L-arginine and stroke

Sonos said:

This is a nice study that indicates tertiary prevention (treatment) of artherosclerosis is
sometimes geared towards immediate lowering of risk, not using IMT as a measure to do so.

<irrelevant abstract and editorial snipped>

Sorry, Patrick.

There was no reference to either the elusive tertiary prevention or CIMT in this "nice" study.

Anonymity is unbecoming of a family physician, imho.

Some might even say that "wearing a bedsheet with two holes for eyes" is unprofessional behavior.

Would strongly recommend that you stop before someone is moved to officially complain to the medical
board of the state where you are licensed.

You remain in my prayers, neighbor.

May you accept Christ as your Lord and Savior in 2004.

Humbly,

Andrew

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

I thought perhaps someone might also like a reference on glycine, since this thread is dealing with
neuroprotection in the acute setting of stroke. Some studies have shown some nice results with
"neuroprotection", or prevention of additional injury when glycine is administered in the acute
stroke setting.

The results suggest that glycine can protect against the spreading damage to the brain that usually
follows a stroke. The results suggest that glycine can prevent neural damage. This appears to be an
impressive result, but further research is necessary. glycine is available without a prescription.

Cerebrovasc Dis. 2000 Jan-Feb;10(1):49-60.

Neuroprotective effects of glycine for therapy of acute ischaemic stroke.

Gusev EI, Skvortsova VI, Dambinova SA, Raevskiy KS, Alekseev AA, Bashkatova VG, Kovalenko AV, Kudrin
VS, Yakovleva EV.

Department of Neurology and Neurosurgery, Russian State Medical University, Moscow, Russia.

The aim of this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was to assess the safety and the
efficacy of the pharmaceutic drug glycine in 200 patients with acute (<6 h) ischaemic stroke in the
carotid artery territory. Fifty patients received placebo, 49 glycine 0.5 g/day, 51 glycine 1.0
g/day and 50 glycine 2.0 g/day for 5 days in each group. The efficacy of glycine was assessed by
clinical analysis, by an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay of levels of blood serum autoantibodies
to NMDA-binding proteines, by detection of excitatory (glutamate, aspartate) and inhibitory
(glycine, GABA) amino acid concentrations and lipid peroxidation products (TBARS) in CSF. The trial
confirmed the safety profile of the glycine treatment. Slight sedation was observed in 9 patients
(4. 5%) as a side-effect. Other marked side-effects or adverse events were absent. The glycine
treatment at the dose of 1.0-2.0 g/day was accompanied by a tendency to a decreased 30-day
mortality (5.9% in 1. 0 g/day glycine and 10% in 2.0 g/day glycine groups vs. 14% in the placebo
and 14.3% in 0.5 g/day glycine groups), to an improved clinical outcome on the Orgogozo Stroke
Scale (p < 0.01) and the Scandinavian Stroke Scale (p < 0.01) and to a favourable functional
outcome on the Barthel index (p < 0.01 in 1.0 g/day glycine vs. placebo group in patients with no
or mild disability). An early normalization of autoantibody titres to NMDA-binding proteins in
serum was found (p < 0.01 vs. placebo), a reduction of glutamate and aspartate levels (p < 0.05 vs.
placebo), an increase in GABA concentrations (p < 0.01 vs. placebo in severe stroke patients) and
also a reduction of TBARS levels (p < 0.05 vs. placebo) in CSF by day 3. Thus, the trial suggests
that sublingual application of 1.0-2. 0
g/day glycine started within 6 h after the onset of acute ischaemic stroke in the carotid artery
territory is safe and can exert favourable clinical effects. These results will be verified in
further trials with a larger number of patients. Copyright 2000 S. Karger AG, Basel

No serious adverse effects from using glycine have been reported, even at doses as high as 60
g per day.

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

Sonos said:

This is a nice study...

You want us to accept this science, not accept that science and on what criteria do you personally
have to make these decisions? What criteria do you use to accept one science and reject another?
What are your credentials to even suggest that we should pay any attention to you?

