Unfairness and health: evidence from the Whitehall II Study
MarilynMann
Roberto De Vogli1, Jane E Ferrie1, Tarani Chandola1, Mika Kivimäki2
and Michael G Marmot1
1 Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, International
Institute for Society and Health, University College London, London,
UK
2 Finnish Institute of Occupational Health, Helsinki, Finland
ABSTRACT
Objective: To examine the effects of unfairness on incident coronary
events and health functioning.
Design: Prospective cohort study. Unfairness, sociodemographics,
established coronary risk factors (high serum cholesterol,
hypertension, obesity, exercise, smoking and alcohol consumption) and
other psychosocial work characteristics (job strain, effort-reward
imbalance and organisational justice) were measured at baseline.
Associations between unfairness and incident coronary events and
health functioning were determined over an average follow-up of 10.9
years.
Participants: 5726 men and 2572 women from 20 civil service
departments in London (the Whitehall II Study).
Main outcome measures: Incident fatal coronary heart disease, non-
fatal myocardial infarction and angina (528 events) and health
functioning.
Results: Low employment grade is strongly associated with unfairness.
Participants reporting higher levels of unfairness are more likely to
experience an incident coronary event (HR 1.55, 95% CI 1.11 to 2.17),
after adjustment for age, gender, employment grade, established
coronary risk factors and other work-related psychosocial
characteristics. Unfairness is also associated with poor physical (OR
1.46, 95% CI 1.20 to 1.77) and mental (OR 1.54, 95% CI 1.19 to 1.99)
functioning at follow-up, controlling for all other factors and health
functioning at baseline.
Conclusions: Unfairness is an independent predictor of increased
coronary events and impaired health functioning. Further research is
needed to disentangle the effects of unfairness from other
psychosocial constructs and to investigate the societal, relational
and biological mechanisms that may underlie its associations with
health and heart disease.
* * *
This is a free article, if you're interested. Here are some excerpts:
Unfairness
Unfairness was assessed by the following single-item question: "I
often have the feeling that I am being treated unfairly". Participants
rated their response on a six-point scale (1, strongly disagree; 2,
moderately disagree; 3, slightly disagree; 4, slightly agree; 5,
moderately agree; and 6, strongly agree). The variable was categorised
into four levels of unfairness: responses 1 and 2 were combined into a
new category, "null", responses 3 and 4 have become categories "low"
and "moderate", respectively, and responses 5 and 6 were collapsed
into a new category, "high".
* * *
Table 1 presents characteristics of participants by levels of
unfairness. Age is not related to unfairness, whereas female sex
increases the risk of being treated unfairly. Low employment grade is
strongly associated with unfairness. Participants reporting higher
levels of unfairness are more likely to be smokers, hypertensives,
obese, sedentary and abstain from alcoholic beverages. Unfairness is
not related to high serum cholesterol. When considering other
psychosocial risk factors, unfairness is positively associated with
higher job strain, higher effort-reward imbalance and lower
organisational justice.
During the mean follow-up of 10.9 years, 528 incident cases of total
coronary events (fatal MI, non-fatal MI and angina) occurred among
8041 participants who had been free from any coronary event at
baseline.
Table 2 shows a dose-response association between unfairness and
incident coronary events at follow-up. After adjustment for age and
gender, participants who strongly or moderately agree that they are
often treated unfairly are more likely to experience a coronary event
than participants with low or medium levels of unfairness (hazard
ratio (HR) 1.76, 95% CI 1.29 to 2.41). When including employment grade
and established coronary risk factors in the analysis, the
relationship between high unfairness and coronary events weakens, but
remains significant. Additional adjustment for other work-related
psychosocial risk factors has no effect on the relationship between
high unfairness and incident CHD events (HR 1.55, 95% CI 1.11 to
2.17). Further adjustment for hostility, measured with the Cook-Medley
Hostility Scale,24 had little effect on the relationship between
unfairness and coronary events (table available on request).
