drugs usually prescribed by cardiologists as initial medical
treatment often insure failure. No conspiracy here, just dumb doctors.
>> >Folks don't just wander into a subspecialist's office. They are
>> >referred.
>>
>> And that is relevant how?
>
>To your comment about folks wandering in and ending up with an unwanted
>procedure.
>
It is not that the procedure is unwanted, it is that not enough information is
imparted to allow true informed consent. Tell a patient his angiogram reveals
he is not a good candidate for PCI, and CABG is his best option, and he will
likely agree since he wants very badly to trust his doctor's judgment. But tell
him there is about a 75% chance of at least some cognitive diminution, and he
might think almost any other option starts to look good.
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> Andrew wrote:
>
> >
> >This means that you do believe that there have been informal meetings
> >to conspire to brainwash people.
>
> Logical fallacy again.
No. Simply a reasonable inference from what you had written.
> But there are of course conferences and various
> manufacturers promoting invasive procedures that have the effect of informal
> meetings. I have never suggested overt conspiracy, simply greedy individuals
> pushing procedures in their own best financial interests. Were it not so, we
> would see the same rates of PCI and CABG in Canada and the UK (where socialized
> medicine largely removes the profit motive for these procedures) as here in the
> US.
An alternate explanation is that the point of origin of R&D for these
procedures is further removed.
> And do not loose sight of the fact their survival rates are very nearly the
> same as in the US.
Many folks, prior to surgery are crippled by fear of their symptoms
despite intensive medical therapy and now after bypass surgery have
their lives back. They are the biggest cheerleaders for the procedure.
Those who die on the table do not complain. Those who suffer
cognitively don't complain either. Those who are worse clinically
don't have the strength to complain. The end result is that you
largely have only outspoken supporters for the procedure among those
who have had bypass surgery.
> >You heard your dad's doctor(s) tell him that without the bypass surgery
> >that he would have only days to live?
>
> Absolutely.
When was your dad's surgery ?
> And I previously reported what Dr. Gupta told me personally: that
> I was at risk just walking to my car, not to even think about mowing the lawn,
> and that he already knew before the angiogram there was a 99% probability I
> would have to have CABG.
Is that what he wrote down in his report concerning you ?
> >> PCI and CABG is big business. Medical treatment makes very little money for
> >> cardiologists or surgeons. Most doctors are not evil, but most are motivated by
> >> the bottom line at least somewhat (some more than others).
> >
> >The brainwashing is coming from elsewhere.
>
> Where, pray tell?
The same place as where the false mantra for weight loss "eat right and
exercise" and the false belief "hunger is bad" originate.
> >The hospitals in Ocala where not involved in my employers' attempt to
> >coerce me into falsifying the records of my patients.
> >
> >> I guarantee there was
> >> a bottom line motivation.
> >
> >In my case, it was not a bottom-line motivation.
>
> Of course it was. They did not like you newfound enthusiasm about religion
> creeping into the charts?
I am not religious.
> They did not like the infusion of discussion of G-d's will?
Removal of such non-existent discourses from medical records would not
be falsification of the same.
> Some variation of this theme?
Again, I am not religious.
> Whatever it was, the real bottom line was
> the bottom line.
It was not profit-motive driven.
> Some fear your honesty would get them in trouble or accused of
> malpractice, or something of similar effect.
The predicament reminded me of Daniel's:
Daniel 6:3-5
> I would imagine your faith prevented you from putting up much of a fight (I get
> this impression from some of what I have read about the episode). But I sure
> would have liked to represent you in the administrative adjudication of the case
> (I used to do allot of administrative law work, but no longer).
We, the brethren of LORD Jesus Christ, do not fight as the world would
have us fight. Instead, we wear HIS armor and persevere steadfast in
HIM.
> >Those referred for CABG are often those who have failed medical therapy
> >alone.
>
> Ahhh, but there is a stacked deck. The typical pediatric doses of Beta
> Blockers, and other drugs usually prescribed by cardiologists as initial medical
> treatment often insure failure. No conspiracy here, just dumb doctors.
Many do not tolerate even small doses of beta blockers. There are no
pediatric doses of beta blockers because this medication is not
prescribed to children.
> >> >Folks don't just wander into a subspecialist's office. They are
> >> >referred.
> >>
> >> And that is relevant how?
> >
> >To your comment about folks wandering in and ending up with an unwanted
> >procedure.
> >
> It is not that the procedure is unwanted, it is that not enough information is
> imparted to allow true informed consent. Tell a patient his angiogram reveals
> he is not a good candidate for PCI, and CABG is his best option, and he will
> likely agree since he wants very badly to trust his doctor's judgment. But tell
> him there is about a 75% chance of at least some cognitive diminution, and he
> might think almost any other option starts to look good.
The weighing of risk versus benefit will necessarily vary. Here the
perception of benefit will have to be the patients', who are hearing
only positive reports from those who have actually had the surgery.
See above.
ana...@logwell.com
wrote:
>An alternate explanation is that the point of origin of R&D for these
>procedures is further removed.
If you are saying what I think you are saying, I would agree. I would however
assign a bit more blame to your colleagues than you do.
>
>> And do not loose sight of the fact their survival rates are very nearly the
>> same as in the US.
>
>Many folks, prior to surgery are crippled by fear of their symptoms
>despite intensive medical therapy and now after bypass surgery have
>their lives back. They are the biggest cheerleaders for the procedure.
>Those who die on the table do not complain. Those who suffer
>cognitively don't complain either. Those who are worse clinically
>don't have the strength to complain. The end result is that you
>largely have only outspoken supporters for the procedure among those
>who have had bypass surgery.
You are absolutely correct about this. There is a related mechanism at work
wherein patients who undergo extraordinary procedures will try mightily to
reconcile the pain and suffering with some kind of benefit.
One of my other pet peeves involved the overuse of radical mastectomy in years
gone by. When it became obvious that lumpectomy with possible adjuvant therapy
was just as effective in early detection cases, many surgeons were slow to make
the change. There were support groups of women who had undergone radical or
modified mastectomies who were among the most outspoken detractors of the new
minimally damaging procedure. So it is not uncommon in CABG for patients to not
really have their lives back, or have only marginal improvement, and still be
big cheerleaders for CABG. It is psychology 101 stuff as you well know.
>
>When was your dad's surgery ?
About ten years back.
>
>> And I previously reported what Dr. Gupta told me personally: that
>> I was at risk just walking to my car, not to even think about mowing the lawn,
>> and that he already knew before the angiogram there was a 99% probability I
>> would have to have CABG.
>
>Is that what he wrote down in his report concerning you ?
The written report does not mention the 99% chance of needing CABG; that was
during the consultation with the sig other and me after the examination. The
written report does have a rather dire diagnosis which Howard asserted was
nonsense.
>
>> >> PCI and CABG is big business. Medical treatment makes very little money for
>> >> cardiologists or surgeons. Most doctors are not evil, but most are motivated by
>> >> the bottom line at least somewhat (some more than others).
>> >
>> >The brainwashing is coming from elsewhere.
>>
>> Where, pray tell?
>
>The same place as where the false mantra for weight loss "eat right and
>exercise" and the false belief "hunger is bad" originate.
I would not disagree with this somewhat cryptic statement. However, it takes
doctors willing to delude themselves to make it fly (as I said before, it is
greed or stupidity, or a mixture thereof).
>
>The predicament reminded me of Daniel's:
>
>Daniel 6:3-5
I am of course curious what they wanted you to fib about since my guesses have
been incorrect.
>
>> >Those referred for CABG are often those who have failed medical therapy
>> >alone.
>>
>> Ahhh, but there is a stacked deck. The typical pediatric doses of Beta
>> Blockers, and other drugs usually prescribed by cardiologists as initial medical
>> treatment often insure failure. No conspiracy here, just dumb doctors.
>
>Many do not tolerate even small doses of beta blockers. There are no
>pediatric doses of beta blockers because this medication is not
>prescribed to children.
Pediatric dose in this context is a figure of speech borrowed from Howard. But
you knew that and were just funnin' me. Howard had a clever sort of automatic
titration scheme to help counter that fairly common tolerance problem. He would
give patients a schedule that extended over six or eight weeks during which time
the Beta Blocker and Ace Inhibitor doses were gradually increased. Further, he
would spend a good deal of time explaining what to expect; being aware of what
side effects are common and what the drug is doing for you makes a tremendous
difference. Most doctors do not take the time to educate and prepare patients.
I am sure you are aware many stage performers, lawyers (before court
appearances) and surgeons have developed a fondness for Beta Blockers.
>> It is not that the procedure is unwanted, it is that not enough information is
>> imparted to allow true informed consent. Tell a patient his angiogram reveals
>> he is not a good candidate for PCI, and CABG is his best option, and he will
>> likely agree since he wants very badly to trust his doctor's judgment. But tell
>> him there is about a 75% chance of at least some cognitive diminution, and he
>> might think almost any other option starts to look good.
>
>The weighing of risk versus benefit will necessarily vary. Here the
>perception of benefit will have to be the patients', who are hearing
>only positive reports from those who have actually had the surgery.
>See above.
>
But without some doctor pushing the procedure not many patients would demand a
bypass or PCI, no matter how much a friend or relative bragged about their
wonderful experience. I understand why it is important to you to believe
cardiologists are not the bad guys here, but I fear you are in denial about way
too many doctors urging way too many unnecessary procedures.
The God of Odd Statements
> On 13 Nov 2006 22:13:53 -0800, "Chinese Water Torturer" wrote:
>
> I'll bite; how has he harassed you?
He's harassed everyone who wouldn't slurp him.
> I have reviewd hundreds of messages in this News Group, and it looks
> pretty clear who has been doing the harassing around here (not a personal
> attack on you, but Chung's detractors in general).
He gets the shit back that he delivers. Since he delivers so much to so
many, he gets back an awful lot.
> Dr. Chung and I do not agree on everything, but he has been nothing but
> respectful, kind, and informative in my interchange with him here in SMC.
> He is incredibly knowlegeable (even Dr. Hildner concedes this in the
> letter for which you so thoughtfully provided a link).
I don't really care how he's knowledgeable; how he's k00ky is of greater
concern, and he's k00ky in terms of being a cowardly (running from
difficult questions), condescending (praying for people who would prefer
that he not do so), presumptuous (his prayers keep people *alive*),
pathetic (trolling support groups) cunt.
> What's the beef?
It's what he has in place of a brain.
--
________________________________________________________________________
Hail Eris! mhm 29x21; TM#5; Chung Convict #39
Demon Lord of Confusion
COOSN-029-06-71069
Supreme High Overlord of rec.radio.*
Chuck Lysaght: Tarred & Feathered!
"Q: What do you call someone in the White House who is honest, caring,
and well-read?
A: A tourist." -- Anonymous
"It would be offly hard for any of you to abuse me on usenet. Really. I
have the advantage. I could easily turn alt.usenet.kooks into a cesspool
of encoded posts. Bringing the noise ratio up so high as to make the
group worthless. Anybody who can code could do this, why nobody has
bothered before now is beyond me. The ultimate spamming engine..
'BAWAHAHA'" -- Dustbin "Outer Filth" K00k's delusions of grandeur
reached new heights, in Message-ID:
<Xns98355D29419...@69.28.186.121>
"Immorality: The morality of those who are having a better time." -- H.
L. Mencken
"Consider that language a moment. 'Purposefully and materially
supported hostilities against the United States' is in the eye of the
beholder, and this administration has proven itself to be astonishingly
impatient with criticism of any kind. The broad powers given to Bush by
this legislation allow him to capture, indefinitely detain, and refuse a
hearing to any American citizen who speaks out against Iraq or any other
part of the so-called 'War on Terror.'
