Re: Doctors who do Harm.
Gary Woods
>WHY? That's the 64k question.
Wow.... a 16-bit question!
But I digress.
Generally, trolls like any kind of attention.
Personally, if somebody uses a weird and variable address, I ignore
anything they say, even if it does make sense.
Gary Woods AKA K2AHC- PGP key on request, or at home.earthlink.net/~garygarlic
Zone 5/6 in upstate New York, 1420' elevation. NY WO G
Ozlover
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> hmm wrote:
> > There have been numerous posts here by different individuals who
> > stated that their doctors failed to diagnose their diabetes for
> > years,despite having their noses placed directly at the label and
> > symptom cluster.
>
> In recent days, there have been numerous posts here by different,
> unfamiliar nyms saying the same stuff over and over and over about
> doctors, probably in an effort to fan flames using controversy as the
> fire starter.
>
> WHY? That's the 64k question.
Indeed!
BTW, the nyms are not only unfamiliar, but also meaningless. I.e. the
socks might as well be *really* anonymous.
--
Frank Slootweg
Freckles
"hmm" <h...@Use-Author-Supplied-Address.invalid> wrote in message
news:7fc9016b1a27101e...@tioat.net...
> There have been numerous posts here by different individuals who
> stated that their doctors failed to diagnose their diabetes for
> years,despite having their noses placed directly at the label and
> symptom cluster.
>
>
>
> Possible explainations?:
>
> 1) doctors are ignorant
>
> 2) doctors don't want to put the stigma on the patient or scare the
> patient.
>
> 3) doctors are negligent or simply don't care
>
> 4) doctors don't have time to investigate
>
> 5) your guess?
>
>
> Personally, I think there are just alot of ignorant negligent
> physicians doing harm to their patients by not recognizing the
> obvious.
--------------------------------------------------------------
When I was working with doctors one of my duties was to sometimes take
patients' complaints, vital signs and get their medical histories. In many
instances it would have been easier to pull hen's teeth.
Some people simply would not, for what ever their reason, give the
information we needed and had to have in order to do an intelligent
evaluation of their illness and make a diagnosis of what was wrong with them
and determine how to treat their illness.
I have found there are at least as many bad patients as doctors.
Freckles
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cheri
news:q6mdnY3n2YpP6qfW...@giganews.com...
> I have found there are at least as many bad patients as doctors.
>
> Freckles
Considering the amount of patients compared to the amount of doctors, I
believe you're on to something.
Cheri
sometimers
There is no patient training. Some few doctors should
have gone on to do something else with their medical
degrees. Research is a great alternative, for example.
PaulR
> Freckles wrote:
>> "hmm" <h...@Use-Author-Supplied-Address.invalid> wrote in message
>>> physicians doing harm to their patients by not recognizing the
>>> obvious.
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> When I was working with doctors one of my duties was to sometimes take
>> patients' complaints, vital signs and get their medical histories. In
>> many instances it would have been easier to pull hen's teeth.
>>
>> Some people simply would not, for what ever their reason, give the
>> information we needed and had to have in order to do an intelligent
>> evaluation of their illness and make a diagnosis of what was wrong
>> with them and determine how to treat their illness.
>>
>> I have found there are at least as many bad patients as doctors.
>>
>> Freckles
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> There is no patient training. Some few doctors should
> have gone on to do something else with their medical
> degrees. Research is a great alternative, for example.
Basic marketing, isn't it?
(just kidding!)
Paul
Julie Bove
"hmm" <h...@Use-Author-Supplied-Address.invalid> wrote in message
> There have been numerous posts here by different individuals who
> stated that their doctors failed to diagnose their diabetes for
> years,despite having their noses placed directly at the label and
> symptom cluster.
>
> The 64K question is WHY?
>
>
> Possible explainations?:
>
> 1) doctors are ignorant
>
> 2) doctors don't want to put the stigma on the patient or scare the
> patient.
>
> 3) doctors are negligent or simply don't care
>
> 4) doctors don't have time to investigate
>
> 5) your guess?
>
>
> physicians doing harm to their patients by not recognizing the
> obvious.
Who knows!
Ozgirl
> There have been numerous posts here by different individuals who
> stated that their doctors failed to diagnose their diabetes for
> years,despite having their noses placed directly at the label and
> symptom cluster.