Table 3 shows that unfairness is associated with poor health
functioning in a dose-response manner, but only in relation to mental
functioning. When considering the effect on poor physical functioning
adjusted for all covariates, moderate unfairness, not high unfairness,
was the category associated with the highest risk (odds ratio (OR)
1.46, 95% CI 1.20 to 1.77). The lack of a dose-response relationship
was attributable to adjustment for baseline physical functioning. A
dose-response association between unfairness and poor physical
functioning existed after adjustment for age, gender and grade, but
this pattern partly disappeared after further adjustment for baseline
physical functioning as there was a strong association between
unfairness and poor physical functioning at baseline (p<0.000).
However, when excluding participants in the lowest tertile of physical
functioning at baseline, the ORs for the low, moderate and high
unfairness categories were 1.29 (95% CI 0.95 to 1.75), 1.55 (95% CI
1.19 to 2.03) and 1.60 (95% CI 1.10 to 2.32), respectively.
* * *
This study shows that there is a dose-response association between
unfairness and coronary events. The risk of incident coronary events
among participants who strongly or moderately agreed that they were
often treated unfairly was 55% higher than those who reported fair
treatment, controlling for age, gender, employment grade, established
coronary risk factors and other work-related psychosocial
characteristics. Unfairness was also independently associated with
poor physical and mental functioning at follow-up, controlling for
baseline factors including health functioning.
Challenges to an individual's sense of personal value or self-worth26
owing to unfairness may influence health through emotional and
biological pathways. Emotional reactions include humiliation that may,
in turn, result in inward-focused and/or outward-focused negative
emotions depending on attributions of blame relative to acts of
injustice. Inward-focused negative emotions occur when individuals,
who are treated unfairly, evaluate themselves negatively or make
internal attributions of responsibility. Outward-focused negative
emotions occur when individuals evaluate others and externalise blame
for the acts of injustice.27 Inward-focused affective responses to
acts of unfairness may include feelings of being devalued or
insecurity about personal worth that are precursors of depression and
anxiety. Outward-focused affective responses may include anger and
hostility, often used as a "face-saving strategy" to defend the loss
of dignity.28 Both categories of emotional reactions have been found
to influence CHD.29
Potential mechanisms connecting unfairness and health may also include
biological reactions such as alterations of autonomic functions,
neuroendocrine changes, development of metabolic syndrome, insulin
resistance, disturbances in coagulation, and inflammatory and immune
responses.30 These factors are precursors of CHD and other conditions
that may impair physical health functioning.31
Obviously, further research is required. First, we need to establish
whether the health effects of unfairness are independent of other
psychosocial constructs unmeasured in the present study, such as
negative emotions, happiness and social engagement. Second, we need to
use repeated measurements of physical, socioeconomic and psychosocial
factors to examine mediating mechanisms and to minimise the
possibility of residual confounding.
* * *
In conclusion, this is the first longitudinal study to show that a
general sense of unfairness is associated with CHD and poor health
functioning. Consistent with the hypothesis suggesting that fairness
is a fundamental aspect of human behaviour, social relations and the
organisation of society, the frequency with which people experience
unfairness may influence their physical and mental health. Future
research is needed to investigate the societal, relational and
biological mechanisms that may underlie the effects of unfairness on
health and heart disease.
Marilyn
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
that they are being treated unfairly because we know everything
happens in the manner according to GOD's perfect will.
The brethren of LORD Jesus Christ are neither perfect nor more
special...
... we are simply forgiven by GOD:
http://www.interviewwithgod.com/forgiven/
And, so we are no longer of this world just as our LORD is not of this
world...
...instead, we are just passing through the world on "the way" to
eternal life in HIS everlasting Kingdom.
"KING of kings and LORD of lords." (Revelation 19:16)
Amen ! ! !
Laus Deo ! ! !
Marana tha ! ! !
Prayerfully in Jesus' awesome love,
Andrew <><
--
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
http://EmoryCardiology.com
"Unlike the 2PD-OMER Approach, weight loss diets can't be combined
with well-balanced diets"
http://HeartMDPhD.com/Love/TheTruth
The REAL Holy Spirit
wrote:
<something inconsequential>
The Chung FAQ, written by his trainer Bob Pastorio:
---------------------------------
| The Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD FAQ |
| Version 1.0, January, 2004 |
---------------------------------
Introduction
------------
New people arriving in sci.med.cardiology (s.m.c.) are often puzzled
and troubled by the controversy surrounding the poster who posts as
Dr.