"If you write a letter to the editor attacking Bush, you could be
deemed as purposefully and materially supporting hostilities against the
United States. If you organize or join a public demonstration against
Iraq, or against the administration, the same designation could befall
you. One dark-comedy aspect of the legislation is that senators or House
members who publicly disagree with Bush, criticize him, or organize
investigations into his dealings could be placed under the same
designation. In effect, Congress just gave Bush the power to lock them
up." -- William Rivers Pitt
"It has become clear in recent months that a critical mass of the American
people have seen through the lies of the Bush administration; with the
president's polls at an historic low, growing resistance to the war Iraq,
and the Democrats likely to take back the Congress in mid-term elections,
the Bush administration is on the ropes. And so it is particularly
worrying that President Bush has seen fit, at this juncture to, in effect,
declare himself dictator." -- Frank Morales
http://www.uruknet.biz/?p=m27769&hd=0&size=1&l=e&fark
"No man in History, including JESUS CHRIST, has directly revealed to
the World the SATANIC WEAPON used to enslave mankind -- INTELLECTUAL
THOUGHT!!" -- Ray Karczewski repeatedly proves his words in every post
he makes
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> Andrew wrote:
>
> >An alternate explanation is that the point of origin of R&D for these
> >procedures is further removed.
>
> If you are saying what I think you are saying, I would agree. I would however
> assign a bit more blame to your colleagues than you do.
That would be your choice.
It remains my choice to refrain from judging others.
> >> And do not loose sight of the fact their survival rates are very nearly the
> >> same as in the US.
> >
> >Many folks, prior to surgery are crippled by fear of their symptoms
> >despite intensive medical therapy and now after bypass surgery have
> >their lives back. They are the biggest cheerleaders for the procedure.
> >Those who die on the table do not complain. Those who suffer
> >cognitively don't complain either. Those who are worse clinically
> >don't have the strength to complain. The end result is that you
> >largely have only outspoken supporters for the procedure among those
> >who have had bypass surgery.
>
> You are absolutely correct about this. There is a related mechanism at work
> wherein patients who undergo extraordinary procedures will try mightily to
> reconcile the pain and suffering with some kind of benefit.
>
> One of my other pet peeves involved the overuse of radical mastectomy in years
> gone by. When it became obvious that lumpectomy with possible adjuvant therapy
> was just as effective in early detection cases, many surgeons were slow to make
> the change. There were support groups of women who had undergone radical or
> modified mastectomies who were among the most outspoken detractors of the new
> minimally damaging procedure. So it is not uncommon in CABG for patients to not
> really have their lives back, or have only marginal improvement, and still be
> big cheerleaders for CABG. It is psychology 101 stuff as you well know.
Between you and someone who has experienced CABG firsthand, who will
others believe?
> >When was your dad's surgery ?
>
> About ten years back.
Then your experience predates the trials that show coronary
revascularization with disappointingly marginal life extension benefit.
> >> And I previously reported what Dr. Gupta told me personally: that
> >> I was at risk just walking to my car, not to even think about mowing the lawn,
> >> and that he already knew before the angiogram there was a 99% probability I
> >> would have to have CABG.
> >
> >Is that what he wrote down in his report concerning you ?
>
> The written report does not mention the 99% chance of needing CABG; that was
> during the consultation with the sig other and me after the examination. The
> written report does have a rather dire diagnosis which Howard asserted was
> nonsense.
Then for your own sake, we should discontinue writing about Dr. Gupta.
> >> >> PCI and CABG is big business. Medical treatment makes very little money for
> >> >> cardiologists or surgeons. Most doctors are not evil, but most are motivated by
> >> >> the bottom line at least somewhat (some more than others).
> >> >
> >> >The brainwashing is coming from elsewhere.
> >>
> >> Where, pray tell?
> >
> >The same place as where the false mantra for weight loss "eat right and
> >exercise" and the false belief "hunger is bad" originate.
>
> I would not disagree with this somewhat cryptic statement. However, it takes
> doctors willing to delude themselves to make it fly (as I said before, it is
> greed or stupidity, or a mixture thereof).
It is cryptic to you because your diabetes indicate that you have been
his unwitting victim of his brainwashing folks.
> >The predicament reminded me of Daniel's:
> >
> >Daniel 6:3-5
>
> I am of course curious what they wanted you to fib about since my guesses have
> been incorrect.
They requested that I change post-cath diagnoses from non-occlusive
coronary disease to normal coronary arteries.
I chose to be insubordinate by remaining steadfast on the side of the
truth, Whom I love with all my heart, soul, mind, and strength:
http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit/fear.asp
Fear GOD and dread nothing that is of this world:
http://MabletonGA.OurLittle.net/DreadNought
> >> >Those referred for CABG are often those who have failed medical therapy
> >> >alone.
> >>
> >> Ahhh, but there is a stacked deck. The typical pediatric doses of Beta
> >> Blockers, and other drugs usually prescribed by cardiologists as initial medical
> >> treatment often insure failure. No conspiracy here, just dumb doctors.
> >
> >Many do not tolerate even small doses of beta blockers. There are no
> >pediatric doses of beta blockers because this medication is not
> >prescribed to children.
>
> Pediatric dose in this context is a figure of speech borrowed from Howard. But
> you knew that and were just funnin' me. Howard had a clever sort of automatic
> titration scheme to help counter that fairly common tolerance problem. He would
> give patients a schedule that extended over six or eight weeks during which time
> the Beta Blocker and Ace Inhibitor doses were gradually increased. Further, he
> would spend a good deal of time explaining what to expect; being aware of what
> side effects are common and what the drug is doing for you makes a tremendous
> difference. Most doctors do not take the time to educate and prepare patients.
>
> I am sure you are aware many stage performers, lawyers (before court
> appearances) and surgeons have developed a fondness for Beta Blockers.
It is a poor and inferior substitute for HIS peace which passes all
worldly understanding.
> >> It is not that the procedure is unwanted, it is that not enough information is
> >> imparted to allow true informed consent. Tell a patient his angiogram reveals
> >> he is not a good candidate for PCI, and CABG is his best option, and he will
> >> likely agree since he wants very badly to trust his doctor's judgment. But tell
> >> him there is about a 75% chance of at least some cognitive diminution, and he
> >> might think almost any other option starts to look good.
> >
> >The weighing of risk versus benefit will necessarily vary. Here the
> >perception of benefit will have to be the patients', who are hearing
> >only positive reports from those who have actually had the surgery.
> >See above.
>
> But without some doctor pushing the procedure not many patients would demand a
> bypass or PCI, no matter how much a friend or relative bragged about their
> wonderful experience. I understand why it is important to you to believe
> cardiologists are not the bad guys here, but I fear you are in denial about way
> too many doctors urging way too many unnecessary procedures.
It simply remains my choice to refrain from judging others per the kind
and helpful suggestion of my LORD (Matthew 7:1-2).
May GOD continue to help us with our needs, dear friend Syd whom I love
ana...@logwell.com
<godo...@statements.likeyours> wrote:
>On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 07:02:35 +0000, analog did most oddly state:
>> On 13 Nov 2006 22:13:53 -0800, "Chinese Water Torturer" wrote:
>>
>> I'll bite; how has he harassed you?
>
>He's harassed everyone who wouldn't slurp him.
How many doctors would even bother to interact with the public?
>
>> I have reviewd hundreds of messages in this News Group, and it looks
>> pretty clear who has been doing the harassing around here (not a personal
>> attack on you, but Chung's detractors in general).
>
>He gets the shit back that he delivers. Since he delivers so much to so
>many, he gets back an awful lot.
Why bother with it?
>
>> Dr. Chung and I do not agree on everything, but he has been nothing but
>> respectful, kind, and informative in my interchange with him here in SMC.
>> He is incredibly knowlegeable (even Dr. Hildner concedes this in the
>> letter for which you so thoughtfully provided a link).
>
>I don't really care how he's knowledgeable; how he's k00ky is of greater
>concern, and he's k00ky in terms of being a cowardly (running from
>difficult questions), condescending (praying for people who would prefer
>that he not do so), presumptuous (his prayers keep people *alive*),
>pathetic (trolling support groups) cunt.
>
Nobody in Usenet owes anybody answers to"difficult questions". I guess I do not
understand the reaction of many in here to him. So what if he is a bit
eccentric or "kooky" in your eyes? Think how dull your life would be if he were
not so...
The Demon Prince of Absurdity
> On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 12:26:26 GMT, The God of Odd Statements wrote:
>>On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 07:02:35 +0000, analog did most oddly state:
>>> On 13 Nov 2006 22:13:53 -0800, "Chinese Water Torturer" wrote:
>>>
>>> I'll bite; how has he harassed you?
>>
>>He's harassed everyone who wouldn't slurp him.
>
> How many doctors would even bother to interact with the public?
I don't know. How many ethical doctors would troll support groups?
>>> I have reviewd hundreds of messages in this News Group, and it looks
>>> pretty clear who has been doing the harassing around here (not a
>>> personal attack on you, but Chung's detractors in general).
>>
>>He gets the shit back that he delivers. Since he delivers so much to so
>>many, he gets back an awful lot.
>
> Why bother with it?
Support group trolls are loathesome fungus. Tolerating them without
answer won't make them go away. Nothing else will, either, but that's no
reason to let them troll freely.
>>> Dr. Chung and I do not agree on everything, but he has been nothing but
>>> respectful, kind, and informative in my interchange with him here in
>>> SMC. He is incredibly knowlegeable (even Dr. Hildner concedes this in
>>> the letter for which you so thoughtfully provided a link).
>>
>>I don't really care how he's knowledgeable; how he's k00ky is of greater
>>concern, and he's k00ky in terms of being a cowardly (running from
>>difficult questions), condescending (praying for people who would prefer
>>that he not do so), presumptuous (his prayers keep people *alive*),
>>pathetic (trolling support groups) cunt.
>
> Nobody in Usenet owes anybody answers to"difficult questions".
But ducking and dodging them, whilst continuing to make the usual
boiler-plate platitudes, is a sign of cowardice. If he owes no answers,
he's also owed no more respect than anyone else, based on his conduct.
> I guess I do not understand the reaction of many in here to him. So
> what if he is a bit eccentric or "kooky" in your eyes?
That means he gets paraded around as a k00k, for the entertainment of
all. He's not just a "bit" eccentric or kooky, he's a multiple
award-winning k00k (up to thirteen, so far -- since last Easter,
roughly), and he's up for more awards.
> Think how dull your life would be if he were not so...
Oh, make no mistake: I'm perfectly happy to have him kook-dance for the
rest of his life. Just because he's a k00k, however, doesn't mean that
trolling support groups for converts is no big deal. There are non-k00ks
who troll support ng's, and they're just as unethical. People don't post
to support groups because they're k00ks, they post to them because they
need support, and know it. Kooks need support, too, but they don't know
it, won't acknowledge it, and in fact strenuously deny it. Furthermore,
kooks (and non-kooks) who troll support groups do so not because they
need support from them, since they don't acknowledge any need for help,
but because they are trying to start flamewars and/or look for
followers.
--
________________________________________________________________________
Hail Eris! TM#5; COOSN-029-06-71069
Cardinal Snarky of the Fannish Inquisition
http://www6.kingdomofloathing.com/login.php
http://www.runescape.com/
No one expects the Fannish Inquisition!
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Cabal_of_the_Holy_Pretzel/join
I own "James C Cracked is God!!!":
MID: <1161060410.7...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
"Chips on you dud, you got bugged for being near me, Viruses transmit
that way you know." -- Blooey: Master of the Autoflame. Message-ID:
<4556A926...@pharae.org>
"Q: How many Bush administration officials does it take to change a
light bulb?
