Interesting Article - CAD

On Tue, 6 Jan 2004 03:23:03 GMT, "Patrick Blanchard M.D."

[email protected] said:

Andrew, you clearly do not understand atheroslcerosis.

lol

Amazing coming from someone who posts, without appropriate approval, copyrighted information.

cyclingforums.comt 61738.htmlOpen ↗

allthesky.comlunareclipse01a.htmlOpen ↗ Lift well, Eat less, Walk fast, Live long.

"Patrick Blanchard M.D.

Quoted message said:

Andrew, you clearly do not understand atheroslcerosis. You do not understand primary, secondary
and tertiary prevention. I would like to remind you of your statements that reveal your definition
of atheroslcerosis; heart attack, stroke, TIA, claudication (or any complication of
atherosclerosis and there happens to be many others). You said that a disease is not clinically
significant unless there are symptoms from it. This means that if someone has advanced
atherosclerosis and it is silent, then it is not important!

Those would be your words not mine.

Quoted message said:

Yet you contradict yourself when you discuss the importance of risk factor modification.

In truth, I would be contradicting your words.

Quoted message said:

I know you have difficulty with what I am telling you but... you are wrong.

Wrong about CIMT measurements being a waste of money?

Quoted message said:

You are confusing one disease with another; you are confusing one disease with the complications
it causes.

Pray tell, what is your subspecialty Stephen?

Quoted message said:

Atherosclerosis is silent.

That would depend on severity and the target organs involved.

Quoted message said:

It is silent decades before the complications arise. Atherosclerosis is not a heart attack, or a
stroke, or a TIA, or claudication (or any of the many complications of atherosclerosis). The
complications of atherosclerosis are separate diseases, but they are not atherosclerosis.

Your terminology is curious here. I suspect you have trouble communicating with the subspecialists
you refer your patients to.

Quoted message said:

Let me explain further. You do not understand primary, secondary and tertiary prevention of
atherosclerosis let alone the histological definition of it. Why is this important? Because you
are confusing primary, secondary and tertiary prevention of atherosclerosis with primary,
secondary, and tertiary prevention of the organ damage caused by atherosclerosis.

It is true that I do not understand your terminology. This is not the first time you have been
neologistical.

Quoted message said:

In other words, you incorrectly define atherosclerosis with the problems it causes, and not the
actual disease itself.

My definition of atherosclerosis invoked the formation of "plaques."

Quoted message said:

I found this fundamental flaw in all of your prior statements about atherosclerosis from the
beginning of the google archives. Go back and look for yourself - your fundamental flaw of
knowledge rests upon your complete lack of understanding as to what primary, secondary and
tertiary prevention of disease means. (see below).

Look here: tinyurl.com2musuOpen ↗

This schematic complicates things. Imho, it is an obfuscation.

Quoted message said:

Primary prevention for heart attack begins with the efforts of the American Heart Association to
educate the public that when they experience chest pain they should seek medical attention.

No, primary prevention of any disease means to simply prevent its first occurrence.

Secondary prevention means to simply prevent its recurrence.

This is the terminology used by clinical researchers in all the prospective trials. It now is clear
to me why you have been having difficulty following the research literature.

Quoted message said:

Now, let's talk about the arrow representing the treatment for a heart attack. For "Myocardial
infarction", secondary prevention would be the recognition of the heart attack and the
treatment of it.

It should be prevention of recurrent heart attacks.

Quoted message said:

I see this all the time in the emergency room; is the lady's chest pain from a myocardial
infarction or from a pulmonary embolus?

This would be diagnosis rather than prevention.

Quoted message said:

Secondary prevention against heart attack begins with early recognition or the proper diagnosis of
a heart attack.

Secondary prevention begins with measures to prevent recurrent heart attacks.

Quoted message said:

Tertiary prevention of the heart attack would be subsequent treatment of the complications of a
heart attack (for example heart failure, or angina) later on.

Treatment of heart failure is no longer "prevention."

Would you call a heart transplant a preventative measure?

Your terminology truly is strange. I believe I commented on this before.

Quoted message said:

I would like you to take a look at the arrow again and think about atherosclerosis, or "hardening
of the arteries". Secondary prevention would be the recognition of the atherosclerosis and the
treatment of it.

Atherosclerosis is a pathological process. Once you identify it, prevention is irrelevant. The horse
is out the barn. Shutting the door is not going to bring it back. If you go out and "fetch" the
horse, it is no longer prevention but "regression."