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD (Dr. Chung) and want to know what the
controversy is about. This FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions) attempts
to provide an answer.
The FAQ is arranged in typical FAQ form, i.e. a series of questions
and
answers. For those who don¹t wish to read the whole FAQ, the
following
summary is provided.
Summary
-------
Dr. Chung represents himself to be a licensed physician specializing
in
cardiology. In this capacity he responds to medical questions on
s.m.c.. If that were all he did, there would probably be no
controversy.
The controversy arises from Dr. Chung¹s other behaviors on s.m.c., in
particular:
o He uses s.m.c. to not only proselytize his particular
interpretation
of Christianity, but also to disparage and attack anyone with a
different interpretation or different religion.
o He uses s.m.c. to promote his unscientific Two Pound Diet (2PD)
and,
in fact, cross posts this information to other groups in order to
gain more exposure.
o When challenged on the above issues, or one of his medical
opinions,
he attacks his challengers as "obsessive anti-Christians",
"libelers", "homosexuals", "people who can¹t understand English",
etc.
o When challenged he performs Internet searches on his challengers in
order to "get the dirt" on them and smear their reputations.
o When challenged, he answers with evasions, non sequiturs,
dissembling, rhetorical questions, quotes from the bible, religious
mantras, thinly veiled death threats, ad hominem arguments, and
other
such disreputable, unethical, and unprofessional tactics.
o He is insufferably full of himself, claiming to have "the gift of
Truth Discernment" and to be "Humble" while behaving anything but
humbly.
o He uses a foil who posts under variations of the name "Mu" to avoid
killfiles. Mu¹s job is to troll other newsgroups and, when he gets
a
reaction, to cross post the reaction to s.m.c. so that Dr. Chung
can
disingenuously claim to be "only responding" to a cross post.
Whereas Dr. Chung has to be somewhat careful what he says and so
attacks primarily through insinuation and innuendo, Mu¹s tactics
are
blunt and direct like those of a playground bully.
The above lists only the highlights of Dr. Chung¹s egregious behavior
on s.m.c.. If anything, it understates it. Everything can be
verified
in the Google archives.
The issue then arises: so what? As long as Dr. Chung provides free
medical advice on s.m.c., who cares what else he does?
Many people provide free medical advice on the internet. How does
one
know whether it is good advice or bad advice? If the person giving
the
advice is, or represents himself to be, a doctor shouldn¹t that be
enough? Unfortunately, no.
Medical education alone is not enough to guarantee good advice.
Knowledge must be tempered with judgment, impartiality, integrity,
ethics, and professionalism. If someone consistently demonstrates by
their behavior that they lack these qualities, how much credence
should
be given to their medical advice?
People arrive in this group looking for help. For their own
protection, they deserve to know the quality of the person purporting
to dispense that help and not be lulled into a false sense of
security
simply because someone displays an MD after their name. It is the
intention of this FAQ to provide people with enough information to
allow them to make an informed decision.
List of Questions Answered
--------------------------
1. Who is Dr. Andrew B Chung, MD/PhD?
2. What is the Charter of s.m.c.?
3. Aren¹t Religious Discussions Covered by the Charter?
4. So Dr. Chung is Religious... What¹s the Problem With That?
5. But it¹s Just a Little "Tag Line" in His Signature.
6. But I¹m a Christian Too!
7. Well, Why Not Just Ignore His Religious Rants?
8. But Isn¹t It Wonderful That Dr. Chung Offers This Free
Medical Advice Out of the Goodness of His Heart?
9. How Does a Practicing Physician Find so Much Time to Spend on
Usenet?
10. Won¹t Challenging Dr. Chung Drive People Away?
11. Doesn't the "Fault" for all Those Posts Lay With Those Who
Challenge Dr. Chung?
12. Why Do I see So Many "Ad Hominem" Attacks?
13. I'm Sick of Seeing All This!
14. What is the Two Pound Diet?
15. Is Discussion of the Two Pound Diet "On Topic"?
16. Who is Mu?
17. What is Mu¹s Role?
1. Who is Dr. Andrew B Chung, MD/PhD?
--------------------------------------
The poster who posts as Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD claims to be a
licensed physician, practicing internal medicine in Atlanta, Georgia,
USA and specializing in cardiology. His signature contains a link to
a
website which is consistent with his posts.