A: None. There is no need to change anything. We made the right decision
to stick with that light bulb. People who say that it is burned out are
giving aid and encouragement to the Forces of Darkness." -- Anon.
"Etymology:
Argumentum ad Septicus : argument to putrefaction. Derived from Septicum
Argumentum : putrefaction of argument.
"Septic \Sep"tic\, Septical \Sep"tic*al\
a. [L. septicus to make putrid: cf. F. septique.]
Having power to promote putrefaction. Of or relating to or
caused by putrefaction." -- Kadaitcha Man, indirectly to
Donald "Skeptic"/"Septic" Alford, in MID: <a3svh.d...@news.alt.net>
"I never fail to be amazing" -- Looney Maroon for September 2006 nominee
William Barwell's ego knows no bounds. MID:
12ggt3q...@corp.supernews.com
"We are most nearly ourselves when we achieve the seriousness of the
child at play." -- Heraclitus
"And thats another mistake on your part. Your 'playing' games on usenet,
and I'm not playing...It has nothing to do with impressing you, it has
more to do with making sure you have the education you'll need to debate.
The debate is no fun for me if you are mentally incapable of it. I'm
giving you an opportunity to educate yourself. That's all." -- A trashy
former virus-writer turned Outer Filth doesn't know if he's playing or
working, in MID: <1159389579....@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>
"I am incapable of original thoughts" -- Ctrl¤/Alt¤/Del¤ has an honest
moment, in MID: <0h59i25ejlthqeeit...@4ax.com>
"But now the end is near. Now Mark Foley comes along and is making
almost all liberal dreams come true and seriously, I'm sorry for it.
See, I believe in karma. I believe what comes around goes around and I
know full well that it's just bad juju to wish such a level of turmoil
and ill upon other humans, warmongering gay-hating maladroits or no, and
that the real path of enlightenment is paved with forgiveness and
progress and white-hot love and turning the other cheek and scotch.
"In fact, Jesus said something about that, I do believe. He said, "Knock
it off already with the warmongering and the hating of each other and
let's all get some wine and party like it's 2012." Then again, he never
saw Karl Rove stab the nation with the dull ice pick of bogus fear. He
never heard George W. Bush describe brutal war and the death of tens of
thousands as "just a comma" in world history.
"Check that. Maybe I'm not so sorry after all." -- Mark Morford,
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/gate/archive/2006/10/11/
notes101106.DTL&nl=fix
http://tinyurl.com/kusmr
GeF
> Feel free to poke through the Google Groups archives and realize what
> kind of person you're engaging with.
>
you're just as crazy except you haven't offered useful medical advice
and haven't received any thanks for your efforts. Take a look at how
many people have been helpęd by Dr. Chung...
face it, you're just a perpetually angry guy with an irrational grudge
against an unconventional person.
Cardinal Snarky of the Fannish Inquisition
didst finally confess, after taking Muche Tea:
> Ace Berserker wrote:
>
>> Feel free to poke through the Google Groups archives and realize what
>> kind of person you're engaging with.
>
> you're just as crazy except you haven't offered useful medical advice
> and haven't received any thanks for your efforts. Take a look at how
> many people have been helpęd by Dr. Chung...
Chungo's the only "doctor" of any sort /left/ in smc, reportedly, so
he's by default helping more than any of the doctors who've posted
there. But that doesn't make him a saint, it makes him a troll who
chased away all the other doctors through sheer bloody-mindedness, and a
k00k who thinks he's doing the world a favour in the process.
> face it, you're just a perpetually angry guy with an irrational grudge
> against an unconventional person.
Chunky's as "unconventional" as tapioca, but more annoying than pepper
spray. Even when I have him scored at -9999 in a bunch of morphs and
nyms, his bullshit still slips through in replies, and he still keeps on
morphing.
--
________________________________________________________________________
Hail Eris!
Demon Prince of Absurdity
"And no, I did not have sex with my son. But if I did I certainly
wouldn't tell you. Something so beautiful and precious should be kept
private." -- Kathy L. Mosesian, or possibly not really her, confesses
she may be a liar and committer of incest with her own son, in MID:
<cfcd3f4660694e3a...@msgid.frell.theremailer.net>
The reporter asked Colin Powell (or George Bush), "What proof do you
have that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction?"
He replied, "We kept the receipts." -- Bill Hicks
"They thought I was fair game. I was an instrument of purpose to achieve
their desires and not 100 percent real and ALSO that they had me by the
short curlies because I thought that the world revolved around them and
therefore I think that I am fair game and rightly so. If they want to
play dirty, I get to too. It's not a one-way street. I will use the
physcial strength that I have over them, my superior 5'7-3/4" height
advantage, the boxing moves I paid to learn, the suprise of pussyfooting
up to them with their back to me in a public place 18 1/2 years after
the fact and thus not only do will they not know that I am but a pica's
distance away from them, but that I even exist on earth." -- Chris Tsao
is secretly John Wentzky's psychic twin. MID:
<1161246083.1...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>
Looney Maroon nominee for August 2006 Johnny D Wentzky foamed:
"You never asked someone who goes into areas of the internet that are
only for adults who has an underage id somehow or another if they are a
cop posing as an underage person online?
I guess lots of people just don't watch dateline or read stories much.
Why don;t you go to pervertedjustice,com and see what they do. They are
awash in their self-proclaimed glory after they lied to membners of the
public.
They are awash in their self-proclaimed glory after they posed as an
underage person and agreed to do all sorts of sex acts wioth adult
males, and they are adults posing as teenager themselves. They make
themsleves into liars by falsely impersonating underage persons and by
not fuilfilling the words they tell the victims online in their chats.
Why don't you read it where they tell these victims of their deceit
about how they have been with grown men and such? Why don't you read it
where they say, "That would be cool." after someone makes an advance
towards an adult who is posing as a teenager? And, where they agree to
meet the person, etc.
Lost control, didn't you?
Is that why you feel as if you need to lie so much now? I see where lots
of these false impersonation games are not sticking. They feel as if
they can lie and then order the victims to get counseling in the
gayblade, governmental, pro-choice tax leech counseling centers. They
are doing nothing more than usury and fraud in many cases." -- Wentzky
almost comes out of the closet as a pedo/ephebophile in MID:
<H%%Eg.28916$Uq1....@bignews6.bellsouth.net>
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> Odd neighbor wrote:
> > Syd wrote:
> >> Torturer wrote:
> >>
> >> I'll bite; how has he harassed you?
> >
> > He's harassed everyone who wouldn't slurp him.
>
> How many doctors would even bother to interact with the public?
There are a few of us diehards here and there who are not intimidated
by folks like neighbor Odd and Tortured :-)
Many thanks, much praise, and all the glory to GOD for giving us the
experience of working HIS miracles in large county hospitals in the
middle of death, destruction, mayhem and other evil.
May GOD continue to help us with our needs, dear neighbor Syd whom I
ana...@logwell.com
<absurd_numb...@hell.corn> wrote:
So you do not like Dr. Chung; that is your prerogative.
However, you are dead wrong about one thing. A CAD patient who wanders in here
could do much worse than listen to what he says. Whatever can be said about our
Dr. Chung, he is not motivated by the greed that blinds so many cardiologists to
anything but expensive invasive procedures. To his credit, he will not even
criticize other doctors.
What is your story? I have been very candid that I am a CAD patient looking for
a new cardiologist. I have been placed in this sad position due to the recent
death of Dr. Howard Wayne. Do you have a heart problem, or do you just like to
troll support groupsl? Or are you cross posting?
ana...@logwell.com
wrote:
>Between you and someone who has experienced CABG firsthand, who will
>others believe?
You are of course correct, but even so, I have been responsible for diverting a
few folks. As I mentioned, I have succeeded in getting a number of folks to go
see Dr. Wayne.
>
>> >When was your dad's surgery ?
>>
>> About ten years back.
>
>Then your experience predates the trials that show coronary
>revascularization with disappointingly marginal life extension benefit.
The VA had at least one study even back then that raised serious questions.
There is no doubt my dad had cognitive problems after the CABG, but I did not
know the likely cause at the time. This was especially tragic since he had been
a trial lawyer for nearly sixty years.
>
>> >> And I previously reported what Dr. Gupta told me personally: that
>> >> I was at risk just walking to my car, not to even think about mowing the lawn,
>> >> and that he already knew before the angiogram there was a 99% probability I
>> >> would have to have CABG.
>> >
>> >Is that what he wrote down in his report concerning you ?
>>
>> The written report does not mention the 99% chance of needing CABG; that was
>> during the consultation with the sig other and me after the examination. The
>> written report does have a rather dire diagnosis which Howard asserted was
>> nonsense.
>
>Then for your own sake, we should discontinue writing about Dr. Gupta.
I am not concerned about Dr. Gupta in the least. I live by an older law than
you do, and I would not be reticent to litigate. At the very least, he and
other similar practitioners are guilty of failing to provide adequate informed
consent.
>
>> >> >> PCI and CABG is big business. Medical treatment makes very little money for
>> >> >> cardiologists or surgeons. Most doctors are not evil, but most are motivated by
>> >> >> the bottom line at least somewhat (some more than others).
>> >> >
>> >> >The brainwashing is coming from elsewhere.
>> >>
>> >> Where, pray tell?
>> >
>> >The same place as where the false mantra for weight loss "eat right and
>> >exercise" and the false belief "hunger is bad" originate.
>>
>> I would not disagree with this somewhat cryptic statement. However, it takes
>> doctors willing to delude themselves to make it fly (as I said before, it is
>> greed or stupidity, or a mixture thereof).
>
>It is cryptic to you because your diabetes indicate that you have been
>his unwitting victim of his brainwashing folks.
Hahah, I am a victim of not enough self-control, and a love of eating.
>
>> I am of course curious what they wanted you to fib about since my guesses have
>> been incorrect.
>
>They requested that I change post-cath diagnoses from non-occlusive
>coronary disease to normal coronary arteries.
>
>I chose to be insubordinate by remaining steadfast on the side of the
>truth, Whom I love with all my heart, soul, mind, and strength:
You would be dead wrong if you believe this was not related to "bottom line"
concerns. They obviously saw your non-conventional diagnosis as a threat to
something. And that something is always money related.
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> Andrew wrote:
>
> >Between you and someone who has experienced CABG firsthand, who will
> >others believe?
>
> You are of course correct, but even so, I have been responsible for diverting a
> few folks. As I mentioned, I have succeeded in getting a number of folks to go
> see Dr. Wayne.
The credit belongs to GOD because only HE has the power to make hearts
receptive to the truth.
> >> >When was your dad's surgery ?
> >>
> >> About ten years back.
> >
> >Then your experience predates the trials that show coronary
> >revascularization with disappointingly marginal life extension benefit.
>
> The VA had at least one study even back then that raised serious questions.
Yes. However, raising questions was not enough to change community
standards of care.
> There is no doubt my dad had cognitive problems after the CABG, but I did not
> know the likely cause at the time. This was especially tragic since he had been
> a trial lawyer for nearly sixty years.
Sad to read this about your dad.
> >> >> And I previously reported what Dr. Gupta told me personally: that
> >> >> I was at risk just walking to my car, not to even think about mowing the lawn,
> >> >> and that he already knew before the angiogram there was a 99% probability I
> >> >> would have to have CABG.
> >> >
> >> >Is that what he wrote down in his report concerning you ?
> >>
> >> The written report does not mention the 99% chance of needing CABG; that was
> >> during the consultation with the sig other and me after the examination. The
> >> written report does have a rather dire diagnosis which Howard asserted was
> >> nonsense.