Not speaking directly to you, unless the shoe fits, but I read these Usenet groups frequently and I
constantly, daily see people selecting science which, as unbelievable as it might seem <gasp>,
support their WOE or thinking. These same people, somehow, have accredited themselves with the
ability to discern research. When questioned, the vast majority don't read any research citations
(abstracts only) and, when quizzed, have no significant interaction with the research community much
less an educational background that would, at least, partially qualify them to read a citation.

Amazing, huh?

They are full of opinions and full of it too.

So if you are going to be a purveyor of science, fine. Get yourself, as I have, to the scientists,
the researchers, the people who actually live and breathe it and ask THEM what's the scoop. Or spell
out your qualifications to SMC instead of spamming us with a bunch of self-serving "science" that
you have not defined to be worth considering to be credible.

Until then, it's nothing more than babbling and pontificating and it's worth about that much.

antwrp.gsfc.nasa.govap031109.htmlOpen ↗ Lift well, Eat less, Walk fast, Live long.

strokeassociation.orgpresenter.jhtmlOpen ↗

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

On Thu, 8 Jan 2004 14:30:56 -0500, Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote
(in message <[email hidden]>😉:

Quoted message said:

Would strongly recommend that you stop before someone is moved to officially complain to the
medical board of the state where you are licensed.

All right, Junior Rocket Scientists... any guesses as to who that "someone" might be?

Put on your "thinking caps" ... this is a tough one.

--
Steve

Weeding the Lord's Vineyards Since 2003

Dr. Andrew B. Chung said:

Some might even say that "wearing a bedsheet with two holes for eyes" is unprofessional behavior.

Why not? I always see you in your old KKK outfit at the meetings. I could always loan him some of
mine. I've got lots of them.

Quoted message said:

Would strongly recommend that you stop before someone is moved to officially complain to the
medical board of the state where you are licensed.

Might not push that too hard. Would give some people ideas.

Mu2

Sonos said:

I thought perhaps someone might also like a reference on glycine, s

You want us to accept this science, not accept that science and on what criteria do you personally
have to make these decisions? What criteria do you use to accept one science and reject another?
What are your credentials to even suggest that we should pay any attention to you?

Not speaking directly to you, unless the shoe fits, but I read these Usenet groups frequently and I
constantly, daily see people selecting science which, as unbelievable as it might seem <gasp>,
support their WOE or thinking. These same people, somehow, have accredited themselves with the
ability to discern research. When questioned, the vast majority don't read any research citations
(abstracts only) and, when quizzed, have no significant interaction with the research community much
less an educational background that would, at least, partially qualify them to read a citation.

Amazing, huh?

They are full of opinions and full of it too.

So if you are going to be a purveyor of science, fine. Get yourself, as I have, to the scientists,
the researchers, the people who actually live and breathe it and ask THEM what's the scoop. Or spell
out your qualifications to SMC instead of spamming us with a bunch of self-serving "science" that
you have not defined to be worth considering to be credible.

Until then, it's nothing more than babbling and pontificating and it's worth about that much.

antwrp.gsfc.nasa.govap031109.htmlOpen ↗ Lift well, Eat less, Walk fast, Live long.

A Mugnificent Desolation said:

Sonos said:

This is a nice study...

You want us to accept this science, not accept that science and on what criteria do you personally
have to make these decisions?

He is just presenting it, assuming the reader has intelligence. I know that eliminates you, but just
try to understand.

Quoted message said:

What criteria do you use to accept one science and reject another?

You first. What criteria do you use? Who does it have to be blessed by to be acceptable?

What are

Quoted message said:

your credentials to even suggest that we should pay any attention to you?

You don't have enough credentials to even ask. You have NONE at all, in anything. A total loser.
Show me ONE single credential you have. You can't because you have none. Not even as a trainer.
That's a hoax.

Quoted message said:

Not speaking directly to you,

Then who are you speaking to? Yourself, maybe?