It should be noted that anyone can claim to be anyone on Usenet and
so
caution is always advised. Indeed there are those who claim that the
poster in question is not Dr. Andrew B. Chung, or is not the Dr.
Andrew
B. Chung listed in the Atlanta telephone directory, and/or has lost
his
license and/or hospital privileges for misconduct. This FAQ does not
attempt to address those claims one way or the other. The reader
with
an interest in these matters can easily find the relevant discussions
archived in Google Groups.
This FAQ deals with the poster who posts as Dr. Chung and restricts
itself to issues demonstrated by those posts. No position is taken
on
his "true" identity.
2. What is the Charter of s.m.c.?
----------------------------------
The purpose of this newsgroup is to establish electronic media for
communication between health care providers, scientists and other
individuals with interest in the cardiovascular field. Such
communications will provide quick and efficacious means to exchange
information and knowledge, and offer problems to solutions.
The sci.med.cardiology newsgroup will welcome participants who are
health care providers, trainees, researchers, students or recipients
with interest in the field of cardiovascular problems."
(ftp://ftp.uu.net/usenet/news.announce.newgroups/sci/
sci.med.cardiology)
3. Aren¹t Religious Discussions Covered by the Charter?
--------------------------------------------------------
What do you think?
4. So Dr. Chung is Religious... What¹s the Problem With That?
--------------------------------------------------------------
There is no problem with that. Most of the people who participate in
s.m.c. are probably religious. However no one but Dr. Chung feels
compelled to characterize themselves as the "Humble Servant of God"
in
their signatures, continually thank God for the opportunity to
"witness", question others about their religious beliefs, claim the
"Gift of Truth Discernment", etc.
When one person insists on introducing his personal religious
interpretations into the discussions, it naturally generates
responses
from others who feel just as strongly that their viewpoints are
correct. The resulting debate easily swirls out of control,
especially
given Dr. Chung¹s intolerant and dismissive attitude towards beliefs
which differ from his. The situation is further exacerbated by Mu¹s
rabble raising from the sidelines.
There are over 160 Usenet groups dedicated to the discussion of
religion. Dr. Chung should take his beliefs to one of these and
stick
to cardiology in s.m.c. It is a simple matter of respect for others.
5. But it¹s Just a Little "Tag Line" in His Signature.
-------------------------------------------------------
No, it is not. He has even gone so far as to "investigate" someone
asking for advice about stents and accuse her of being anti-
Christian.
6. But I¹m a Christian Too!
---------------------------
Lots of people are Christians. There is a time and a place for
everything. s.m.c. isn¹t the place to "witness" or recruit. In
addition, lots of other people are Jews, Moslems, Buddhists,
Taoists, Hindus, etc. Would s.m.c. be better or worse if they
all emulated Dr. Chung in their proselytizing and recruiting?
Furthermore, if you are a Christian, you should be appalled by Dr.
Chung¹s pharisaical, cynical, and manipulative use of Christianity.
He
is truly a "whitened sepulcher", loudly proclaiming his adherence to
Christian values while overtly lying, carrying on smear campaigns
against others, making false accusations, dissembling, and marketing
his web site under the guise of altruism. He is "bearing false
witness" and true Christians should be concerned.
As an example, when John Ritter recently died unexpectedly, Dr. Chung
rushed to use this unfortunate event to market his web site. He
showed
a total lack of Christian compassion for Mr. Ritter and his family,
even when challenged to do so.
As another example, he recently choreographed a smear campaign
against
a poster who had criticized him. Dr. Chung found a homosexual author
with the same first name and then insinuated that the poster and
anyone
who agreed with him were engaged in a homosexual relationship. Ask
yourself if this the brand of Christianity you identify with.
7. Well, Why Not Just Ignore His Religious Rants?
--------------------------------------------------
Why should one individual be given carte blanche to violate the
rights
of everyone else? Usenet is a community. It is up to the community
to
sanction its members. There is nothing "ad hominem" about
challenging
inappropriate and antisocial behavior.