Quoted message said:

It is here, in secondary prevention against atherosclerosis where the paradigm shift in early
detection and treatment has emerged just a few years ago, after you finished your formal eduation.

Sorry, I remain unconvinced.

Quoted message said:

It is here where most if not all individuals can be properly guided to prevent the need of
tertiary prevention of atherosclerosis, namely heart attacks and strokes. Tertiary prevention of
atherosclerosis is the treatment of damage caused by atherosclerosis (for example myocardial
infarction).

You are confusing prevention with treatment.

Quoted message said:

Do you see your fundamental flaw of knowledge?

No. However, I do see your problem with neologism.

Quoted message said:

Perhaps you could admit this but I doubt it. However, I hope that you take this essay of mine and
then go to your patients and at least consider what I have told you when you address their
problems. May www.heartmdphd.com be prosperous in the year 2004. After all, the dot com indicates
it is a for-profit organization.

Not really.

Quoted message said:

tinyurl.com32bs4Open ↗

Corporations can be non-profit. And indeed, the HeartMDPhD.com web site is non-profit.

Quoted message said:

Rest assured it will be profitable if you fail to recognize your fundamental knowledge flaw.

HeartMDPhD.com is non-profit. All proceeds from this web site are distributed to charitable
organizations.

On the other hand, my practice is profitable because I am paid well for the services I provide.

Quoted message said:

From the Google archives (just a small sample):

From: "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <[email hidden]> Newsgroups: sci.med.cardiology
Subject: Re: CRP::MPO::Vulnerable plaques::CIMT Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2003 13:01:36 -0500
Organization: heartmdphd.comheartmdphd.comOpen ↗

Disease is clinically significant when there are signs and symptoms associated with it. Otherwise,
it may still be important but not clinically significant.

Correct.

Quoted message said:

Date: Tue, 04 Nov 2003 03:16:13 GMT Lines: 476 From: "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD"
<[email hidden]> Reply-To: [email hidden] Organization: heartmdphd.comheartmdphd.comOpen ↗

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Dr. Chung replys to Dr. Chaos: It remains my experience. There are various stigmata detectable
by an astute physician on physical exam that tells that physician that there is
atherosclerosis.

Dr. Blanchard disagrees in reply:

Even the most experienced physician cannot identify atherosclerosis until the late stages of
this silent killer,

(Dr. Chung replys) A heart attack is hardly silent.

Correct.

Humbly,

Andrew

--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
heartmdphd.comheartmdphd.comOpen ↗

Totality of Lunar Mu_n Eclipsed said:

Amazing coming from someone who posts, without appropriate approval, copyrighted information.

Amazing how Roose/SUT/arete/mu posts copyrighted material *without attribution* as his own,
obviously without permission.

That self-referential business again...

Pastorio

On Tue, 6 Jan 2004 1:17:38 -0500, Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote
(in message <[email hidden]>😉:

Quoted message said:

"Patrick Blanchard M.D.

<snip>

Quoted message said:

Pray tell, what is your subspecialty Stephen?

Poor Chung, can't keep straight which of his colleagues he is attacking :-)

<snip>

Quoted message said:

HeartMDPhD.com is non-profit. All proceeds from this web site are distributed to charitable
organizations.

On the other hand, my practice is profitable because I am paid well for the services I provide.

So let me get this straight. If you spam Usenet with links to the heartmdphd site and a person
follows the link and becomes your patient, you distribute all fees from that patient to charity?

Or could it be that you are once again "telling the truth" with your fingers crossed behind you
back? That the web site, being merely an advertising referral tool, generates only indirect revenue
for your practice rather than direct revenue from, say, subscription fees to the web site itself.

And therefore in your generosity you donate all of this indirect non-revenue to charitable
organizations? Mother Teresa Chung donates the sleeves out of his vest to charity.

What a sleaze.

Let's try it this way: what exactly constitutes "All proceeds from this web site"?

Perhaps I will forward a copy of this to the IRS office in Atlanta. You do have a Tax ID for this
Non-Profit Organization, right? They might be interested in how you are allocating your expenses.
And since your practice is so profitable, I'm sure you are just the sort of "Big Fish" that they
will be interested in looking at.

I can't wait to read the transcript of you trying the "Truth Discernment" argument in Tax Court :-)

--
Steve

Weeding the Lord's Vineyards Since 2003

MD/PhD said:

Quoted message said:

You are confusing one disease with another; you are confusing one disease with the complications
it causes.