Quoted message said:

I read these Usenet groups frequently and I constantly, daily see people selecting science which,
as unbelievable as it might seem <gasp>, support their WOE or thinking.

I realize it is difficult for you to accept science, and find it unbelievable.

Quoted message said:

These same people, somehow, have accredited themselves with the ability to discern research.

Ah, yes, this must be the truth discernment that Chung boasts about so much.

Quoted message said:

They are full of opinions and full of it too.

And you are not? ROTFL....

Quoted message said:

Get yourself, as I have, to the scientists, the researchers, the people who actually live and
breathe it and ask THEM what's the scoop.

[censored], as usual. Prove it. Can't, can you?

Quoted message said:

Or spell out your qualifications to SMC

You first. Have none, I see.

Quoted message said:

Until then, it's nothing more than babbling and pontificating and it's worth about that much.

You have set a good example of babbling for us.

Mu2

On Thu, 8 Jan 2004 16:58:22 -0500, A Mugnificent Desolation wrote
(in message <[email hidden]>😉:

Quoted message said:

Sonos said:

This is a nice study...

<snip>

Uh oh. Mu the macro-boy strikes again. We can now expect to see this drivel attached to every post
by Patrick.

--
Steve

Weeding the Lord's Vineyards Since 2003

Thu, 8 Jan 2004 14:42:50 -0500 in article
<[email hidden]> Steve

Quoted message said:

On Thu, 8 Jan 2004 14:30:56 -0500, Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote (in message
<[email hidden]>😉:

Quoted message said:

Would strongly recommend that you stop before someone is moved to officially complain to the
medical board of the state where you are licensed.

All right, Junior Rocket Scientists... any guesses as to who that "someone" might be?

Put on your "thinking caps" ... this is a tough one.

Yep :-). But IMHO Chung has no case here. First, he doesn't know for sure who Sonos is, but he is
still threatening Patrick. Secondly, regardless of who Sonos is, there are plenty of anonymous
doctors on the usenet. If anyone should be complained about it's Chung, for a libeling a colleague,
for trolling and preaching in a science newsgroup, for unprofessional and unscientific behavior and
for a psychological disorder affecting his professional competence.

--
Matti Narkia

A Mugnificent Desolation said:

Sonos said:

I thought perhaps someone might also like a reference on glycine, s

You want us to accept this science, not accept that science and on what criteria do you personally
have to make these decisions?

He is just presenting it, assuming the reader has intelligence. I know that eliminates you, but just
try to understand.

Quoted message said:

What criteria do you use to accept one science and reject another?

You first. What criteria do you use? Who does it have to be blessed by to be acceptable?

What are

Quoted message said:

your credentials to even suggest that we should pay any attention to you?

You don't have enough credentials to even ask. You have NONE at all, in anything. A total loser.
Show me ONE single credential you have. You can't because you have none. Not even as a trainer.
That's a hoax.

Quoted message said:

Not speaking directly to you,

Then who are you speaking to? Yourself, maybe?

Quoted message said:

I read these Usenet groups frequently and I constantly, daily see people selecting science which,
as unbelievable as it might seem <gasp>, support their WOE or thinking.

I realize it is difficult for you to accept science, and find it unbelievable.

Quoted message said:

These same people, somehow, have accredited themselves with the ability to discern research.

Ah, yes, this must be the truth discernment that Chung boasts about so much.

Quoted message said:

They are full of opinions and full of it too.

And you are not? ROTFL....

Quoted message said:

Get yourself, as I have, to the scientists, the researchers, the people who actually live and
breathe it and ask THEM what's the scoop.

[censored], as usual. Prove it. Can't, can you?

Quoted message said:

Or spell out your qualifications to SMC

You first. Have none, I see.

Quoted message said:

Until then, it's nothing more than babbling and pontificating and it's worth about that much.

You have set a good example of babbling for us.

