Interesting Article - CAD

Totality of Lunar Mu_n Eclipsed said:

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"?

That's right, keep up the attack. Very macho of you. You really HAVE to find something to attack
with. Did you find any other dirt to attack with, or are you just going to start making things
up, as usual?

Quoted message said:

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

Try looking up "irrelevant" in the dictionary. <g> I know it has more than two syllables, but you
can do it.

You're right on cue, Mu, and following the script well. Remember, the next part needs Chung/Mu to
start making up things. Get to it! Matt

Dr. Andrew B. Chung said:

Quoted message said:

My handle is Fodder on ICC.

That would be appropriate, imho.

Very good. You have found a small point to begin the personal attacks. Tell Mu to jump on this right
away. Glad you're following the script so close. Matt

Totality of Lunar Mu_n Eclipsed said:

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

Note that Stephen's post was NOT cross posted to alt.support.tinnitus.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Thank you for the compliment, Andrew.

Note that Mu;'s post IS cross posted to alt.support.tinnitus. Thus he is NOT just doing a follow-up,
he is DELIBERATELY cross posting. As I said in another post, one of the standard Chung/Mu attack
techniques is to cross post irrelevant dirt to other newsgroups, completely disregarding requests
that Chung/Mu not do it. This is just one of MANY examples.

Quoted message said:

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

I don't think the Chung-clown has had any effect on him at all, despite Chungs obsession with
lipstick on men. <gg>

Quoted message said:

Get over it.

This is an unusually feeble attack response. Your super-macho image may suffer. <g> But you are
following the script. Matt

Dr. Andrew B. Chung said:

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.

Thank you for the LARGE change in the usual script. Others besides the two docs appreciate this new
attitude. I hope it continues, and all of us can avoid the disruptions.

I'd prefer that both sides stop. Are you willing to stop your side, including Mu, etc, of course,
and limit posts to cardiology only?

The olive branch is in your court. <g> Matt

Dr. Andrew B. Chung said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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

<hissing snipped>

Update: this is the usual response from Chung when he can't actually answer any of the points raised
by the previous post. It translates into "I got nailed again and can't think of a reply."

Prediction: Mu will be the big macho coming to his rescue with some made-up fantasy repeated the
187th time.(Or is 197? <gg>😉 Then Chung can sweetly agree. Just watch. <g>

Quoted message said:

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

I'm doing it for your "convenience" just as you do. <gggg> Aren't I nice to you? I'm just doing what
you do when you/mu say you are being nice to someone else. <g> Matt

Steve said:

Quoted message said:

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.

It's likely a tax dodge. He gets to deduct it as an advertising expense, although it might be better
to claim it as a charitable deduction. Or both. <gg> Charity? Follow the money. <g> Matt

Patrick Blanchard MD said:

Essentially, current cardiology practice falls short in early diagnosis of atherosclerosis,
although few cardiologists will admit it.

Quoted message said:

Utility of annual carotid intima media thickness (CIMT) evaluations cannot be overemphasized,
especially considering how much is known about the origin and progression of "hardening of the
arteries". Endorsed by the American Heart Association, no other test can precisely and safely
measure the progression and regression of atherosclerosis like CIMT. CIMT evaluations provide a
solid foundation for individualization of atherosclerosis management. Without a precise
measurement of atherosclerosis, you are left with guesswork; what should your treatment goals be?
How aggressive in traditional risk factor management should you be? What level of treatment cost
and complication rate should you endure? How do you know if your treatment program is working to
reverse the atherosclerosis you currently have?

I am with you regarding the importance of measuring atherosclerosis, but is CIMT adequate?

My father reported to me that his doctor said that his carotids were something like 35th percentile
for blockage, meaning that they were less blocked than 65% (of those in his age group, I guess).
After some angina and against my advice he had angiography, which found significant blockages in the
smaller coronary arteries, apparently a surprise given the condition of his carotids. Since then I
found the following abstract.

Can somebody remark about the expense and efficacy of electron beam tomography plaque imaging?

Quoted message said:

Prog Cardiovasc Dis. 2003 Sep-Oct;46(2):149-70. Related Articles, <ncbi.nlm.nih.govncbi.nlm.nih.govOpen ↗
/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Display&dopt=pubmed_pubmed&from_uid=14505289> Links
<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/#>

Click here to read <http://www.us.elsevierhealth.com/cgi-" rel="ugc nofollow noopener">ncbi.nlm.nih.govfref.fcgiOpen ↗
bin/retrieve/pii/S0033062003000847> *Translating tomographic plaque imaging into treatment:
interventional lipidology.*

*Hecht HS.*

Beth Israel Medical Center, New York, NY 10003, USA.