Pray tell, what is your subspecialty Stephen?

Andrew, Is this neologism or outright confusion and panic that the endgame has started? My first
name is Patrick.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Atherosclerosis is silent.

That would depend on severity and the target organs involved.

Quoted message said:

It is silent decades before the complications arise. Atherosclerosis is not a heart attack, or a
stroke, or a TIA, or claudication (or any of the many complications of atherosclerosis). The
complications of atherosclerosis are separate diseases, but they are not atherosclerosis.

Your terminology is curious here. I suspect you have trouble communicating with the subspecialists
you refer your patients to.

Well, I was not elected 'Resident Teacher of the Year' in 1994 by confusing the names of others in
my profession.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Let me explain further. You do not understand primary, secondary and tertiary prevention of
atherosclerosis let alone the histological definition of it. Why is this important? Because you
are confusing primary, secondary and tertiary prevention of atherosclerosis with primary,
secondary, and tertiary prevention of the organ damage caused by atherosclerosis.

It is true that I do not understand your terminology. This is not the first time you have been
neologistical.

I know, I know, it is confusing for you Andrew. It's OK, no one is perfect and I don't expect you to
be either.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

In other words, you incorrectly define atherosclerosis with the problems it causes, and not the
actual disease itself.

My definition of atherosclerosis invoked the formation of "plaques."

Quoted message said:

I found this fundamental flaw in all of your prior statements about atherosclerosis from the
beginning of the google archives. Go back and look for yourself - your fundamental flaw of
knowledge rests upon your complete lack of understanding as to what primary, secondary and
tertiary prevention of disease means. (see below).

Look here: tinyurl.com2musuOpen ↗

This schematic complicates things. Imho, it is an obfuscation.

Stay with me brother, I can get you through this.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Primary prevention for heart attack begins with the efforts of the American Heart Association to
educate the public that when they experience chest pain they should seek medical attention.

No, primary prevention of any disease means to simply prevent its first occurrence.

Primary prevention. OK, let's look a little deeper into this definition. Primary prevention for
atherosclerosis means measures taken to prevent atherosclerosis. Primary prevention for a heart
attack means measures taken to prevent myocardial damage. Atherosclerosis and myocardial infarction
are not the same disease Andrew.

Quoted message said:

Secondary prevention means to simply prevent its recurrence.

This is the terminology used by clinical researchers in all the prospective trials. It now is
clear to me why you have been having difficulty following the research literature.

Secondary prevention. OK, let's look a little deeper into this definition. Secondary prevention does
not mean "to simply prevent its recurrence." Secondary prevention is " measures taken (aka
'treatment'😉 to deter clinical emergence (aka 'no longer clinically silent'😉 of disease in
asymptomatic individuals by identifying risk factors or preclinical disease."

Secondary prevention of atherosclerosis is "measures taken to prevent clinical symptoms such as
heart attacks and strokes". Secondary prevention measures = treatment, Andrew.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Now, let's talk about the arrow representing the treatment for a heart attack. For "Myocardial
infarction", secondary prevention would be the recognition of the heart attack and the treatment
of it.

It should be prevention of recurrent heart attacks.

You are showing a tiny glimpse of understanding, Andrew! Let me rephrase this for you... "It should
be the prevention of addition myocardial damage." In otherwords, someone can have a heart attack and
never know it. Or, someone can have a heart attack and develop clinical symptoms like heart failure,
or reduction of cardiac output. Secondary prevention of heart attacks means 1.early diagnosis of
myocardial damage and 2. measures taken (treatment) to prevent clinical symptoms from the myocardial
damage from emerging.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I see this all the time in the emergency room; is the lady's chest pain from a myocardial
infarction or from a pulmonary embolus?

This would be diagnosis rather than prevention.

Andrew, it is the early recognition that myocardial damage is occuring. Secondary prevention is the
early recognition of the disease my friend. (whisper). Atherosclerosis and myocardial damage are two
distinct diseases, each requiring specialized treatment.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Secondary prevention against heart attack begins with early recognition or the proper diagnosis
of a heart attack.

Secondary prevention begins with measures to prevent recurrent heart attacks.

Andrew, take a break. Get yourself some nice warm green tea, and read again what I have posted. When
you are ready, our lesson will continue...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Tertiary prevention of the heart attack would be subsequent treatment of the complications of a
heart attack (for example heart failure, or angina) later on.