>
> The 64K question is WHY?
>
>
> Possible explainations?:
>
> 1) doctors are ignorant
>
> 2) doctors don't want to put the stigma on the patient or scare the
> patient.
>
> 3) doctors are negligent or simply don't care
>
> 4) doctors don't have time to investigate
>
> 5) your guess?
Doctors are "told" what the definitive bg is to be for diagnosis. Why should
a GP know any more than he/she has to? GP: Learns a little about a lot.
Endo: 8 years + learning about the endocrine system. My endo for example
thinks the definitive bg for diagnosis is way too high and hogwash but my GP
at diagnosis took the figures he was given as gospel. It was ultimately an
OGTT that spun it for my diagnosis.
Ozgirl
GP's can't be expected to research every disease to the nth degree. They
don't need to know everything, just enough to make a diagnosis and if unsure
enough to know they need to refer a patient to a specialist.
MJH
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------
>
> When I was working with doctors one of my duties was to sometimes take
> patients' complaints, vital signs and get their medical histories. In many
> instances it would have been easier to pull hen's teeth.
>
> Some people simply would not, for what ever their reason, give the
> information we needed and had to have in order to do an intelligent
> evaluation of their illness and make a diagnosis of what was wrong with them
> and determine how to treat their illness.
>
> I have found there are at least as many bad patients as doctors.
>
> Freckles
>
> ----------------------------------
I think sometimes it's not so much 'bad' as 'fearful.' For example, for
a long time I avoided my MD, because I had a history of diabetes in my
family, was way overweight, and was pretty sure deep down that I was
probably diabetic. So I guess I avoided it because if my MD didn't say
it, then it wasn't true.
I have a good friend who is now doing the same thing.
And then there are some folks that simply don't care.
MH
Nicky
wrote:
lol :)
Nicky
T2 dx 05/04 + underactive thyroid
D&E, 150ug thyroxine
Last A1c 5.2% BMI 26
hmm
news:7pviv7...@mid.individual.net:
Thanks for responding on topic to the OP (just because other dummies
in this group don't like my posts, does not necessarily mean I am a
troll; their ignorance of what is a "nym" and what "socks" are is
laughable-hope the know more about diabetes than they do about the
usenet)
Just as I said in the OP. Most doctors are simply ignorant. I can
find the appropriate diagnostic criterion for diabetes,in so far as
is possible, given the ignorance in the field, with 20 minutes of
internet searching. These doctors had years to consider the relevant
diagnostic criteria for what is an endemic disease and STILL do not
know. Amazing. I feel sad for these people who trust their treatment
to their doctors. Are there exceptions, of course. But the medical
field is filled with incompetents. Go TRIAL LAWYERS!
hmm
@mid.individual.net:
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> hmm wrote:
>> There have been numerous posts here by different individuals who
>> stated that their doctors failed to diagnose their diabetes for
>> years,despite having their noses placed directly at the label and
>> symptom cluster.
>
> In recent days, there have been numerous posts here by different,
> unfamiliar nyms saying the same stuff over and over and over about
> doctors, probably in an effort to fan flames using controversy as
the
> fire starter.
>
> WHY? That's the 64k question.
>
> Susan
No, the question is, does Susan know more about diabetes than she
does about "nyms". I hope so, for her sake. ;-)
hmm
@mid.individual.net:
Another dummie who doesn't know anything about "socks" , "nyms" or
the usenet.
hmm
news:q6mdnY3n2YpP6qfW...@giganews.com:
Point taken, However in my case I gave them everything, rubbed their
noses in it and TOLD them point blank it was diabetes. Ignoranuses
really, the lot of them.
hmm
news:7pvj5i...@mid.individual.net:
BULL. If a GP does not know the current diagnostic criteria and
other information I can get online in 20 minutes of searching, that
GP needs to be back in medical school, not harming patients in
public practice.
Ozlover
If you say so! What would I know after only two and a half decade(+)
of experience? And it's "the usenet", is it? And try to quote/format
properly, and spell, and ...
But since you object to "socks", is EMAK any better for you? We aim to
please.
And if they're not nyms, which indeed they're not really, what would
*you* call your sillyness in your From: lines?
--
Frank Slootweg
"I like you. You remind me of when I was young and stupid."