In the context of the beneficial effects of statins, irrespective of the low-density
lipoprotein cholesterol level (LDL-C) in the Heart Protection Study and the relatively poor
event reduction (24%-37%) in the LDL-C reduction trials, electron beam tomography plaque
imaging has provided the necessary data to support a reorientation of traditional treatment
paradigms. The prognostic superiority of calcified plaque quantitation to conventional risk
factor assessment and the poor correlation between pretreatment standard lipid values and
amount of plaque in individual patients, as well as between post treatment lipid changes and
changes in calcified plaque burden, suggest the following: (1) significant calcified plaque
shifts the asymptomatic patient from primary to secondary prevention status;
(2) "abnormal" lipid values in individual patients are best defined by the level at which
atherosclerosis develops; (3) non LDL-C disorders contribute to CAD and should be
identified and treated;
(4) plaque burden, rather than plasma lipid values, should be the target of therapy; and (5)
adequacy of therapy is best evaluated with serial plaque imaging. Other treatment
applications of plaque imaging include triage of patients for stress testing and evaluation
of stress test results.

Publication Types:

* Review
* Review, Tutorial

PMID: 14505289 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Totality of Lunar Mu_n Eclipsed said:

We can think of all kinds of fantasies if you like.

As if Mu_ltiplication ever does anything else.

Pastorio

Dr. Andrew B. Chung said:

Matti Narkia said:

06 Jan 2004 20:08:29 GMT in article

(John9212112) said:

So, lets take a look at what Andrew actually said about clinical significance and importance. He
said, in a post to this group on 10-30-03:

I find it extremely interesting that, John, whose first message appeared in SMC on the 4th
December 2003, and who couldn't and didn't want to find any of my on-topic messages, with amazing
ease and speed finds a very short citation from Chung's message from the 30th October 2003, long
before John became active in SMC.

Lurkers by definition are folks who have been reading even if they have not been actively
posting, Matti.

And liars are people who make claims that they can't back up. LIke "John" and Chung. And liars
are people who make blanket assertions that are later shown to be untruthful. Like when Chung
said absolutely that I hadn't posted any biblical quotations. And he was wrong. And irretrievably
shown to be wrong. After explaining his "truth discernement" brilliance and seeing it crash
around his head.

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.

Oh, look at poor Chung trying so urgently to preserve his tattered ego. Matti has demonstrated a
deeper, clearer, more honest and competent use of the language than Chung could hope to. Truth is
simple and clear, in this case.

Poor Chung tries to denigrate Matti's linguistic skills that far outshine his. Poor opaque Chung.

Pastorio

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.

<LOL> Dodging and weaving... <LOL> Tells the "truth discerning" Chung that he screwed the name of
the guy he's trying to embarrass and that's "dodging and weaving" to Mu_ckraker. <LOL>

Hey, everybody, Mu_cosa wants somebody to do something. It's irrelevant to Chung's having been shown
to have a less than current grasp on things. But Mu_skbag wants Patrick, the doctor, to respond to
Mu_skiefish, the anonymous fraud. Hang on to see the results... <suspenseful music plays>

<nothing happens>

Ok, move along, Nothing to see here and I really mean nothing.

Quoted message said:

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

Get along with you, Mu_ngbeans. Go lift something heavy and hang out in those locker rooms
you so enjoy.

Pastorio

Totality of Lunar Mu_n Eclipsed said:

Patrick Blanchard MD' blanchard@sonoscore_nospam.com said:

MD/PhD said:

In a word: obfuscation.

I think better word is 'checkmate'.

I think

Hang on, Mu_tilation. If you're actually thinking as you claim (you've lied enough that it's a
suspect assertion!) it'll be a first. Somebody write it down. Date and time.

Pastorio

Totality of Lunar Mu_n Eclipsed said:

Stephen Nagler 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 ↗

It would seem that Mu_enster is actually insane. Stephen was properly replying to Chung nad
Mu_sician said that absurdity above in reply to Stephen. It's incoherent nad simply nonsensical.
It's stupid. Not even a decent troll.

Poor guy. So desperate to get the folks following that he'll popst *anything* no matter how patently
absurd it is. Poor guy.