Treatment of heart failure is no longer "prevention."

Tertiary prevention. OK, hang on Andrew. Tertiary prevention is 'measures taken to avoid or delay
the consequences and complications of a clinical illness in patients who exhibit symptoms of that
illness.' For someone who has suffered myocardial damage and suffer from heart failure because of
the damage, tertiary prevention against myocardial damage can also be viewed as secondary prevention
against heart failure.

Quoted message said:

Would you call a heart transplant a preventative measure?

Now now, Andrew, relax. Did you finish your green tea? Someone surgically recieves a donor heart
when their own heart muscle is severely compromised. If I fail to properly diagnose and treat the
heart attack (a failure of secondary prevention against heart attack), or if despite the best
treatment of the heart attack (secondary prevention against heart attack), then the heart attack
will result in COMPLICATIONS from myocardial damage. When complications from the heart attack
develop, then the heart attack victim is a candidate for tertiary prevention against myocardial
damage. A heart transplant is a tertiary prevention measure (or treatment) for some complications of
myocardial damage, but not all of course.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It is here where most if not all individuals can be properly guided to prevent the need of
tertiary prevention of atherosclerosis, namely heart attacks and strokes. Tertiary prevention of
atherosclerosis is the treatment of damage caused by atherosclerosis (for example myocardial
infarction).

You are confusing prevention with treatment.

No, no, my friend Andrew. You are confusing the definition of atherosclerosis with the
complications of it.

--
Patrick Blanchard, M.D., A.B.F.P. Board Certified in Family Medicine
familydoctor.orgblanchardOpen ↗

SonoScore Winning against heart attack and stroke sonoscore.comsonoscore.comOpen ↗

MD/PhD said:

If you admit to that, the rest of your house of cards comes down when you revise the rest of your
paragraph. Afterall, this sentence was where you tried to make the point that I considered
atherosclerosis unimportant.

No Andrew, you are still in denial. My argument has 2 fronts that support one another throughout the
argument. The end result is the same, and I know it is difficult for you to admit it.

--
Patrick Blanchard, M.D., A.B.F.P. Board Certified in Family Medicine
familydoctor.orgblanchardOpen ↗

SonoScore Winning against heart attack and stroke sonoscore.comsonoscore.comOpen ↗

On Tue, 6 Jan 2004 16:02:40 -0500, Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote
(in message <[email hidden]>😉:

Quoted message said:

And there are those (ie Pastorio) who think you have mastered English. You make Pastorio look bad,
not that he need help looking bad.

You right. Him no need help :-)

So when _are_ you going to answer the question about your "Charitable" web site? You can do it the
easy way or the hard way :-)

--
Steve

Weeding the Lord's Vineyards Since 2003

On Tue, 6 Jan 2004 15:29:54 GMT, "Patrick Blanchard MD"

blanchard@sonoscore_nospam.com said:

Andrew, Is this neologism or outright confusion and panic that the endgame has started?

Perhaps.

Just to keep everyone on cue -

Mu -

I see you have already begun the Chung/Mu one-two attack, as I predicted.

Here is your cue to jump in and be the bad guy once again, so Chung can sweetly agree with you.
If it is a particularly brutal attack, then Chung will just stay silent. You know the routine
quite well.

Chung -

Start that CD of Chubby Checker playing "Lets Do The Twist," to get you in the mood. Then reread the
"Alice in Wonderland" part where the Cheshire Cat says "A word means exactly what I want it to mean"
to practice for your response. Then you will be in top shape for your usual evasive replies.
Cheshire Chung at its best.

It would seem that facts are being discussed. Start preparing your best " my experience" lines to
counter those. If all else fails, you can always fall back on the religious routine. That is almost
always successful in changing the subject. Your "I know the truth" line has lost quite a bit of
credibility, so you might want to avoid that one.

Chung and Mu -

Start digging up anything to use for personal attacks on Patrick. Use the usual checklist for
starters - antichristian, gay, Jewish, and so on. Check out his websites and publications to find
any dirt you can use against him. If you can't find anything good, then start making up stories that
sound good, especially to other fanatics. You know, the usual tactics.

Just want to keep the routine going smoothly. Matt

Patrick Blanchard MD said:

MD/PhD said:

Quoted message said:

You are confusing one disease with another; you are confusing one disease with the
complications it causes.