8. But Isn¹t It Wonderful That Dr. Chung Offers This Free
Medical Advice Out of the Goodness of His Heart?
----------------------------------------------------------
First, it is only of value if it is good advice. Medical education
alone is not enough to guarantee good advice. Knowledge must be
tempered with judgment, impartiality, integrity, ethics, and
professionalism. If someone consistently demonstrates by their
behavior that they lack these qualities, how much credence should be
given to their medical advice?
Secondly, despite his protestations to the contrary, Dr. Chung is not
simply motivated by altruism. Every post of Dr. Chung's contains a
link to a website with the following quote:
"If you are looking for a cardiologist and reside in Georgia,
please consider me your best option for a personal heart
advocate.
Check out my credentials and my background. Additional
information
is available in the protected sections of this web site. Email me
at
cardiolog...@heartmdphd.com to me of your interest and I may send
you a temporary username and password to allow a preview. The more
information you email, the more likely my decision to send you a
temporary username and password. If you like what you see and
learn
from this website and wish to confer with me about your heart, you
or your doctor should email me privately or call my voicemail at
404-699-2780 to schedule an appointment to see me at my *real*
office."
(http://www.heartmdphd.com/office.asp)
Thirdly, Dr. Chung has repeatedly stated that one of his key
motivations for participating is s.m.c. is to "witness" and win
converts to his religious beliefs.
9. How Does a Practicing Physician Find so Much Time to Spend on
Usenet?
------------------------------------------------------------------
An interesting question.
10. Won¹t Challenging Dr. Chung Drive People Away?
--------------------------------------------------
Perhaps. But not challenging him will drive others away.
s.m.c. is historically a "low traffic" group. Therefore, when Dr.
Chung
misbehaves, he generates an apparently large response. This is
compounded by Dr. Chung¹s need to "get in the last word" and Mu¹s
provocations. In spite of this, if someone has a question it will
usually be answered.
Dr. Chung is not the only participant who offers advice in s.m.c. He
is not even the only doctor who participates in s.m.c. However, the
controversy he generates and sustains often makes it appear that he
is
the "only game in town".
Finally, Dr. Chung himself drives others away including other
physicians who leave in disgust after being verbally assaulted by
him,
and other knowledgeable posters who point out where Dr. Chung¹s
medical
opinion might be in error or at least not the only one generally
held.
Anyone disagreeing with Dr. Chung on any subject can expect a series
of
increasingly vitriolic attacks, including threats of libel suits.
11. Doesn't the "Fault" for all Those Posts Lay With Those Who
Challenge Dr. Chung?
--------------------------------------------------------------
An interesting perspective: blame the victim. No other poster
(with the exception of Mu, of course) introduces religion or
the Two Pound Diet. How can it be acceptable for Dr. Chung
to introduce these topics, but not acceptable for others to
respond?
In any thread, someone must, of necessity "get the last word".
Dr. Chung has amply demonstrated that he will not be outdone
in this respect.
12. Why Do I see So Many "Ad Hominem" Attacks?
----------------------------------------------
You are probably referring to an "Ad Hominem" _argument_, which
attempts to disprove an adversary's fact by personal attack on
the adversary. An example would be "You are opposed to the
Two Pound Diet because you are anti-Christian".
When someone misbehaves, for example lies or distorts what
someone else is saying, it is not an "ad hominem attack" to
call them on it. It is a legitimate social sanction.
There are also, unfortunately too often, simple personal
attacks and insults on both sides. While we can all wish
it weren't so, it is simply human nature when an argument
becomes heated or the other person is obviously not arguing
in good faith. If you are distressed by this, see the next
question.
13. I'm Sick of Seeing All This!
--------------------------------
There is no reason why you have to see it. Just as you can
change the TV channel if you don't like a show, you can killfile
a poster or thread you don't want to see. See the manual
that came with your Usenet reader for directions on how to do it.
Before you do this, however, you may wish to consider if a truer
picture of the world is not gained by seeing all that goes on -
both the good and the bad.
14. What is the Two Pound Diet?
-------------------------------
The Two pound Diet is a diet which Dr. Chung "invented". It¹s only
rule is to restrict yourself to two pounds of food per day. That¹s
it.