Christian.

Pastorio

MD/PhD said:

Quoted message said:

My handle is Fodder on ICC.

Quoted message said:

That would be appropriate, imho.

Andrew

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

Fodder: A consumable, often inferior item. Yes, Andrew, I'm glad you agree. Matthew 5:5

--
Patrick Blanchard, M.D. Board Certified in Family Medicine

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

Quoted message said:

The olive branch is in your court. Matt

I extended my hand to you in an effort to help the group get back to its charter, and to try to
broker a peace. Although you have replied to many other posts since my offer, you have ignored my
direct reply to you.

I presume by your silence that you are not interested in trying to stop the distractions in the
group. Is that correct? Matt

Bill said:

I thought this article was interesting, though somewhat too negative on surgical intervention:

medscape.com465705 printOpen ↗

or

medscape.com465705Open ↗

Here are some of the conclusions:

Please note that there is more than one Matt following this thread.

I wonder whether some of the confusion and bad feelings in this thread are due to discussing an
article that most don't have access to.

Even if somebody has on his shelf every standard cardiology journal, he can't read the article
without logging in to that medscape site.

At least you could have posted a standard reference to the article. You know, stuff like title,
author, name of the publication, date, and page number.

"Matt" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Bill said:

I thought this article was interesting, though somewhat too negative on surgical intervention:

medscape.com465705 printOpen ↗

or

medscape.com465705Open ↗

Here are some of the conclusions:

Please note that there is more than one Matt following this thread.

I wonder whether some of the confusion and bad feelings in this thread are due to discussing an
article that most don't have access to.

Even if somebody has on his shelf every standard cardiology journal, he can't read the article
without logging in to that medscape site.

At least you could have posted a standard reference to the article. You know, stuff like title,
author, name of the publication, date, and page number.

I thought everyone could sign up for the site. Anyway, here is the information you asked for.

Bill

From Heart Disease

A journal of cardiovascular medicine

Perspectives in the Management of Chronic Coronary Artery Disease Posted 12/16/2003

Arthur E. Fass, MD

Matt said:

Patrick Blanchard MD said:

Essentially, current cardiology practice falls short in early diagnosis of atherosclerosis,
although few cardiologists will admit it.

Quoted message said:

Utility of annual carotid intima media thickness (CIMT) evaluations cannot be overemphasized,
especially considering how much is known about the origin and progression of "hardening of the
arteries". Endorsed by the American Heart Association, no other test can precisely and safely
measure the progression and regression of atherosclerosis like CIMT. CIMT evaluations provide a
solid foundation for individualization of atherosclerosis management. Without a precise
measurement of atherosclerosis, you are left with guesswork; what should your treatment goals
be? How aggressive in traditional risk factor management should you be? What level of treatment
cost and complication rate should you endure? How do you know if your treatment program is
working to reverse the atherosclerosis you currently have?

I am with you regarding the importance of measuring atherosclerosis, but is CIMT adequate?

CIMT is information from the wrong anatomical location. The carotids are not in the heart.

Quoted message said:

My father reported to me that his doctor said that his carotids were something like 35th
percentile for blockage, meaning that they were less blocked than 65% (of those in his age group,
I guess). After some angina and against my advice he had angiography, which found significant
blockages in the smaller coronary arteries, apparently a surprise given the condition of his
carotids.

Should not have been. What happens in vascular bed can be quite different from what happens
in another.

Quoted message said:

Since then I found the following abstract.

Can somebody remark about the expense and efficacy of electron beam tomography plaque imaging?

EBCT does not detect the lipid-laden (more vulnerable) plaques. Therefore it is not sensitive enough
to detect the plaques that cause most heart attacks. There are those who believe that the calcified
plaques are actually "safe." Dr. Colin Rose has been here expressing that view. Through Google you
should be able to find that discussion and also find out that I disagreed with him.

You remain in my prayers, neighbor Matt :-)

Humbly,

Andrew

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

Dr. Andrew B. Chung said:

You remain in my prayers, neighbor Matt :-)

Humbly,

Andrew

Okay, well, thanks, I guess, but you may have mistaken me for another Matt.

Totality of Lunar Mu_n Eclipsed said:

We can think of all kinds of fantasies if you like.

We know that only too well. You post a few every day. <gg> Matt

Patrick Blanchard MD said:

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.

If that were true, I would be the first to admit it.

Humbly,

Andrew

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