Pray tell, what is your subspecialty Stephen?

Andrew, Is this neologism or outright confusion and panic that the endgame has started? My first
name is Patrick.

I'm sorry, Patrick. I guess you were reminding me of Stephen/

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Atherosclerosis is silent.

That would depend on severity and the target organs involved.

Quoted message said:

It is silent decades before the complications arise. Atherosclerosis is not a heart attack, or
a stroke, or a TIA, or claudication (or any of the many complications of atherosclerosis). The
complications of atherosclerosis are separate diseases, but they are not atherosclerosis.

Your terminology is curious here. I suspect you have trouble communicating with the
subspecialists you refer your patients to.

Well, I was not elected 'Resident Teacher of the Year' in 1994 by confusing the names of others in
my profession.

My humble apologies again.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Let me explain further. You do not understand primary, secondary and tertiary prevention of
atherosclerosis let alone the histological definition of it. Why is this important? Because
you are confusing primary, secondary and tertiary prevention of atherosclerosis with primary,
secondary, and tertiary prevention of the organ damage caused by atherosclerosis.

It is true that I do not understand your terminology. This is not the first time you have been
neologistical.

I know, I know, it is confusing for you Andrew. It's OK, no one is perfect and I don't expect you
to be either.

Correct, only my boss, Jesus Christ, is perfect.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

In other words, you incorrectly define atherosclerosis with the problems it causes, and not
the actual disease itself.

My definition of atherosclerosis invoked the formation of "plaques."

Quoted message said:

I found this fundamental flaw in all of your prior statements about atherosclerosis from the
beginning of the google archives. Go back and look for yourself - your fundamental flaw of
knowledge rests upon your complete lack of understanding as to what primary, secondary and
tertiary prevention of disease means. (see below).

Look here: tinyurl.com2musuOpen ↗

This schematic complicates things. Imho, it is an obfuscation.

Stay with me brother, I can get you through this.

I would like nothing more than for you to be a brother.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Primary prevention for heart attack begins with the efforts of the American Heart Association
to educate the public that when they experience chest pain they should seek medical attention.

No, primary prevention of any disease means to simply prevent its first occurrence.

Primary prevention. OK, let's look a little deeper into this definition. Primary prevention for
atherosclerosis means measures taken to prevent atherosclerosis. Primary prevention for a heart
attack means measures taken to prevent myocardial damage. Atherosclerosis and myocardial
infarction are not the same disease Andrew.

No one said they were. However, they are not independent disease entities either. Most myocardial
infarctions require atherosclerosis as a pre-requisite.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Secondary prevention means to simply prevent its recurrence.

This is the terminology used by clinical researchers in all the prospective trials. It now is
clear to me why you have been having difficulty following the research literature.

Secondary prevention. OK, let's look a little deeper into this definition. Secondary prevention
does not mean "to simply prevent its recurrence." Secondary prevention is " measures taken (aka
'treatment'😉 to deter clinical emergence (aka 'no longer clinically silent'😉 of disease in
asymptomatic individuals by identifying risk factors or preclinical disease."

You essentially redefined secondary prevention instead of "looking deeper."

Quoted message said:

Secondary prevention of atherosclerosis is "measures taken to prevent clinical symptoms such as
heart attacks and strokes". Secondary prevention measures = treatment, Andrew.

I prefer the term treatment to prevention in this setting. It is the more truthful term.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Now, let's talk about the arrow representing the treatment for a heart attack. For "Myocardial
infarction", secondary prevention would be the recognition of the heart attack and the
treatment of it.

It should be prevention of recurrent heart attacks.

You are showing a tiny glimpse of understanding, Andrew! Let me rephrase this for you... "It
should be the prevention of addition myocardial damage." In otherwords, someone can have a heart
attack and never know it.

However, the majority (75%) will know it.

Quoted message said:

Or, someone can have a heart attack and develop clinical symptoms like heart failure, or
reduction of cardiac output. Secondary prevention of heart attacks means 1.early diagnosis of
myocardial damage

Secondary prevention requires diagnosis of the initial presentation of the disease. This diagnosis
is not part of secondary prevention.

Quoted message said:

and 2. measures taken (treatment) to prevent clinical symptoms from the myocardial damage from
emerging.

Treatment remains the more truthful terminology here.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I see this all the time in the emergency room; is the lady's chest pain from a myocardial
infarction or from a pulmonary embolus?