Doesn¹t matter if you are a 16 year old girl or an 80 year old man; a
5¹ 2" woman or a 7¹ man; a weight lifter or a mattress tester. Two
pounds. That¹s it. No more, less if you want. One size fits all.
Oh, and the food? Whatever you want: two pounds of lettuce, two
pounds
of ice cream, two pounds of celery, two pounds of bacon, two pounds
of
chocolate, two pounds of peanuts... doesn¹t matter. Mix and match.
Just keep it under two pounds.
Dr. Chung¹s claim is that this magical weight of food, this universal
gustatory constant will cause everyone to arrive at and maintain
their
ideal weight. His scientific basis for this claim: none. The proof
he
offers: none. Studies supporting this claim: none. Nutritional
explanation: none. Metabolic explanation: none.
And this from a doctor who expects people to take him seriously on
other issues.
15. Is Discussion of the Two Pound Diet "On Topic"?
---------------------------------------------------
Dr. Chung says it is because being overweight is a risk factor for
heart problems and therefore discussion of the Two Pound Diet is On
Topic. However criticism of the Two Pound Diet is Off Topic as is
discussion of any other diet.
As with religion, Dr. Chung takes every opportunity to introduce the
Two Pound Diet (2PD) into any other thread. In addition Mu trolls
other newsgroups, particularly the diet groups looking for
opportunities to introduce the 2PD in these groups and then cross
post
the resulting discussion back to s.m.c so that Dr. Chung can
disingenuously claim to be "only responding" to a cross post.
Since Dr. Chung and Mu have been laughed off of these other groups
and
have been asked repeatedly not to bring up the 2PD in them,
participants of these groups are understandably angered when it
happens
yet againŠ and, because of Mu¹s cross-posting, all their anger spills
back into s.m.c.
Another reason for ongoing 2PD discussions is Dr. Chung¹s habit of
researching anyone who criticizes the 2PD and then cross-posting his
responses back to other groups which the critic has been found to
frequent. He disingenuously claims that he does this as a
"convenience" to the critic, but his true reasons are transparent.
Once again, the cross-post generates a firestorm in s.m.c.
The bottom line is that if the Two Pound Diet is "On Topic" for
anyone, it is "On Topic" for everyone... including it's critics.
If it is "Off Topic", it should not be continually re-introduced
by Dr. Chung.
16. Who is Mu?
--------------
Mu is a longtime Usenet Troll who has even merited his own FAQ. He
postures as some kind of personal physical trainer, but who really
knows? He has allied himself with Dr. Chung and serves as the "Bad
Cop"
in the Chung-Mu "Good Cop - Bad Cop" routine. He specializes in the
short, nasty one-liner and, because, unlike Dr. Chung, he has no
reputation to protect, he can afford to be much more direct and
offensive.
Mu parrots an even meaner-spirited version of Dr. Chung¹s
"Christianity" and does not hesitate to employ anti-Semitism and
homophobia in his attacks.
Naturally, most people would have long ago killfiled Mu, so he
changes
his handle on an almost daily basis.
17. What is Mu¹s Role?
----------------------
Mu¹s role is to troll other newsgroups and, when he gets a reaction,
to
cross post the reaction to s.m.c. so that Dr. Chung can
disingenuously
claim to be "only responding" to a cross post.
Mu is also responsible for pitching softballs to Dr. Chung so he can
hit them out of the park, and for re-introducing religion and the Two
Pound Diet should the discussion flag.
Finally, Mu¹s role is to tirelessly wear down unsuspecting Dr. Chung
critics, deflecting the blows that would otherwise be aimed at Dr.
Chung. He is Dr. Chung¹s Internet equivalent of the "rope-a-dope".
Insults roll off him like water off a duck as do attempts to reason
with him or even have a civil discussion.
Most people have learned to ignore him and his comment is usually the
last one in any thread sub-tree where it appears.
JoeSpareBedroom
news:1179275317.0...@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
The brethren of LORD Jesus Christ would answer "1" about their feeling
that they are being treated unfairly because we know everything
happens in the manner according to GOD's perfect will.
The brethren of LORD Jesus Christ are neither perfect nor more
special...
... we are simply forgiven by GOD:
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Will you please shut the fuck up already? Real Christians don't spew the way
you do. Merton would disassemble you like a cheap watch.