> >
> >Then for your own sake, we should discontinue writing about Dr. Gupta.
>
> I am not concerned about Dr. Gupta in the least. I live by an older law than
> you do, and I would not be reticent to litigate. At the very least, he and
> other similar practitioners are guilty of failing to provide adequate informed
> consent.
It would be good for your heart to forgive.
> >> >> >> PCI and CABG is big business. Medical treatment makes very little money for
> >> >> >> cardiologists or surgeons. Most doctors are not evil, but most are motivated by
> >> >> >> the bottom line at least somewhat (some more than others).
> >> >> >
> >> >> >The brainwashing is coming from elsewhere.
> >> >>
> >> >> Where, pray tell?
> >> >
> >> >The same place as where the false mantra for weight loss "eat right and
> >> >exercise" and the false belief "hunger is bad" originate.
> >>
> >> I would not disagree with this somewhat cryptic statement. However, it takes
> >> doctors willing to delude themselves to make it fly (as I said before, it is
> >> greed or stupidity, or a mixture thereof).
> >
> >It is cryptic to you because your diabetes indicate that you have been
> >his unwitting victim of his brainwashing folks.
>
> Hahah, I am a victim of not enough self-control, and a love of eating.
In your heart resides the false belief that "hunger is bad."
Those who overcome this brainwashing and know in the heart that "hunger
is good" stop eating before they are full:
http://MabletonGA.OurLittle.net/DreadNought
> >> I am of course curious what they wanted you to fib about since my guesses have
> >> been incorrect.
> >
> >They requested that I change post-cath diagnoses from non-occlusive
> >coronary disease to normal coronary arteries.
> >
> >I chose to be insubordinate by remaining steadfast on the side of the
> >truth, Whom I love with all my heart, soul, mind, and strength:
>
> You would be dead wrong if you believe this was not related to "bottom line"
> concerns.
It was not related to money issues.
> They obviously saw your non-conventional diagnosis as a threat to
> something.
Non-occlusive coronary disease is not an unconventional diagnosis.
> And that something is always money related.
Would you say that the participants of AUK feeling threatened by my
existence and my posts is also money related ?
Suffice it to write that the prince of this world (aka father of all
lies) feels threatened by all those who come in the name of the LORD
because they don't care about his money.
May GOD continue to help us with our needs, dear neighbor Syd whom I
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> The Demon Prince of Absurdity <absurd_numb...@hell.corn> wrote:
>
> So you do not like Dr. Chung; that is your prerogative.
Actually, his "beef" is with my LORD with Whom I am walking ever more
closely:
http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit/fear.asp
Fear GOD and dread nothing that is of this world including demon
princes:
http://MabletonGA.OurLittle.net/DreadNought
> However, you are dead wrong about one thing.
Actually, he is already dead. Sans GOD's love in our hearts, that
would the eventual outcome for all of us:
http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit/love.asp
> A CAD patient who wanders in here
> could do much worse than listen to what he says. Whatever can be said about our
> Dr. Chung, he is not motivated by the greed that blinds so many cardiologists to
> anything but expensive invasive procedures. To his credit, he will not even
> criticize other doctors.
It would be difficult to love the person you are criticizing.
> What is your story? I have been very candid that I am a CAD patient looking for
> a new cardiologist. I have been placed in this sad position due to the recent
> death of Dr. Howard Wayne. Do you have a heart problem, or do you just like to
> troll support groupsl? Or are you cross posting?
He's from AUK which is a newsgroup filled with participants who are
consumed with hatred. A heart filled with hate is a heart with a
problem.
Ace Berserker
Andrew B. Chung assumed a spread-armed martyr pose and wrote:
> He's from AUK which is a newsgroup filled with participants who are
> consumed with hatred.
Which explains why you continually crosspost to AUK....
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
>
> > He's from AUK which is a newsgroup filled with participants who are
> > consumed with hatred.
>
> Which explains why you continually crosspost to AUK....
Yes.
Hatefilled hearts are sick hearts.
May GOD continue to keep your heart beating (unless you unwisely choose
to curse HIM) dear neighbor whom I love unconditionally.
Don Kirkman
article <ah2ml2ptjvst4p9mk...@4ax.com>:
>How many doctors would even bother to interact with the public?
That's one of those unanswerable, and therefore meaningless, questions.
In my limited use of the newsgroups I've come across several, in various
specialties. The top rheumatologist in his own country posted regularly
in arthritis support groups until his workload grew too large, but he
maintains his public web site with constantly updated information about
all the 170+ varieties of arthritis and auto-immune diseases.
In the same group a doctor who teaches in a medical center setting, and
has her own practice as well, posted until her own arthritis forced to
curtail her activities.
Several doctors--MDs, nutritionists, chiropractors,
physiologists--participate in the various sports and athletics
newsgroups.
Several doctors participated regularly in sci.med.cardiology until it
went toxic. I believe from internal evidence that several of them still
post and/or lurk, as discerned from their technical knowledge, their
"bedside manner," and their familiarity with current studies.
>Nobody in Usenet owes anybody answers to"difficult questions". I guess I do not
>understand the reaction of many in here to him. So what if he is a bit
>eccentric or "kooky" in your eyes? Think how dull your life would be if he were
>not so...
There are two very specific issues in play here.
First, Usenet from its inception was controlled by mutually agreed
procedures and behavior. While some newsgroups have documents setting
out their specific boundaries, all newsgroups by consensus are governed
by "Netiquette." That consensus expects that posts and discussions will
be limited to the subject matter of the group in question; e.g.,
cardiology, diabetes, arthritis. General discussions of theology,
politics, or history are expected to be avoided. Contrary to Dr.
Chung's expressed opinion, discussion about metaphorical hearts ("I have
Jesus in my heart" " GOD's love in our hearts") does not fall under the
rubric of cardiology.
Second, there is an issue of a licensed, practicing doctor posting to
numbers of newsgroups not about their announced subject matter but to
"witness" to his idiosyncratic version of one of the many streams of
Christian theology. This raises questions about his mental condition:
is he sound enough of mind and judgment to treat patients? Every post
he makes weighs in the balance on that question.
--
Don Kirkman
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> Syd wrote:
>
> >How many doctors would even bother to interact with the public?
>
> That's one of those unanswerable, and therefore meaningless, questions.
>
> In my limited use of the newsgroups I've come across several, in various
> specialties. The top rheumatologist in his own country posted regularly
> in arthritis support groups until his workload grew too large, but he
> maintains his public web site with constantly updated information about
> all the 170+ varieties of arthritis and auto-immune diseases.
>
> In the same group a doctor who teaches in a medical center setting, and
> has her own practice as well, posted until her own arthritis forced to
> curtail her activities.
>
> Several doctors--MDs, nutritionists, chiropractors,
> physiologists--participate in the various sports and athletics
> newsgroups.
>
> Several doctors participated regularly in sci.med.cardiology until it
> went toxic.
Actually, there have been only three other cardiologists that have
participated here on a regular basis over the past 7 years:
(1) Colin Rose, MD
(2) Howard Wayne, MD
(3) Terrence Chun, MD
The other participating physicians have not been cardiologists and
typically don't even identify themselves as physicians here on SMC.
> I believe from internal evidence that several of them still
> post and/or lurk, as discerned from their technical knowledge, their
> "bedside manner," and their familiarity with current studies.
To know that someone is lurking would be clairvoyance and not
discernment.
> >Nobody in Usenet owes anybody answers to"difficult questions". I guess I do not
> >understand the reaction of many in here to him. So what if he is a bit
> >eccentric or "kooky" in your eyes? Think how dull your life would be if he were
> >not so...
>
> There are two very specific issues in play here.
Though this may be a game to you, it isn't for me.
> First, Usenet from its inception was controlled by mutually agreed
> procedures and behavior. While some newsgroups have documents setting
> out their specific boundaries, all newsgroups by consensus are governed
> by "Netiquette."
Etiquette governs nothing especially not here in an unmoderated usenet
newsgroup.
> That consensus expects that posts and discussions will
> be limited to the subject matter of the group in question; e.g.,
> cardiology, diabetes, arthritis. General discussions of theology,
> politics, or history are expected to be avoided.
In reality, off-topic threads are present in every unmoderated usenet
newsgroup that is known as a rule.
> Contrary to Dr.
> Chung's expressed opinion, discussion about metaphorical hearts ("I have
> Jesus in my heart" " GOD's love in our hearts") does not fall under the
> rubric of cardiology.
Without the LORD, your opinion is meaningless (Ecclesiastes).
> Second, there is an issue of a licensed, practicing doctor posting to
> numbers of newsgroups not about their announced subject matter but to
> "witness" to his idiosyncratic version of one of the many streams of
> Christian theology.
In truth, I am not religious and am therefore without theology, which
is man-made:
http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit/scholarly.asp
> This raises questions about his mental condition:
> is he sound enough of mind and judgment to treat patients?
In my continued ever closer walk with LORD Jesus Christ, HE keeps me
completely well. Many thanks, much praise, and all the glory to GOD
for compelling you to express your concern.
Laus Deo !
> Every post he makes weighs in the balance on that question.
Fear GOD and dread nothing that is of this world:
http://MabletonGA.OurLittle.net/DreadNought
May GOD continue to keep your heart beating, dear neighbor Don whom I
mcs
group therapy asked why she was there and ..... and you guessed, it she was
to save the group for Jesus.Andrew I will believe what you believe if you
rent me a nice room with without a view of Tanyas room , in clean air in
exchange for going door to door to extoll the virtues of our Lord. How is
that sound.? Ok it doesn't have to face the Tanyas room ..
"Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <lo...@thetruth.com> wrote in message
news:1163611737....@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> Andrew you sound like the lady who signed into the mental hospital and in
> group therapy asked why she was there and ..... and you guessed, it she was
> to save the group for Jesus.
Actually, I would be the psychiatrist leading the group therapy sharing
about Jesus if so moved by the Holy Spirit.
> Andrew I will believe what you believe if you
> rent me a nice room with without a view of Tanyas room , in clean air in
> exchange for going door to door to extoll the virtues of our Lord.
GOD's purpose for me here remains to inform and not to either convince
or convert.
> How is
> that sound.? Ok it doesn't have to face the Tanyas room ..
Sounds like you are attracted to sister Tanya.
Does she know how you feel about her ?
May GOD continue to heal our hearts with HIS living water, dear
neighbor whom I love unconditionally.
Kumar
> despite intensive medical therapy and now after bypass surgery have
> their lives back. They are the biggest cheerleaders for the procedure.
> Those who die on the table do not complain. Those who suffer
> cognitively don't complain either. Those who are worse clinically
> don't have the strength to complain. The end result is that you
> largely have only outspoken supporters for the procedure among those
> who have had bypass surgery.
It commonly happens in every system...alike In stocks, people give many
tips, whatever triggered are remembered, appreciated and exposed others
just forgotten. Any conclusion can truely be based on all results.
How much fatal risks are involved in getting surgery done or not
getting done, commonly?
Denis Loubet
> Ace Berserker wrote:
>> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
>>
>> > He's from AUK which is a newsgroup filled with participants who are
>> > consumed with hatred.
>>
>> Which explains why you continually crosspost to AUK....
>
> Yes.
>
> Hatefilled hearts are sick hearts.
>
> May GOD continue to keep your heart beating (unless you unwisely choose
> to curse HIM) dear neighbor whom I love unconditionally.
>
> Prayerfully in Christ's amazing love,
Why don't you practice some non-invasiveness and leave alt atheism off your
crossposts?
--
Denis Loubet
dlo...@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
http://www.ashenempires.com
Mu
<don...@wavecable.com> wrote:
>It seems to me I heard somewhere that ana...@logwell.com wrote in
>article <ah2ml2ptjvst4p9mk...@4ax.com>:
>
>>How many doctors would even bother to interact with the public?