This would be diagnosis rather than prevention.

Andrew, it is the early recognition that myocardial damage is occuring.

If it is a pulmonary embolus, there is no myocardial damage.

Quoted message said:

Secondary prevention is the early recognition of the disease my friend. (whisper).

That would be diagnosis, neighbor.

Quoted message said:

Atherosclerosis and myocardial damage are two distinct diseases,

However, the latter is not necessarily independent of the former.

Quoted message said:

each requiring specialized treatment.

And illustrative example:

Head trauma from a motor-vehicle accident is a diagnosis.

A "bolt" to the head for relieving intracranial pressure is treatment.

Subsequent use of seatbelt and airbags is prevention *after* successful treatment.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Secondary prevention against heart attack begins with early recognition or the proper
diagnosis of a heart attack.

Secondary prevention begins with measures to prevent recurrent heart attacks.

Andrew, take a break. Get yourself some nice warm green tea, and read again what I have posted.
When you are ready, our lesson will continue...

Reads the same as it did before.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Tertiary prevention of the heart attack would be subsequent treatment of the complications of
a heart attack (for example heart failure, or angina) later on.

Treatment of heart failure is no longer "prevention."

Tertiary prevention. OK, hang on Andrew. Tertiary prevention is 'measures taken to avoid or delay
the consequences and complications of a clinical illness in patients who exhibit symptoms of that
illness.' For someone who has suffered myocardial damage and suffer from heart failure because of
the damage, tertiary prevention against myocardial damage can also be viewed as secondary
prevention against heart failure.

In a word: obfuscation.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Would you call a heart transplant a preventative measure?

Now now, Andrew, relax. Did you finish your green tea? Someone surgically recieves a donor heart
when their own heart muscle is severely compromised. If I fail to properly diagnose and treat the
heart attack (a failure of secondary prevention against heart attack), or if despite the best
treatment of the heart attack (secondary prevention against heart attack), then the heart attack
will result in COMPLICATIONS from myocardial damage. When complications from the heart attack
develop, then the heart attack victim is a candidate for tertiary prevention against myocardial
damage. A heart transplant is a tertiary prevention measure (or treatment) for some complications
of myocardial damage, but not all of course.

In a word: obfuscation.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It is here where most if not all individuals can be properly guided to prevent the need of
tertiary prevention of atherosclerosis, namely heart attacks and strokes. Tertiary prevention
of atherosclerosis is the treatment of damage caused by atherosclerosis (for example
myocardial infarction).

You are confusing prevention with treatment.

No, no, my friend Andrew. You are confusing the definition of atherosclerosis with the
complications of it.

You remain confused and confusing.

Humbly,

Andrew

--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
heartmdphd.comheartmdphd.comOpen ↗

MD/PhD said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Pray tell, what is your subspecialty Stephen?

Andrew, Is this neologism or outright confusion and panic that the endgame has started? My first
name is Patrick.

I'm sorry, Patrick. I guess you were reminding me of Stephen/

I just want him to answer the question instead of dodging and weaving around it.

Dr. Blanchard, your subspecialty is......................<drum roll>..

allthesky.comlunareclipse01a.htmlOpen ↗ Lift well, Eat less, Walk fast, Live long.

MD/PhD said:

In a word: obfuscation.

I think better word is 'checkmate'.

Go back to the board and do the post game analysis yourself, Andrew. When you are finished, let me
know and then we can play a real game here chessclub.comchessclub.comOpen ↗

My handle is Fodder on ICC.

--
Patrick Blanchard, M.D., A.B.F.P. Board Certified in Family Medicine
familydoctor.orgblanchardOpen ↗

SonoScore Winning against heart attack and stroke sonoscore.comsonoscore.comOpen ↗

MD/PhD said:

I'm sorry, Patrick. I guess you were reminding me of Stephen/

...............

Thank you for the compliment, Andrew.

smn

Totality of Lunar Mu_n Eclipsed said:

MD/PhD said:

Quoted message said:

> Pray tell, what is your subspecialty Stephen?
>

Andrew, Is this neologism or outright confusion and panic that the endgame has started? My first
name is Patrick.

I'm sorry, Patrick. I guess you were reminding me of Stephen/

I just want him to answer the question instead of dodging and weaving around it.

Hey - very good. I see you and Chung are doing the usual one two in perfect coordination, as I
predicted. Chung is being "sweet" and Mu is the bad guy in his macho role. Also just as I predicted.