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
>
> > http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/bf205b98c4a29388?
>
> > The brethren of LORD Jesus Christ are neither perfect nor more
> > special...
>
> > ... we are simply forgiven by GOD:
>
>
> Will you please shut the fuck up already?
Have not been speaking.
> Real Christians don't spew the way
> you do.
We do write HIS way.
> Merton would disassemble you like a cheap watch.
Without the LORD, your fantasies are meaningless (Ecclesiastes).
You remain in my prayers dear neighbor Joe whom I love
unconditionally.
Prayerfully in Jesus' awesome love,
Andrew <><
--
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
http://EmoryCardiology.com
"Unlike the 2PD-OMER Approach, weight loss diets can't be combined
with well-balanced diets."
http://HeartMDPhD.com/Love/TheTruth
JoeSpareBedroom
using his name under false pretenses.
flyingrat
ach...@emorycardiology.com says...
<flushed>
The fact that Chung posts obsessively about "PROOFS" is proof of one
thing only.
To the truly faithful, no proof is necessary. He is either totally
insecure in his beliefs, and therefore clinging to straws of hope that
he has actually backed the right horse, or his Christianity is about as
genuine as his scam diets and other lies.
Either way the "PROOF" is there. Chung is no Christian. In fact he's
"convicted" by his own spluttering and hissing.
FR
flyingrat
says...
> I wonder what the real Dr. Chung will say when he finds out you've been
> using his name under false pretenses.
>
>
>
asking too. And for the same reasons.
FR
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
>
> I wonder what the real Dr. Chung will say when he finds out you've been
> using his name under false pretenses.
The same thing you would say to your reflection in the mirror when you
understand that it is the nature of your reflection to look like
you...
... nothing.
And so my posts will look like that which I would write.
Truth is simple.
Clearly you remain convicted by the Holy Spirit:
http://HeartMDPhD.com/Convicts
Prayerfully in Jesus' awesome love,
Andrew <><
--
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
http://EmoryCardiology.com
"Unlike the 2PD-OMER Approach, weight loss diets can't be combined
with well-balanced diets"
JoeSpareBedroom
> convicted neighbor JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
>>
>> I wonder what the real Dr. Chung will say when he finds out you've been
>> using his name under false pretenses.
>
> The same thing you would say to your reflection in the mirror when you
> understand that it is the nature of your reflection to look like
> you...
>
> ... nothing.
>
> And so my posts will look like that which I would write.
>
> Truth is simple.
>
> Clearly you remain convicted by the Holy Spirit:
Tell your holy spirit I said to stop on by here sometime. I'll take him on a
one-way fishing trip.
Cary Kittrell
Brother Phelps is going to be annoyed with you for failing to point
out that it's "lying, false prophet Jerry Falwell", a
"wolf in sheep's clothing", who "has made those that follow
his folly to be twice as evil as he is". For which
"Falwell is in Hell! Deal with it!"
Oh, and by the way:
Falwell bitterly and viciously attacked WBC because of
WBC's fiathful Bible preaching -- thereby committing
the unpardonable sin -- otherwise known as the
sin gainst the Holy Ghost.
Does this mean that not only is Jerry Falwell in Hell,
he's also become a demon?
-- cary
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
> >>
> >> I wonder what the real Dr. Chung will say when he finds out you've been
> >> using his name under false pretenses.
> >
> > The same thing you would say to your reflection in the mirror when you
> > understand that it is the nature of your reflection to look like
> > you...
> >
> > ... nothing.
> >
> > And so my posts will look like that which I would write.
> >
> > Truth is simple.
> >
> > Clearly you remain convicted by the Holy Spirit:
>
>
> Tell your holy spirit I said to stop on by here sometime.
HE guides me and not the other way around.
> I'll take him on a one-way fishing trip.
You are already well on your way on a one-way fishing trip without
HIM:
http://www.av1611.org/hell.html
Suggested reading:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/89e1e4842810dad6?
flyingrat
> that they are being treated unfairly because we know everything
> happens in the manner according to GOD's perfect will.
>
another religious loony demonstrates the same kind of schizophrenic
behaviour as Chunk.
FR