>
>That's one of those unanswerable, and therefore meaningless, questions.
So sayeth the atheist.
Kumar
Denis Loubet wrote:
> "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <lo...@thetruth.com> wrote in message
> news:1163637036....@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> > Ace Berserker wrote:
> >> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
> >>
> >> > He's from AUK which is a newsgroup filled with participants who are
> >> > consumed with hatred.
> >>
> >> Which explains why you continually crosspost to AUK....
> >
> > Yes.
> >
> > Hatefilled hearts are sick hearts.
> >
> > May GOD continue to keep your heart beating (unless you unwisely choose
> > to curse HIM) dear neighbor whom I love unconditionally.
> >
> > Prayerfully in Christ's amazing love,
>
> Why don't you practice some non-invasiveness and leave alt atheism off your
> crossposts?
Btw, on some coronory artery blockage, can new arteries be commonly
sprout by angiogenesis and supply normal blood to heart?
What are risk-health benefit ratio by invasive surgeries and no
surgery--when symptoms are not much apperant of arteries blockage?
Don Kirkman
article <1163640067.4...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>:
>Don Kirkman wrote:
>> Syd wrote:
>> >How many doctors would even bother to interact with the public?
>Actually, there have been only three other cardiologists that have
>participated here on a regular basis over the past 7 years:
>The other participating physicians have not been cardiologists and
>typically don't even identify themselves as physicians here on SMC.
Typically you have ignored the original question, which was not about
cardiologists but about doctors. Since the person who asked that
question has been defending you ISTM you should at least deal with the
question he asked, not the question you wish he had asked.
>> There are two very specific issues in play here.
>Though this may be a game to you, it isn't for me.
Again you betray your unfamiliarity with common English idioms and
common sense.
>> First, Usenet from its inception was controlled by mutually agreed
>> procedures and behavior. While some newsgroups have documents setting
>> out their specific boundaries, all newsgroups by consensus are governed
>> by "Netiquette."
============================
>Etiquette governs nothing especially not here in an unmoderated usenet
>newsgroup.
=================================
QED
>> That consensus expects that posts and discussions will
>> be limited to the subject matter of the group in question; e.g.,
>> cardiology, diabetes, arthritis. General discussions of theology,
>> politics, or history are expected to be avoided.
>In reality, off-topic threads are present in every unmoderated usenet
>newsgroup that is known as a rule.
Nevertheless, the EXPECTATION is and always has been as I described.
--
Don Kirkman
ana...@logwell.com
You make a silly non-argument. Another example of logical fallacy.
You know the answer to my somewhat abstract question without a doubt. Very few
doctors would share their time and knowledge with us. Do you fancy your
ontological musings as clever?
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> >On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 16:55:44 -0800, Don Kirkman
> ><don...@wavecable.com> wrote:
> >
> >>It seems to me I heard somewhere that ana...@logwell.com wrote in
> >>article <ah2ml2ptjvst4p9mk...@4ax.com>:
> >>
> >>>How many doctors would even bother to interact with the public?
> >>
> >>That's one of those unanswerable, and therefore meaningless, questions.
> You make a silly non-argument. Another example of logical fallacy.
>
> You know the answer to my somewhat abstract question without a doubt. Very few
> doctors would share their time and knowledge with us. Do you fancy your
> ontological musings as clever?
Please forgive Don Kirkman because he knows not what he is doing.
This would not be for his sake but for yours.
Don is forgiven as far as I am concerned.
He does have heart disease just as you do.
May GOD continue to heal your heart by curing your diabetes, dear
friend Syd whom I love unconditionally.
Prayerfully in Christ's amazing love,
Andrew <><
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
> >> Syd wrote:
>
> >> >How many doctors would even bother to interact with the public?
>
> >Actually, there have been only three other cardiologists that have
> >participated here on a regular basis over the past 7 years:
>
> >The other participating physicians have not been cardiologists and
> >typically don't even identify themselves as physicians here on SMC.
>
> Typically you have ignored the original question, which was not about
> cardiologists but about doctors.
My response was to your comments and not to Syd's question.
Truth is simple.
> Since the person who asked that
> question has been defending you ISTM you should at least deal with the
> question he asked, not the question you wish he had asked.
No need to reinvent your wheel.
> >> There are two very specific issues in play here.
>
> >Though this may be a game to you, it isn't for me.
>
> Again you betray your unfamiliarity with common English idioms and
> common sense.
Your word choice betrayed the motivation in your heart.
> >> First, Usenet from its inception was controlled by mutually agreed
> >> procedures and behavior. While some newsgroups have documents setting
> >> out their specific boundaries, all newsgroups by consensus are governed
> >> by "Netiquette."
>
> ============================
> >Etiquette governs nothing especially not here in an unmoderated usenet
> >newsgroup.
> =================================
>
> QED
The governance of unmoderated Usenet remains non-governance though
there have always been self-appointed "Net-Kops" such as yourself and
the AUK denizens.
> >> That consensus expects that posts and discussions will
> >> be limited to the subject matter of the group in question; e.g.,
> >> cardiology, diabetes, arthritis. General discussions of theology,
> >> politics, or history are expected to be avoided.
>
> >In reality, off-topic threads are present in every unmoderated usenet
> >newsgroup that is known as a rule.
>
> Nevertheless, the EXPECTATION is and always has been as I described.
Rules govern.
Etiquette does not.
Truth is simple.
Sorry the truth does not meet your expectation. Please forgive all my
iniquities.
May GOD continue to keep your heart beating (unless you unwisely choose
to curse HIM) dear neighbor Don whom I love unconditionally.
Prayerfully in Christ's amazing love,
Andrew <><
--
Andrew B. Chung
Cardiologist, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit
As for knowing who are the very elect, these you will know by the
unconditional love they have for everyone including their enemies
(Matthew 5:44-45, 1 Corinthians 13:3, James 2:14-17).
http://HeartMDPhD.com/Love
> --
> Don Kirkman
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
> > Ace Berserker wrote:
> >> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
> >>
> >> > He's from AUK which is a newsgroup filled with participants who are
> >> > consumed with hatred.
> >>
> >> Which explains why you continually crosspost to AUK....
> >
> > Yes.
> >
> > Hatefilled hearts are sick hearts.
> >
> > May GOD continue to keep your heart beating (unless you unwisely choose
> > to curse HIM) dear neighbor whom I love unconditionally.
> >
> > Prayerfully in Christ's amazing love,
>
> Why don't you practice some non-invasiveness and leave alt atheism off your
> crossposts?
GOD made me an invasive cardiologist.
Sorry my shape bothers you so terribly. Please forgive all my
iniquities.
May HE continue to keep your heart beating (unless you unwisely choose
to curse HIM) dear neighbor Denis whom I love unconditionally.
Prayerfully in Christ's amazing love,
Andrew <><
mcs
> mcs wrote:
>> Andrew you sound like the lady who signed into the mental hospital and in
>> group therapy asked why she was there and ..... and you guessed, it she
>> was
>> to save the group for Jesus.
>
> Actually, I would be the psychiatrist leading the group therapy sharing
> about Jesus if so moved by the Holy Spirit.
>
you think if a patient had a different religion and would not want this?
Would you treat him or her differently ? The only problem I have what your
saying is religion often contributes to conflict when people can't seperate
their beliefs from what others believe. So its good you believe in the Lord
but when someone doesn't believe exactly the same way how do you treat them
then? personally and professionally?
>> Andrew I will believe what you believe if you
>> rent me a nice room with without a view of Tanyas room , in clean air in
>> exchange for going door to door to extoll the virtues of our Lord.
>
> GOD's purpose for me here remains to inform and not to either convince
> or convert.
The problem Andrew is your desire to inform about this often leaves others
unable to distinguish between anything else but religion. How is this wrong
or right? It could very easily make people decide that someone is good or
evil or right or wrong in other areas simply because they were born
differently.
>
>> How is
>> that sound.? Ok it doesn't have to face the Tanyas room ..
>
> Sounds like you are attracted to sister Tanya.
Now you see you gave me a good leadway in saying why I and probably others
like Tanya.
Tanya is a good person and everyone needs to be praised when in my view they
are open about who they are and gives time to people who often are in
stress. I am not saying she often submits to binding acceptance of everyone
but in her way I think she does, more so than others who remain silent. . I
may not agree with her or others on the net but her ability to be funny and
sometimes caring and honest and often reflective is r what God I believe
wants. Religion is good Andrew in that it sets standards to follow, and I
have nothing against Jesus , its just that I wonder how much of religion
some people need and why.
>
> Does she know how you feel about her ?
Ha, I think she is real aware of her effect on people lol
>
> May GOD continue to heal our hearts with HIS living water, dear
> neighbor whom I love unconditionally.
>
> Prayerfully in Christ's amazing love,
>
> Andrew <><
Good luck Andrew and I am not trying to criticize, just make you think a
little.
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
> >> Andrew you sound like the lady who signed into the mental hospital and in
> >> group therapy asked why she was there and ..... and you guessed, it she
> >> was
> >> to save the group for Jesus.
> >
> > Actually, I would be the psychiatrist leading the group therapy sharing
> > about Jesus if so moved by the Holy Spirit.
> >
> Well Andrew would this group be part of therapy or compulsitory?
That would be up to GOD. HE is my LORD.
Jesus is GOD.
Jesus is LORD.
> What would
> you think if a patient had a different religion and would not want this?
It remains GOD's infinite will that all souls including those belonging
to fig trees retain HIS generous gift of free will (Mark 11:12-14, 20):
http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit/freewill.asp
> Would you treat him or her differently ?
No.
Would still love him/her as my LORD commands.
> The only problem I have what your
> saying is religion often contributes to conflict when people can't seperate
> their beliefs from what others believe.
In truth, I am not religious.
> So its good you believe in the Lord
> but when someone doesn't believe exactly the same way how do you treat them
> then?
http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit/love.asp
> personally and professionally?
With unconditional love.
> >> Andrew I will believe what you believe if you
> >> rent me a nice room with without a view of Tanyas room , in clean air in
> >> exchange for going door to door to extoll the virtues of our Lord.
> >
> > GOD's purpose for me here remains to inform and not to either convince
> > or convert.
> The problem Andrew is your desire to inform about this often leaves others
> unable to distinguish between anything else but religion.
The truth is not a religion.
> How is this wrong
> or right?
The truth is always right.
Indeed, most assuredly without doubt, I know HIM to be kind, just, and
right.
"I am the way, the truth, and the life... " -- LORD Jesus Christ
Amen !!! Laus Deo !!!!! Marana tha !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> It could very easily make people decide that someone is good or
> evil or right or wrong in other areas simply because they were born
> differently.
GOD's invitation is open and non-restrictive:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/fcb058da12bb3f3d?
> >> How is
> >> that sound.? Ok it doesn't have to face the Tanyas room ..
> >
> > Sounds like you are attracted to sister Tanya.
> Now you see you gave me a good leadway in saying why I and probably others
> like Tanya.
The credit belongs to the Holy Spirit.
It remains my choice to continue to receive HIS guidance in everything
I say, do, and write.
HE is always good.
> Tanya is a good person and everyone needs to be praised when in my view they
> are open about who they are and gives time to people who often are in
> stress. I am not saying she often submits to binding acceptance of everyone
> but in her way I think she does, more so than others who remain silent. . I
> may not agree with her or others on the net but her ability to be funny and
> sometimes caring and honest and often reflective is r what God I believe
> wants. Religion is good Andrew in that it sets standards to follow, and I
> have nothing against Jesus , its just that I wonder how much of religion
> some people need and why.