Mu is already probing things that are irrelevant to the discussion, so we are starting the personal
attack already. Just as predicted.

Cheshire Chung is making the words mean what he says, just as predicted.

So far, Chung and Mu are following the script quite well.

I realize Mu is involved in a very vicious attack on Stephen, and this will distract him a bit from
attacking Patrick. Note how preoccupied Chung was with Stephen. Enough to put his name here. <g>
Both Chung and Mu will step up the attack a LOT if Stephen again gets disgusted with the antics
here. Matt

On Tue, 6 Jan 2004 18:13:03 GMT, "Patrick Blanchard MD"

blanchard@sonoscore_nospam.com said:

MD/PhD said:

In a word: obfuscation.

I think better word is 'checkmate'.

I think you still haven't answered the question "what is you subspecialty"?

What's the problem? A simple question even for you.

allthesky.comlunareclipse01a.htmlOpen ↗ Lift well, Eat less, Walk fast, Live long.

Patrick Blanchard MD said:

MD/PhD said:

In a word: obfuscation.

I think better word is 'checkmate'.

In your own mind.

Quoted message said:

Go back to the board and do the post game analysis yourself, Andrew.

I would but you have moved the pieces to spaces of your own imagining (tertiary prevention).

Quoted message said:

When you are finished, let me know and then we can play a real game here chessclub.comchessclub.comOpen ↗

Patient care is not a game to me, sorry.

Quoted message said:

My handle is Fodder on ICC.

That would be appropriate, imho.

Andrew

--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
heartmdphd.comheartmdphd.comOpen ↗

On Tue, 06 Jan 2004 18:47:22 GMT, Stephen Nagler <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Thank you for the compliment, Andrew.

This is Mu. This is not Chung. You're been duped by a clown. Get over it.

suspectthoughts.comfourhugs.htmlOpen ↗

allthesky.comlunareclipse01a.htmlOpen ↗ Lift well, Eat less, Walk fast, Live long.

Stephen Nagler said:

MD/PhD said:

I'm sorry, Patrick. I guess you were reminding me of Stephen/

...............

Thank you for the compliment, Andrew.

<ggggg> Good one! Matt

Stephen Nagler said:

MD/PhD said:

I'm sorry, Patrick. I guess you were reminding me of Stephen/

...............

Thank you for the compliment, Andrew.

smn

You are welcome. Truly, I mean neither you nor Patrick any ill will.

Humbly,

Andrew
--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
heartmdphd.comheartmdphd.comOpen ↗

Matt said:

Totality of Lunar Mu_n Eclipsed said:

MD/PhD said:

> > Pray tell, what is your subspecialty Stephen?
> >
>
> Andrew, Is this neologism or outright confusion and panic that the endgame has started? My
> first name is Patrick.
>

I'm sorry, Patrick. I guess you were reminding me of Stephen/

I just want him to answer the question instead of dodging and weaving around it.

<hissing snipped>

You poor guy.

There really wasn't a need to change your email address, mattb@sorbet.

You remain in my prayers, neighbor.

Humbly,

Andrew

--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
heartmdphd.comheartmdphd.comOpen ↗

On Tue, 6 Jan 2004 13:16:43 -0500, Totality of Lunar Mu_n Eclipsed
wrote
(in message <[email hidden]>😉:

<snip>

Quoted message said:

I think you still haven't answered the question "what is you subspecialty"?

What's the problem? A simple question even for you.

And Chung still hasn't answered _this_ question:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

HeartMDPhD.com is non-profit. All proceeds from this web site are distributed to charitable
organizations.

On the other hand, my practice is profitable because I am paid well for the services I provide.

Quoted message said:

So let me get this straight. If you spam Usenet with links to the heartmdphd site and a person
follows the link and becomes your patient, you distribute all fees from that patient to charity?

Or could it be that you are once again "telling the truth" with your fingers crossed behind you
back? That the web site, being merely an advertising referral tool, generates only indirect
revenue for your practice rather than direct revenue from, say, subscription fees to the web
site itself.

And therefore in your generosity you donate all of this indirect non-revenue to charitable
organizations? Mother Teresa Chung donates the sleeves out of his vest to charity.

What a sleaze.

Let's try it this way: what exactly constitutes "All proceeds from this web site"?

What's the problem? A simple question even for Chung.

--
Steve

Weeding the Lord's Vineyards Since 2003