Ozgirl
My GP WAS using the current diagnostic criteria. Bit in MY opinion and my
endo's opinion the diagnostic figures are too high.
b
@mid.individual.net:
^^^^^^decades plus what?
> of experience? And it's "the usenet", is it? And try to
quote/format
> properly, and spell, and ...
^^^^^^double "ands" guess your grammar education stopped in the 2nd
grade.
yes, it is "the usenet": http://www.google.com/search?
hl=en&source=hp&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=%22the+usenet%22
Guess you didn't learn much from two decades, did you? I am not
using a socks server to post these. But your too ignorant to know
the difference.
<snip>
Julie Bove
"b" <b...@b.net> wrote in message news:hhh8g9$t87$1...@news.albasani.net...
There it is again! "Your" instead of "you're".
Kurt
> Ozlover <t...@ddress.is.invalid> wrote in news:7q1uabFfcuU1
> @mid.individual.net:
>
>
>
>
>
> > hmm <h...@hmm.net> wrote:
> >> Ozlover <t...@ddress.is.invalid> wrote in news:7pvb18F4h8U1
1. Link doesn't work
2. No such word as "ands"
3. "socks server" does not make sense
4. "But your too ignorant" - Incorrect use of "you're" but loved the
irony that you used it while calling someone else ignorant.
Thanks for the laugh, Jethro.
Kurt
g
40ac-8c81-e...@z41g2000yqz.googlegroups.com:
Offer: Each of us puts $500 in an escrow account. If link is proven
to work, I take all; if not, you do. Moron, learn how to properly
enter a url into a web browser.
>
> 2. No such word as "ands"
double moron, it's in quotes, idiot.
>
> 3. "socks server" does not make sense
only if you're totally ignorant of socks protocols, which you
obviously are; there's your "you're", everyone happy now?
>
> 4. "But your too ignorant" - Incorrect use of "you're" but loved
the
> irony that you used it while calling someone else ignorant.
>
> Thanks for the laugh, Jethro.
No problem, too-stupid-to-think-for-urself (sic) doctor sycophant
>
> Kurt
Ozlover
Nearly another three years. I'm so glad you asked.
> > of experience? And it's "the usenet", is it?
> > And try to quote/format properly,
Failure to respond/fix noted.
> > and spell, and ...
>
> ^^^^^^double "ands" guess your grammar education stopped in the 2nd
> grade.
Did you already spot *your* *earlier* error, "dummie"? (And you should
use scare quotes, because you're not quoting.)
> yes, it is "the usenet": http://www.google.com/search?
> hl=en&source=hp&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=%22the+usenet%22
Nope. It's not "the usenet", but "Usenet" (i.e. without "the").
And no, you're not the only clueless person on this world, so *of
course* your broken search gives broken 'answers'.
> Guess you didn't learn much from two decades, did you? I am not
> using a socks server to post these. But your too ignorant to know
> the difference.
"socks server"? You're (not "your") really a hilarious "dummie",
aren't you? The "socks" terms has nothing at all to do with a socks
server, nor with the "socks" part of "socks server".
> <snip>
Snipping of, and failure to answer, specific questions noted.
But by all means, keep digging that hole of yours! We all need a
laugh. It's good for our BG, etc..
--
Frank Slootweg
Gary Woods
>
>There it is again! "Your" instead of "you're".
Spelling flame; Godwin invoked.
Thread dead.
k
wrote in news:7q3e4d...@mid.individual.net:
<snip>
>> Guess you didn't learn much from two decades, did you? I am not
>> using a socks server to post these. But your too ignorant to know
>> the difference.
>
> "socks server"? You're (not "your") really a hilarious "dummie",
> aren't you? The "socks" terms has nothing at all to do with a
socks
> server, nor with the "socks" part of "socks server".
I'd ask you to explain what a socks server is, but you'd just look
it up on google and claim you knew all along. But that's ok, you
probably cannot read with comprehension and, after all, you cannot
remain an ignoramus forever.
>> <snip>
>
MikeEdwards
@mid.individual.net:
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> BlueBrooke wrote:
>
>> Not unless the Nazi's were Grammar Police, too.
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law
>>
>
> I hope they're on top of stray apostrophes that don't belong in
> pluralizations, too.
You mean "on top of" in contrast to 'parallel to'?