There is only one religion that is of GOD. All the others are man-made
leading people away from GOD.
> > Does she know how you feel about her ?
> Ha, I think she is real aware of her effect on people lol
It would not hurt for you to write that you love her.
It would be good for you as well as for her to read this.
> > May GOD continue to heal our hearts with HIS living water, dear
> > neighbor whom I love unconditionally.
> >
> > Prayerfully in Christ's amazing love,
> >
> > Andrew <><
> Good luck Andrew and I am not trying to criticize, just make you think a
> little.
No such thing as luck either good or bad (Proverbs 16:33).
May GOD continue to heal our hearts with HIS living water, dear
neighbor whom I love unconditionally.
Prayerfully in Christ's amazing love,
Andrew <><
Teh Czar ov Awl Teh Flonkers
-0800 in AUK, they're so drad:
> Denis Loubet wrote:
>> "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" wrote...
>> > Ace Berserker wrote:
>> >> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > He's from AUK which is a newsgroup filled with participants who are
>> >> > consumed with hatred.
>> >>
>> >> Which explains why you continually crosspost to AUK....
>> >
>> > Yes.
>> >
>> > Hatefilled hearts are sick hearts.
>> >
>> > May GOD continue to keep your heart beating (unless you unwisely
>> > choose to curse HIM) dear neighbor whom I love unconditionally.
>> >
>> > Prayerfully in Christ's amazing love,
>>
>> Why don't you practice some non-invasiveness and leave alt atheism off
>> your crossposts?
>
> Btw, on some coronory artery blockage, can new arteries be commonly sprout
> by angiogenesis and supply normal blood to heart? What are risk-health
> benefit ratio by invasive surgeries and no surgery--when symptoms are not
> much apperant of arteries blockage?
A perfectly sensible pair of questions, in the context of the previous
post. I think Paris Hilton is a world-class genius, too.
Piss-takingly,
--
____________________________________________________________________________
Hail Eris! All hail Discordia!! Kallisti!!!
Lola Stonewall Riot
2001 RADW Bitch of the Year, ADRIC Awards (by acclamation); mhm 29x21; Tom
Baker's #1 Fan; Flonk Leader #2 & #11 1/9; S.N.A.R.K.Y.: Synthetic
Networked Android Responsible for Killing and Yardwork; the Discordian
People's Most Powerful and Revered Being (without portfolio); Demon of
Mockery and Silliness, Demon Lord of Confusion, Demon Prince of Absurdity;
Cardinal Snarky of the Fannish Inquisition; Lola, called Snarky, Queen of
the Snarks of Ærisia; Queen of Rice; TransWench; Ship's Chaos Demon, Bad
Ship BetNoirian; The God of Odd Statements; Dr. L. C. Snark, Professor of
Philosophy, Critical Theory (Liberal Arts and Contemporary Studies),
Mockery, Silliness, Confusion, Absurdity, Chaos, & General Mayhem, Centre
For Xena Studies; The God-Fairy-Demon Snark; The Black Goat With A Thousand
Young; Pope Snarky Goodfella of the undulating cable, JM, CK, POEE,
KOTHASK, GGGHD, MWFA, HCNB, CPFG, CEM; Superfaggot; Canadian Popular Front
for the Whitetail Jihad; Wearer of the Holy FAGGOT Hat; Sec'y, Int'l
Homosexual Conspiracy; Treasurer, Int'l Anarchist Conspiracy; Czar of all
the Flonkers; Mastermind of the SMOF; allegedly The Worst Kind Of Feminist;
Chas. E. Pemberton
ICQ: 135930147; popesnarkyatmeowdotorg
BITCH PRIDE!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quotable quotes:
"So the American government lied to the Native Americans for many, many
years, and then President Clinton lied about a relationship, and
everyone was surprised! A little naive, I feel!"
-- Eddie Izzard
"Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you'd
have good people doing good things and evil people doing bad things, but
for good people to do bad things, it takes religion."
-- Steven Weinberg, Nobel Laureate
Ghod
news:1163674391.3...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> ana...@logwell.com wrote:
>
> > >On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 16:55:44 -0800, Don Kirkman
> > ><don...@wavecable.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >>It seems to me I heard somewhere that ana...@logwell.com wrote
in
> > >>article <ah2ml2ptjvst4p9mk...@4ax.com>:
> > >>
> > >>>How many doctors would even bother to interact with the public?
> > >>
> > >>That's one of those unanswerable, and therefore meaningless,
questions.
>
> > You make a silly non-argument. Another example of logical
fallacy.
> >
> > You know the answer to my somewhat abstract question without a
doubt. Very few
> > doctors would share their time and knowledge with us. Do you
fancy your
> > ontological musings as clever?
>
> Please forgive Don Kirkman because he knows not what he is doing.
Oh dear, now it thinks it's JAYsus!
> This would not be for his sake but for yours.
Who're you talking to?
> Don is forgiven as far as I am concerned.
Forgiven by?
> He does have heart disease just as you do.
_You_ are a disease.
Ghod
[snip]
> Rules govern.
Everyone else, eh?
> Etiquette does not.
You don't know the meaning of the word.
> Truth is simple.
Not nearly as simple as you are.
> Sorry the truth does not meet your expectation. Please forgive all
my
> iniquities.
Boy, you'd be far more likely to get forgiveness for your iniquities,
if YOU'D STOP committing them.
Kumar
Teh Czar ov Awl Teh Flonkers wrote:
> >
> > Btw, on some coronory artery blockage, can new arteries be commonly sprout
> > by angiogenesis and supply normal blood to heart? What are risk-health
> > benefit ratio by invasive surgeries and no surgery--when symptoms are not
> > much apperant of arteries blockage?
>
> A perfectly sensible pair of questions, in the context of the previous
> post. I think Paris Hilton is a world-class genius, too.
>
> Piss-takingly,
??
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
grandeur, whined:
> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
> > > > Don wrote:
> > > >> Syd wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>>How many doctors would even bother to interact with the public?
> > > >>
> > > >>That's one of those unanswerable, and therefore meaningless,
> questions.
> >
> > > You make a silly non-argument. Another example of logical
> fallacy.
> > >
> > > You know the answer to my somewhat abstract question without a
> doubt. Very few
> > > doctors would share their time and knowledge with us. Do you
> fancy your
> > > ontological musings as clever?
> >
> > Please forgive Don Kirkman because he knows not what he is doing.
>
> Oh dear, now it thinks it's JAYsus!
No. I am not LORD Jesus Christ.
> > This would not be for his sake but for yours.
>
> Who're you talking to?
This written response was for Syd.
> > Don is forgiven as far as I am concerned.
>
> Forgiven by?
Someone who is a member of the brethren of LORD Jesus Christ.
> > He does have heart disease just as you do.
>
> _You_ are a disease.
Name-calling simply shows that you are lost:
http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit/dream.asp
This victory belongs to GOD, Whom I love with all my heart, soul, mind,
and strength:
http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit/fear.asp
Fear GOD and dread nothing that is of this world:
http://MabletonGA.OurLittle.net/DreadNought
Your consolation prize is eternal life if you choose to surrender to
HIM:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/fcb058da12bb3f3d?
May GOD continue to keep your heart beating (unless you choose unwisely
to curse HIM) dear neighbor Ghod whom I love unconditionally.
Mu
wrote:
>Syd -
>
>1) Consider why Chung, ostensibly a 'practicing cardiologist', has the
>time to post to Usenet literally hundreds of times a day - every day:
Lookee here, another "Chung ain't a doctor" . Wonder what the outcome
will be.
Hmmm, I'll bet he's dead dog wrong. Any takers? Any?
I have $35,000 that I will put in escrow at anytime that anyone who
wants to be that Chung isn't a practicing cardiologist.
How about you, Big Shot. Money, mouth, etc? How about it , Acer?
Mu
wrote:
>6) Consider that not one shred of documentation exists corroborating
>Chung's story of being mauled by "demon-possessed police" in 1997,
>precipitating his sudden and drastic religious perv... uh, CONVersion.
Hey, Chung, heck of a job you did faking that news article.
Mu
<redja...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> ana...@logwell.com wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> > Why in the world do you hate this young doctor so much?
>
>I don't. I hate his off-topic proselytizing, his inane bible-based
>disaster predictions plastered all over Usenet, his self-righteous
>condescension, plus the sneaking suspicion that he gets his jollies by
>intentionally pissing off NG posters.
Looks like he's pretty good at it.....considering your posts.
<chortle>
Mu
<godo...@statements.likeyours> wrote:
>SNIPPED ENORMOUS AMOUNT OF SELF-ABSORBED PRATTLE FOR A SIGNATURE- Ray Karczewski repeatedly proves his words in every post
>he makes..............blah quadrupled
d00d, how 'bout shutting off that king-sized billboard you call your
ego, er, signature line?
Mu
talking to/about. It is a silly non-post. Another example of
illogical truth. If I knew what the question was, I doubt I could
satisfactorily answer since I would have to be somewhat abstract to do
so. You are correct about the sharing part. You are incorrect as to
fancy, ontological and musings. Clever is Mu's middle name if Mu had
one.
Don Kirkman
>Don Kirkman wrote:
>> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
>> >Don Kirkman wrote:
>> >> Syd wrote:
>> >> >How many doctors would even bother to interact with the public?
>> >Actually, there have been only three other cardiologists that have
>> >participated here on a regular basis over the past 7 years:
>> >The other participating physicians have not been cardiologists and
>> >typically don't even identify themselves as physicians here on SMC.
>> Typically you have ignored the original question, which was not about
>> cardiologists but about doctors.
>My response was to your comments and not to Syd's question.
>Truth is simple.
But my response was confined to the precise issue that Syd raised; you
are the one trying to narrow the question to cardiologists.
>> >> There are two very specific issues in play here.
>> >Though this may be a game to you, it isn't for me.
>> Again you betray your unfamiliarity with common English idioms and
>> common sense.
>Your word choice betrayed the motivation in your heart.
My word choice included a common every day English idiom with no
connotation of gamesmanship.
>> >> First, Usenet from its inception was controlled by mutually agreed
>> >> procedures and behavior. While some newsgroups have documents setting
>> >> out their specific boundaries, all newsgroups by consensus are governed
>> >> by "Netiquette."
>> ============================
>> >Etiquette governs nothing especially not here in an unmoderated usenet
>> >newsgroup.
>> =================================
>> QED
>The governance of unmoderated Usenet remains non-governance though
>there have always been self-appointed "Net-Kops" such as yourself and
>the AUK denizens.
No, you have jettisoned any appearance of willingness to behave as a
member of a community with mutually accepted expectations and behavior.
Outlaws who abandon moral and legal expectations merit whatever comes
their way.
>> >> That consensus expects that posts and discussions will
>> >> be limited to the subject matter of the group in question; e.g.,
>> >> cardiology, diabetes, arthritis. General discussions of theology,
>> >> politics, or history are expected to be avoided.
>> >In reality, off-topic threads are present in every unmoderated usenet
>> >newsgroup that is known as a rule.
>> Nevertheless, the EXPECTATION is and always has been as I described.
>Rules govern.
>Etiquette does not.
Balderdash; rules are codified etiquette, but other ethical expectations
go beyond what is embedded in rules. Do you set up rules for your
relationship with your wife and daughter, or do you act as you know in
your heart is appropriate?
>Truth is simple.
>Sorry the truth does not meet your expectation. Please forgive all my
>iniquities.
The truth meets all my expectations; your dissembling and iniquities do
not.
--
Don Kirkman
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
> >Don Kirkman wrote:
> >> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
> >> >Don Kirkman wrote:
> >> >> Syd wrote:
>
> >> >> >How many doctors would even bother to interact with the public?
>
> >> >Actually, there have been only three other cardiologists that have
> >> >participated here on a regular basis over the past 7 years:
>
> >> >The other participating physicians have not been cardiologists and
> >> >typically don't even identify themselves as physicians here on SMC.
>
> >> Typically you have ignored the original question, which was not about
> >> cardiologists but about doctors.
>
> >My response was to your comments and not to Syd's question.
>
> >Truth is simple.
>
> But my response was confined to the precise issue that Syd raised; you
> are the one trying to narrow the question to cardiologists.
Actually, your response narrowed the focus to subspecialists
(rheumatologists).
Bottomline: You remain untruthful.
May GOD continue to keep your heart beating (unless you choose unwisely
Denis Loubet
> Denis Loubet wrote:
>> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
>> > Ace Berserker wrote:
>> >> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > He's from AUK which is a newsgroup filled with participants who are
>> >> > consumed with hatred.
>> >>
>> >> Which explains why you continually crosspost to AUK....
>> >
>> > Yes.
>> >
>> > Hatefilled hearts are sick hearts.
>> >
>> > May GOD continue to keep your heart beating (unless you unwisely choose
>> > to curse HIM) dear neighbor whom I love unconditionally.
>> >
>> > Prayerfully in Christ's amazing love,
>>
>> Why don't you practice some non-invasiveness and leave alt atheism off
>> your
>> crossposts?
>
> GOD made me an invasive cardiologist.
It's so hard being a robot, isn't it?
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
> > Denis Loubet wrote:
> >> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
> >> > Ace Berserker wrote:
> >> >> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > He's from AUK which is a newsgroup filled with participants who are
> >> >> > consumed with hatred.
> >> >>
> >> >> Which explains why you continually crosspost to AUK....
> >> >
> >> > Yes.
> >> >
> >> > Hatefilled hearts are sick hearts.
> >> >
> >> > May GOD continue to keep your heart beating (unless you unwisely choose
> >> > to curse HIM) dear neighbor whom I love unconditionally.
> >> >
> >> > Prayerfully in Christ's amazing love,
> >>
> >> Why don't you practice some non-invasiveness and leave alt atheism off
> >> your
> >> crossposts?
> >
> > GOD made me an invasive cardiologist.
>
> It's so hard being a robot, isn't it?
Robots don't have free will:
http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit/freewill.asp
Those who love others prove they are not robots.
May GOD continue to keep your heart beating (unless you unwisely choose
to curse HIM) dear neighbor Denis whom I love unconditionally.
Prayerfully in Christ's amazing love,
Andrew <><
Chinese Water Torturer
Mu mooed:
> Lookee here, another "Chung ain't a doctor" . Wonder what the outcome
> will be.
Did I say that, sockpuppet? Please post a link to where I said
Earthquack didn't earn a medical degree.
Do it right now or STFU. Back up your assertions with facts for once.
> I have $35,000
I doubt that very highly
> that I will put in escrow at anytime that anyone who
> wants to be that Chung isn't a practicing cardiologist.
You're confusing having a practice with having patients, Pu. Back to
the sock drawer with you.
Don Kirkman
>Don Kirkman wrote:
>> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
>> >Don Kirkman wrote:
>> >> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
>> >> >Don Kirkman wrote:
>> >> >> Syd wrote:
>> >> >> >How many doctors would even bother to interact with the public?
>> >> >Actually, there have been only three other cardiologists that have
>> >> >participated here on a regular basis over the past 7 years:
>> >> >The other participating physicians have not been cardiologists and
>> >> >typically don't even identify themselves as physicians here on SMC.
>> >> Typically you have ignored the original question, which was not about
>> >> cardiologists but about doctors.
>> >My response was to your comments and not to Syd's question.
>> >Truth is simple.
>> But my response was confined to the precise issue that Syd raised; you
>> are the one trying to narrow the question to cardiologists.
>Actually, your response narrowed the focus to subspecialists
>(rheumatologists).
It did not! The following two paragraphs were:
===
Several doctors--MDs, nutritionists, chiropractors,
physiologists--participate in the various sports and athletics
newsgroups.
Several doctors participated regularly in sci.med.cardiology until it
went toxic. I believe from internal evidence that several of them still
post and/or lurk, as discerned from their technical knowledge, their
"bedside manner," and their familiarity with current studies.
===
Even had I had done so, you are still the one who changed it to
cardiologists.
>Bottomline: You remain untruthful.
Bottom line: you are incredibly crass, stupid, and untruthful.
>May GOD continue to keep your heart beating (unless you choose unwisely
>to curse HIM) dear neighbor Don whom I love unconditionally.
To repeat this formula endlessly after the accusations and lies coming
from you is incredible.
--
Don Kirkman
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
> >Don Kirkman wrote:
> >> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
> >> >Don Kirkman wrote:
> >> >> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
> >> >> >Don Kirkman wrote:
> >> >> >> Syd wrote:
>
> >> >> >> >How many doctors would even bother to interact with the public?
>
> >> >> >Actually, there have been only three other cardiologists that have
> >> >> >participated here on a regular basis over the past 7 years:
>
> >> >> >The other participating physicians have not been cardiologists and
> >> >> >typically don't even identify themselves as physicians here on SMC.
>
> >> >> Typically you have ignored the original question, which was not about
> >> >> cardiologists but about doctors.
>
> >> >My response was to your comments and not to Syd's question.
>
> >> >Truth is simple.
>
> >> But my response was confined to the precise issue that Syd raised; you
> >> are the one trying to narrow the question to cardiologists.
>
> >Actually, your response narrowed the focus to subspecialists
> >(rheumatologists).
>
> It did not!
Google is not your friend:
"In my limited use of the newsgroups I've come across several, in
various
specialties. The top rheumatologist in his own country posted
regularly
in arthritis support groups until his workload grew too large, but he
maintains his public web site with constantly updated information about
all the 170+ varieties of arthritis and auto-immune diseases.
In the same group a doctor who teaches in a medical center setting, and
has her own practice as well, posted until her own arthritis forced to
curtail her activities." -- Don Kirkman's response to Syd's question.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/0cc1352d038d5ca6?
Bottomline: You are consistently untruthful.
May GOD continue to keep your heart beating (unless you unwisely choose
to curse HIM) dear untruthful neighbor Don whom I love unconditionally
even if you remain untruthful to the end.
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> Mu wrote:
> > Lookee here, another "Chung ain't a doctor" . Wonder what the outcome
> > will be.
>
> Did I say that, sockpuppet? Please post a link to where I said
> Earthquack didn't earn a medical degree.
>
> Do it right now or STFU. Back up your assertions with facts for once.
The name-calling simply shows that you remain lost just as if you were
waving a white-flag.
> > I have $35,000
>
> I doubt that very highly
If that were true, you would be able to boldly call him on the
challenge unless you are the one without $35,000.
> > that I will put in escrow at anytime that anyone who
> > wants to bet that Chung isn't a practicing cardiologist.
>
> You're confusing having a practice with having patients, Mu.
A practice is defined by its patients. Only a non-practicing
cardiologist would have no patients. Truth is simple.
> Back to the sock drawer with you.
If that were true, you would be in the same sock drawer with Mu along
with Syd Levine, Don Kirkman, Bob Pastorio, and Kumar.
Instead, you belong among those who have been convicted by the Holy
Spirit:
http://HeartMDPhD.com/Convicts
May GOD continue to keep your heart beating (unless you choose unwisely
to curse HIM) dear neighbor Torturer whom I love unconditionally.
Denis Loubet
> Denis Loubet wrote:
>> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
>> > Denis Loubet wrote:
>> >> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
>> >> > Ace Berserker wrote:
>> >> >> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > He's from AUK which is a newsgroup filled with participants who
>> >> >> > are
>> >> >> > consumed with hatred.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Which explains why you continually crosspost to AUK....
>> >> >
>> >> > Yes.
>> >> >
>> >> > Hatefilled hearts are sick hearts.
>> >> >
>> >> > May GOD continue to keep your heart beating (unless you unwisely
>> >> > choose
>> >> > to curse HIM) dear neighbor whom I love unconditionally.
>> >> >
>> >> > Prayerfully in Christ's amazing love,
>> >>
>> >> Why don't you practice some non-invasiveness and leave alt atheism off
>> >> your
>> >> crossposts?
>> >
>> > GOD made me an invasive cardiologist.
>>
>> It's so hard being a robot, isn't it?
>
> Robots don't have free will:
Well, you believe that you're an artificial construct made of dirt, don't
you? That's what it says in the bible.
And since you insist that you were made to be an invasive cardiologist, it
doesn't seem you think you had any choice.
Welcome to robot-hood.
--
Denis Loubet
dlo...@io.com
http//www.io.com/~dloubet
aria
ana...@logwell.com wrote:
> On 13 Nov 2006 16:28:09 -0800, "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <lov...@thetruth.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> >Interventional cardiology is not surgery.
>
> Semantics and nit picking. The heart programs in many hospitals keep them
> afloat. Many cath labs have a 50 or 75 procedure per year quota to maintain
> privileges. Before PCI, cardiology was a backwater specialty, now it is a big
> money specialty. You need not be defensive about these realities; I am not
> accusing you of wrong doing. But the same cannot be said about many other
> cardiologists. Love em all you like, but do not defend the indefensible.
>
> >
> >> Second, if you are not getting a referral fee for CABGs you send to the surgeon,
> >> you are getting ripped off man (in the words of Cheech and Chong).
> >
> >I am not nor do I know of anyone who is.
>
> Your old teacher omitted one of your lessons. Referral fees are the norm
> according to Howard and other reliable sources.
"Cost is another issue. A biventricular pacemaker **UNIT** costs at
least $20,000, more if it comes with a defibrillator. Doctors earn more
money by implanting a biventricular pacemaker-defibrillator than by
managing an individual's heart failure with drug therapy. This means
there are what policy makers politely call "financial incentives"
driving the use of the devices."
CITE: HARVARD UNIVERSITY HEALTH
LINK:http://www.health.harvard.edu/newsweek/Improving_the_beat_for_heart_failure.htm
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
> > Denis Loubet wrote:
> >> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
> >> > Denis Loubet wrote:
> >> >> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
> >> >> > Ace Berserker wrote:
> >> >> >> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> > He's from AUK which is a newsgroup filled with participants who
> >> >> >> > are
> >> >> >> > consumed with hatred.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Which explains why you continually crosspost to AUK....
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Yes.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Hatefilled hearts are sick hearts.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > May GOD continue to keep your heart beating (unless you unwisely
> >> >> > choose
> >> >> > to curse HIM) dear neighbor whom I love unconditionally.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Prayerfully in Christ's amazing love,
> >> >>
> >> >> Why don't you practice some non-invasiveness and leave alt atheism off
> >> >> your
> >> >> crossposts?
> >> >
> >> > GOD made me an invasive cardiologist.
> >>
> >> It's so hard being a robot, isn't it?
> >
> > Robots don't have free will:
>
Link restored easily and boldly:
http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit/freewill.asp
> Well, you believe that you're an artificial construct made of dirt, don't
> you?
No.
> That's what it says in the bible.
Actual, it does not.
The brethren of LORD Jesus Christ have been reborn of water and the
Holy Spirit.
> And since you insist that you were made to be an invasive cardiologist, it
> doesn't seem you think you had any choice.
See link above.
> Welcome to robot-hood.
Such is the embarrassing behavior of those reacting adversely to the
powerful intercessory prayers of the brethren of LORD Jesus Christ to
our heavenly Father lifting up those who have been convicted by the
Holy Spirit:
http://HeartMDPhD.com/Convicts
May GOD continue to keep your heart beating (unless you unwisely choose
to curse HIM) dear neighbor Denis whom I love unconditionally.