>
> (I'm sure I did something wrong here, since I made a correction of
> another.) ;-)
Maybe you can help Michael with his psychiatric impairment so he can
eat fruit again and stop flooding the group with his hallucinatory
SERIOUS blood glucose readings. Or buy him a meter that actually
works.
>
> Susan
>
Ozlover
> Ozlover <th...@ddress.is.invalid> feigned internet literacy when he
> wrote in news:7q3e4d...@mid.individual.net:
>
> <snip>
Non response to *five* issues noted.
You're not playing this tough-character game very well, do you?
> >> Guess you didn't learn much from two decades, did you? I am not
> >> using a socks server to post these. But your too ignorant to know
> >> the difference.
> >
> > "socks server"? You're (not "your") really a hilarious "dummie",
> > aren't you? The "socks" terms has nothing at all to do with a
> socks server, nor with the "socks" part of "socks server".
>
> I'd ask you to explain what a socks server is, but you'd just look
> it up on google and claim you knew all along. But that's ok, you
> probably cannot read with comprehension and, after all, you cannot
> remain an ignoramus forever.
Exactly which part of "has nothing at all to do with" didn't you
understand?
*You* whine about "socks server" which (I *said*) is *totally
unrelated* to the term "socks" I used, and now you expect *me* to
explain what *you* are talking about? Mind boggling!
But let me help you a bit, otherwise you'll just emit another broken
Google search. The "socks" I used is the plural of the term "sock". So
"sock" is the term you need to look up.
And another free tip: Google has the "define:" operator for looking up
the definitions of terms. If you do a "define:" type of search, the
explanation you're (not) looking for is near the bottom (and in "Related
phrases:" at the top).
> >> <snip>
Continued nipping of, and failure to answer, specific questions noted.
BTW, can you please speak a little louder next time? The hole you're
in is so deep - and getting deeper by the post - that we can hardly hear
you.
--
Frank Slootweg
Gary Woods
>BTW, can you please speak a little louder next time?
You're arguing with an obvious troll, all of whose socks post from the same
server.
It bears repeating:
Never wrestle with a pig.
You both get covered with shit, and the pig *likes* it!
Elliot
There is no need to proof read my posts for an ignoramus like you.
fred
news:7q776n...@mid.individual.net:
<snip>
Just as I said before you don't know what a socks server is.
You cannot explain it because you do not know.
I would explain it for you, but I don't wish to enhance the
knowledge of a jackoff.
noiditots
news:s4qsj5p3267o1g1rn...@4ax.com:
Ok just to make you morons happy, I am giving you a socks server
now. Have fun with it, dummies.
forurfilters
Very funny how all these people try to comment on things they know
nothing about.
4urfilters
If we did not have trial lawyers, then all these doctors who violate
their Hippocracy (sic) Oath would not be held accountable. Like the
idiot who infused a young girl with the wrong blood type and then
just chalked it up to "mistakes happen"
Ozlover
> Ozlover <th...@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
>
> >BTW, can you please speak a little louder next time?
>
> You're arguing with an obvious troll,
Nope. It misses the (positive) qualifications needed to be a troll.
> all of whose socks post from the same server.
No offense, but *I* mentioned "socks" first, so I'm very well aware
that it's a set of socks.
BTW, it's using more than one server in it's pathetic attempt to make
killfiling more difficult.
[Now it will probably burst another vein thinking that you or/and I mean
a socks server when you/I say "server".]
> It bears repeating:
> Never wrestle with a pig.
> You both get covered with shit, and the pig *likes* it!
*"wrestle"*? You're kidding, right!? :-)
Anyway, I think you'd better give your 'warning' to those in this
group who respond (somewhat) *seriously* to it, i.e. respond to it's
diabetes/medical/<whatever> postings. As long as it (the set of socks)
disturbes the *real* purpose of the group, I see no advantage in keeping
quiet and letting it get away with it. But I'm open to other, workable,
methods.
--
Frank Slootweg
Wes Groleau
> [ten screens of wasted space followed by]
> There is no need to proof read my posts for an ignoramus like you.
This subthread of name-calling ceased to be meaningful long ago.
A lot of people would feel slightly better if you would do
some research on the etiquette of trimming.
--
Wes Groleau
"Brigham Young agrees to confine himself to one woman,
if every member of Congress will do the same."
-- Weekly Republican, 1869
ellerby
<su...@nothanks.org> posted:
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> BlueBrooke wrote:
>
>> Not unless the Nazi's were Grammar Police, too.
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law
>>
>
> I hope they're on top of stray apostrophes that don't belong in
> pluralizations, too.
>
> (I'm sure I did something wrong here, since I made a correction of
> another.) ;-)
>
> Susan
Ah, Yeah, G'day Susan,
Don't beat yerself up. Let me do that for ya'. {;-)}
Since you asked so nicely.
In Oz "pluralize", when spelt proper, is "pluralise".
Hope that helps and informs. Carry on.
Composed Ozdate Sun 1/3 7:31 am and posted when back online.
All with the usual proviso - IANAL IMHO YMMV ...
.... and Wes' Guidelines re judging others:
Lindsay in OZ
(Which only *partly* explains the date, spelling and posting styles)
M, 57, Non diabetic but familiarly involved
So I lurk, don't post often - usually in non medical threads.
"It is in the shelter of each other that people live."
Irish Proverb
Helen Back
> > There have been numerous posts here by different individuals who
> > stated that their doctors failed to diagnose their diabetes for
> > years,despite having their noses placed directly at the label and
> > symptom cluster.
>
> unfamiliar nyms saying the same stuff over and over and over about
> doctors, probably in an effort to fan flames using controversy as the
> fire starter.
>
> WHY? That's the 64k question.
>
> Susan
I've got a 64K question!!! Why does a spat creat 42 (er... 43, if you
now include mine!) responses, when we could have used the same amount
of energy.......AND benevolence, to discuss the diabetes topic.
Im sure lots of people still come here hoping to find answers and
assistance on their condition - and it can be rather offputting
(should there have been a hyphen there?) to find a load of *strangers*
raging a war that has nothing to do with anything.
Ah........ the wonderful world of usenet/google groups!
Im still scared that alot of doctors have not got a clue how to help
Type I's or II's who are completely out of control of their glucose
levels.
An insulin dependant friend of mine was recently given a new insulin
to *lose weight* - she lost weight (lots of it) but her glucose levels
are now hitting the 18 (324) mark!! God help her........ because it
doesnt look like her doctor can!!!!
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
>
> There have been numerous posts here by different individuals who
> stated that their doctors failed to diagnose their diabetes for
> years,despite having their noses placed directly at the label and
> symptom cluster.
>
Because of different definitions for Type-2 Diabetes Mellitus.
Type-2 Diabetes Mellitus is **not** correctly diagnosed by either
label or symptom cluster.
Instead, it is diagnosed by objective evidence of abnormal fasting
blood glucose and/or abnormal glucose tolerance test and/or abnormal
glycosylated hemoglobin (HgbA1c).
Be hungrier, which truly is healthier for the heart, soul, and mind:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/f882137d4e2858d8?
Marana tha
Prayerfully in the awesome name of our Messiah, LORD Jesus Christ,
Andrew <><
--
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-certified Cardiologist
and Author of "Be Hungry"
http://NetCabal.com
"Don't be left behind as were Cleopas and Simon ...
... -----------------> be hungry ! ! !"
"... no one can say 'Jesus is LORD' except by the Holy Spirit." (1 Cor
12:3)
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/035c93540862751c?
What are the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven?
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/980b41e6999de315?
Only the truth can cure the "hunger is starvation" delusion:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/74281ab7d7ce78de?
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
> > a neighbor wrote:
> >>
> >> There have been numerous posts here by different individuals who
> >> stated that their doctors failed to diagnose their diabetes for
> >> years,despite having their noses placed directly at the label and
> >> symptom cluster.
> >>
> >> The 64K question is WHY?
> >
> > Because of different definitions for Type-2 Diabetes Mellitus.
> >
> > Type-2 Diabetes Mellitus is **not** correctly diagnosed by either
> > label or symptom cluster.
> >
> > Instead, it is diagnosed by objective evidence of abnormal fasting
> > blood glucose and/or abnormal glucose tolerance test and/or
> > abnormal glycosylated hemoglobin (HgbA1c).
>
> it was normal or high normal and only later after seeing an
> endocrinologist did the tell me all the previous doctors were wrong.