Prayerfully in Christ's amazing love,
Andrew <><
ana...@logwell.com
While Dr, Chung is about a subtle as a sledge hammer when it comes to his
Christianity, it would be hardly appropriate to blame him for few doctors
visiting Usenet. For starters Usenet is not exactly the cutting edge of the
net; it is actually a sort of final incarnation of the old BBS culture, and is
dying a slow death. And as I observed before, most doctors are not terribly
moved at the prospect of donating their time for free to educate us peons out
here in the real world.
Cardinal Snarky of the Fannish Inquisition
didst finally confess, after taking Muche Tea:
<weary sigh>
--
________________________________________________________________________
Hail Eris!
Demon Prince of Absurdity
"And no, I did not have sex with my son. But if I did I certainly
wouldn't tell you. Something so beautiful and precious should be kept
private." -- Kathy L. Mosesian, or possibly not really her, confesses
she may be a liar and committer of incest with her own son, in MID:
<cfcd3f4660694e3a...@msgid.frell.theremailer.net>
The reporter asked Colin Powell (or George Bush), "What proof do you
have that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction?"
He replied, "We kept the receipts." -- Bill Hicks
"They thought I was fair game. I was an instrument of purpose to achieve
their desires and not 100 percent real and ALSO that they had me by the
short curlies because I thought that the world revolved around them and
therefore I think that I am fair game and rightly so. If they want to
play dirty, I get to too. It's not a one-way street. I will use the
physcial strength that I have over them, my superior 5'7-3/4" height
advantage, the boxing moves I paid to learn, the suprise of pussyfooting
up to them with their back to me in a public place 18 1/2 years after
the fact and thus not only do will they not know that I am but a pica's
distance away from them, but that I even exist on earth." -- Chris Tsao
is secretly John Wentzky's psychic twin. MID:
<1161246083.1...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>
Looney Maroon nominee for August 2006 Johnny D Wentzky foamed:
"You never asked someone who goes into areas of the internet that are
only for adults who has an underage id somehow or another if they are a
cop posing as an underage person online?
I guess lots of people just don't watch dateline or read stories much.
Why don;t you go to pervertedjustice,com and see what they do. They are
awash in their self-proclaimed glory after they lied to membners of the
public.
They are awash in their self-proclaimed glory after they posed as an
underage person and agreed to do all sorts of sex acts wioth adult
males, and they are adults posing as teenager themselves. They make
themsleves into liars by falsely impersonating underage persons and by
not fuilfilling the words they tell the victims online in their chats.
Why don't you read it where they tell these victims of their deceit
about how they have been with grown men and such? Why don't you read it
where they say, "That would be cool." after someone makes an advance
towards an adult who is posing as a teenager? And, where they agree to
meet the person, etc.
Lost control, didn't you?
Is that why you feel as if you need to lie so much now? I see where lots
of these false impersonation games are not sticking. They feel as if
they can lie and then order the victims to get counseling in the
gayblade, governmental, pro-choice tax leech counseling centers. They
are doing nothing more than usury and fraud in many cases." -- Wentzky
almost comes out of the closet as a pedo/ephebophile in MID:
<H%%Eg.28916$Uq1....@bignews6.bellsouth.net>
Denis Loubet
You're a mind-reader now?
> Link restored easily and boldly:
>
> http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit/freewill.asp
Yes, cut and paste is easy.
>> Well, you believe that you're an artificial construct made of dirt, don't
>> you?
>
> No.
>
>> That's what it says in the bible.
>
> Actual, it does not.
>
> The brethren of LORD Jesus Christ have been reborn of water and the
> Holy Spirit.
Ok, so the stuff in Genesis 2:7 is bullshit.
But if what you say is true, you're still an artificial contrivance made of
water.
>> And since you insist that you were made to be an invasive cardiologist,
>> it
>> doesn't seem you think you had any choice.
>
> See link above.
So you lied when you said the god made you something? You're saying you had
a choice? If you had a choice, then you decided. If you didn't have a choice
then you didn't decide.
>> Welcome to robot-hood.
>
> Such is the embarrassing behavior of those reacting adversely to the
> powerful intercessory prayers of the brethren of LORD Jesus Christ to
> our heavenly Father lifting up those who have been convicted by the
> Holy Spirit:
Well, at least I wasted your time making you type that.
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> I started this thread, and I was specifically asking about cardiologists.
And I enjoyed our discussions :-)
> While Dr, Chung is about a subtle as a sledge hammer when it comes to his
> Christianity, it would be hardly appropriate to blame him for few doctors
> visiting Usenet.
More visit than you realize because most lurk.
> For starters Usenet is not exactly the cutting edge of the
> net; it is actually a sort of final incarnation of the old BBS culture, and is
> dying a slow death.
Actually the increasing activity on SMC would indicate otherwise:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/about
In 1996, the average number of posts per month was somewhere between
370 to 560.
This year, the average number is between 1320 and 4530.
Indeed, 4530 posts in April of this year is the all time record for SMC
and is about ten times the activity in 1996.
> And as I observed before, most doctors are not terribly
> moved at the prospect of donating their time for free to educate us peons out
> here in the real world.
Actually, more doctors (and other professionals) probably would be
willing to participate on Usenet if they could do it anonymously with
credibility.
Instead, they are lurking in shock and disbelief at the savage attacks
upon their colleagues who have chosen to openly participate on Usenet
and concluding that lawlessness reigns on Usenet fit only for hardier
souls.
Your no longer signing your name at the end of your posts is indicative
of yet one more professional that has come to this latter conclusion.
It is where lawlessness seemingly reigns that it is most clearly
evident that GOD reigns.
May you someday perceive this.
May GOD continue to help us with our needs, dear friend Syd whom I love
Kumar
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> ana...@logwell.com wrote:
> > What EECP proves is that most any CAD patient if
> > kept alive long enough will benefit from angiogensis sooner or later.
>
> It remains controversal whether the growth in collaterals is size
> versus number.
Btw, How EECP can promote growth in collaterals in numbers or in size,
if blood flow is increased?
> > One must
> > not discount the placebo effect in evaluating the effectiveness of EECP. How
> > would you ever know if EECP promotes faster angiogenisis than mother nature?
>
> Aside from there being no mother nature, one could compare with
> unsynchronized (mock) leg compressions.
>
> > Most of the new vessels are to small to see with an angiogram anyway (one of the
> > arguments for the angiogram being less than the gold standard it is considered
> > to be).
>
> The angiogram is not used to evaluate the effectiveness of EECP toward
> promoting increased collateral growth.
> May GOD continue to heal your heart by curing your diabetes, dear
> neighbor Syd whom I love unconditionally.
Ghod
> Vanquished Denis Loubet squealed:
> > Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
> > > Denis Loubet wrote:
> > >> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
> > >> > Denis Loubet wrote:
> > >> >> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
> > >> >> > Ace Berserker wrote:
> > >> >> >> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> > He's from AUK which is a newsgroup filled with
participants who
> > >> >> >> > are
> > >> >> >> > consumed with hatred.
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> Which explains why you continually crosspost to AUK....
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > Yes.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > Hatefilled hearts are sick hearts.
Now, if only you recognized the fact that your heart is filled with
hatred.
> > Well, you believe that you're an artificial construct made of
dirt, don't
> > you?
>
> No.
So you just pick random parts of your bible to believe.
> > That's what it says in the bible.
>
> Actual, it does not.
Try reading your funny book, you might LEARN something.
Genesis 2:7-
And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed
into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
> The brethren of LORD Jesus Christ have been reborn of water and the
> Holy Spirit.
You're all wet.
> > And since you insist that you were made to be an invasive
cardiologist, it
> > doesn't seem you think you had any choice.
Invasive is certainly the appropriate word......
> > Welcome to robot-hood.
>
> Such is the embarrassing behavior of those reacting adversely to the
> powerful intercessory prayers of the brethren of LORD Jesus Christ
to
> our heavenly Father lifting up those who have been convicted by the
> Holy Spirit:
You've never had a prayer answered in your life, you net-kook you.
Ghod
news:1163700367.3...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Taking the piss.....just fucking with 'em
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Clairvoyance is not needed to observe your actions.
> > Link restored easily and boldly:
> >
> > http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit/freewill.asp
>
> Yes, cut and paste is easy.
So is typing.
> >> Well, you believe that you're an artificial construct made of dirt, don't
> >> you?
> >
> > No.
> >
> >> That's what it says in the bible.
> >
> > Actual, it does not.
> >
> > The brethren of LORD Jesus Christ have been reborn of water and the
> > Holy Spirit.
>
> Ok, so the stuff in Genesis 2:7 is bullshit.
The events described in Genesis predate the rebirths of the brethren of
LORD Jesus Christ.
> But if what you say is true, you're still an artificial contrivance made of
> water.
That which is of the Holy Spirit is not artificial.
> >> And since you insist that you were made to be an invasive cardiologist,
> >> it
> >> doesn't seem you think you had any choice.
> >
> > See link above.
>
> So you lied when you said the god made you something?
It remains my choice to continue writing truthfully.
> You're saying you had
> a choice?
It is GOD's infinite will that we, the brethren of LORD Jesus Christ,
retain our respective free wills.
> If you had a choice, then you decided. If you didn't have a choice
> then you didn't decide.
We, the brethren of LORD Jesus Christ, choose to remain in GOD's
infinite will.
> >> Welcome to robot-hood.
> >
> > Such is the embarrassing behavior of those reacting adversely to the
> > powerful intercessory prayers of the brethren of LORD Jesus Christ to
> > our heavenly Father lifting up those who have been convicted by the
> > Holy Spirit:
>
> Well, at least I wasted your time making you type that.
In the Holy Spirit, there is no waste of time when the brethren of LORD
Jesus Christ have and infinite amount of time (eternal life).
Clearly, you remain convicted by the Holy Spirit:
http://HeartMDPhD.com/Convicts
May GOD continue to keep your heart beating (unless you unwisely choose
to curse HIM) dear neighbor Denis whom I love unconditionally.
Prayerfully in Christ's amazing love,
Andrew <><
Kumar
Can't it be much beneficial, if any invasive cure can be done by
non-invasive means? We should try understanding it more and more in the
true benefit ti humanity?
Pls tell me possible mistakes in invasive treatments and health risk
benefit ratio of not doing invasive treatments is all symptoms are not
there?
Cardinal Snarky of the Fannish Inquisition
didst finally confess, after taking Muche Tea:
>> "Kumar" wrote...
>> > Teh Czar ov Awl Teh Flonkers wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > Btw, on some coronory artery blockage, can new arteries be
>> commonly sprout
>> > > > by angiogenesis and supply normal blood to heart? What are
>> risk-health
>> > > > benefit ratio by invasive surgeries and no surgery--when
>> symptoms are not
>> > > > much apperant of arteries blockage?
>> > >
>> > > A perfectly sensible pair of questions, in the context of the
>> previous
>> > > post. I think Paris Hilton is a world-class genius, too.
>> > >
>> > > Piss-takingly,
>> >
>> > ??
>>
>> Taking the piss.....just fucking with 'em
>
> Can't it be much beneficial, if any invasive cure can be done by
> non-invasive means? We should try understanding it more and more in the
> true benefit ti humanity?
>
> Pls tell me possible mistakes in invasive treatments and health risk
> benefit ratio of not doing invasive treatments is all symptoms are not
> there?
Man, you're thick.
Kumar
Cardinal Snarky of the Fannish Inquisition wrote:
Due to current time effect, there can be Absurdity & oppositions for
the sake of resistance to good...as may be imbalanced naturally.