>
> My last fasting BB was 86 and an A1c of 5.6. They are too cheap or
> don't have time to run the GTT I am guessing, because I have asked
> for it and they ignore my requests. The truth is they don't have a
> good definitive protocol that is routinely used to define diabetes.
> They are guessing because they don't really know how to make a
> diagnosis. Yet I have ALL the clinical signs of diabetes and can
> find no other disease that mimics that cluster of symptoms
> precisely. Sjogren's is a possibility,but diabetes is much closer to
> the clinical symptoms I am experiencing.
>
> Do you have a good reply to this?
Yes:
Those of us who are physicians have been called to serve
professionally as medical advisors for our patients. When service in
this capacity is not satisfactory from a patient's perspective, it is
reasonable for you, the patient, to seek a second opinion as you have
done.
> Or are you just going to throw more Jesus stuff at me?
Being right glorifies the LORD because He is the Source of all true
righteousness.
All glory to GOD :-) Shalom :-)
May GOD give you, neighbor, a new heart and a new spirit (Ezekiel
11:19-20 and 36:26) so that you would be born again of water and
Spirit (John 3:3 and 3:5) so that you would come to trust the truth,
Who is Jesus:
Amen.
Love in the truth,
Andrew <><
--
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-certified Heart Doctor
and Author of "Trust the Truth:"
http://www.amazon.com/-/e/B002G22ZWG
Helen Back
> On Sun, 3 Jan 2010 03:57:29 -0800 (PST), Helen Back
<snipped for brevity but appreciate the response!> :)))
>
> >Im still scared that alot of doctors have not got a clue how to help
> >Type I's or II's who are completely out of control of their glucose
> >levels.
>
> >An insulin dependant friend of mine was recently given a new insulin
> >to *lose weight* - she lost weight (lots of it) but her glucose levels
> >are now hitting the 18 (324) mark!! God help her........ because it
> >doesnt look like her doctor can!!!!
>
> weight she is most likely close to DKA most of the time.
>
> The above situation would have ZERO to do with a safe dietary ketosis.
>
> Is the doctor telling her the numbers are okay? Or is she assuming
> the numbers are okay or to be expected because of the switch in meds?
Hi Mack,
Im sure her doctor is aware that her numbers are way too high - for a
lady who doesnt understand the dietary/exercise requirements for
diabetics, she is aware that her numbers are way higher than they were
before the switch in meds. I know her numbers were high before that
(again, due to not understanding the do's and dont's of eating/
exercising when diabetic) but not as high as now.
To be honest, I have two friends who are diabetic (the lady I have
mentioned who is using insulin and a male friend who is on Metformin)
and both of them have consistently high numbers due to eating the
wrong foods, over-eating and not exercising. They both rely on their
doctors only for advice and havent sought further information to
assist in lowering and keeping numbers low. I have given them
guidelines on what to eat etc but it seems binge eating starchy carbs
is something they are not prepared to give up. My male friend has
retinopathy in one eye and the other is going that way too - I did
tell him, but he chose not to listen!!
I believe that doctors or diabetes related professionals, who are ill-
informed or complacent about the diabetic condition, should be trained
to persuade patients to take a pro-active and positive stance to stay
healthy. Alot of people I know simply dont have a clue, including
health professionals.
How do we change the tunnel vision?
>
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> comprehension or possible passive aggressive personality?
You have been given the right answer to your question.
The right answer remains the good answer even though you do not like
the answer.
The true definition of good is that which GOD wants.
May GOD give you, neighbor, a new heart and a new spirit (Ezekiel
11:19-20 and 36:26) so that you would be born again of water and
Spirit (John 3:3 and 3:5) so that you would come to trust the truth,
Who is Jesus.
p
news:a5d7d2a3-c5e0-49cb-9374-
91d446...@f5g2000yqh.googlegroups.com:
I see you not only are a follower of Jesus, you think you ARE Jesus.
Try a remedial course in reading comprehension; have a nice day.
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
You contradict yourself.
This does not bode well for your level of cognitive functioning.
May GOD soften your heart, neighbor, so that you would come to trust
the truth, Who is Jesus:
Amen.
Love in the truth,
Andrew <><
--
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-certified Cardiologist
and Author of "Trust the Truth:"
http://www.amazon.com/-/e/B002G22ZWG
plus the 2PD-OMER Approach:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/63d9553d4c7b8f7b?