Mu2

Thu, 08 Jan 2004 23:58:36 +0200 in article
<[email hidden]> Matti Narkia <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Thu, 8 Jan 2004 14:42:50 -0500 in article <[email hidden]>

Steve said:

On Thu, 8 Jan 2004 14:30:56 -0500, Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote (in message
<[email hidden]>😉:

Quoted message said:

Would strongly recommend that you stop before someone is moved to officially complain to the
medical board of the state where you are licensed.

All right, Junior Rocket Scientists... any guesses as to who that "someone" might be?

Put on your "thinking caps" ... this is a tough one.

Yep :-). But IMHO Chung has no case here. First, he doesn't know for sure who Sonos is, but he is
still threatening Patrick. Secondly, regardless of who Sonos is, there are plenty of anonymous
doctors on the usenet. If anyone should be complained about it's Chung, for a libeling a colleague,
for trolling and preaching in a science newsgroup, for unprofessional and unscientific behavior and
for a psychological disorder affecting his professional competence.

Generally I don't like anonymous posters. Still, some doctors may have good reasons for staying
anonymous. Doctors can be sued for malpractice and they can be harassed in many other ways including
complaints to medical board, as Stephen has informed us. But I think also, that when doctors post
anonymously, they shouldn't claim any authority based on their profession, because we have no way of
checking whether they really are doctors. Sonos has not claimed to be doctor, so IMHO he is behaving
exactly in the right way, if he indeed is a doctor, which we of course don't know.

--
Matti Narkia

Matti Narkia said:

Thu, 8 Jan 2004 14:42:50 -0500 in article <[email hidden]>

Steve said:

On Thu, 8 Jan 2004 14:30:56 -0500, Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote (in message
<[email hidden]>😉:

Quoted message said:

Would strongly recommend that you stop before someone is moved to officially complain to the
medical board of the state where you are licensed.

All right, Junior Rocket Scientists... any guesses as to who that "someone" might be?

Put on your "thinking caps" ... this is a tough one.

Yep :-). But IMHO Chung has no case here.

Not writing that I would but if I did, it would not be an anonymous complaint.

Quoted message said:

First, he doesn't know for sure who Sonos is, but he is still threatening Patrick.

Truthfully, I do know.

But, no, I am not threatening Patrick.

Quoted message said:

Secondly, regardless of who Sonos is, there are plenty of anonymous doctors on the usenet.

There are but it remains unbecoming.

Quoted message said:

If anyone should be complained about it's Chung, for a libeling a colleague,

Whom have I libeled?

Quoted message said:

for trolling

Where?

Quoted message said:

and preaching in a science newsgroup,

Not that I am preaching, but if I were... ever hear of free speech? (oh, I forget, you may not be
familiar with this American concept)

Quoted message said:

for unprofessional

Many professionals are christian. Christians openly share their faith even if they are not employed
as preachers.

Why do you believe that this is unprofessional?

Quoted message said:

and unscientific behavior

Many scientists are christian. Christians openly share their faith even if they are not employed as
preachers.

Why do you believe that this is unscientific?

Quoted message said:

and for a psychological disorder

What psychological disorder is that, Matti?

And, pray tell, what are your professional qualifications for making such a diagnosis?

Quoted message said:

affecting his professional competence.

Writing professionally as a board-certified specialist in internal medicine with both training and
experience in diagnosing and treating psychological disorders, many of your posts have been and
continue to be suggestive of delusional thinking.

Quoted message said:

--
Matti Narkia

You poor guy.

You remain in my prayers, neighbor.

Humbly,

Andrew

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

On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 23:58:36 +0200, Matti Narkia <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Yep :-). But IMHO

Matt, Matti, Mattilda...any relation?

mattbernsteinsycamore.comgayshamepic.htmlOpen ↗

antwrp.gsfc.nasa.govap031109.htmlOpen ↗ Lift well, Eat less, Walk fast, Live long.

On Thu, 8 Jan 2004 16:58:36 -0500, Matti Narkia wrote
(in message <[email hidden]>😉:

Quoted message said:

Thu, 8 Jan 2004 14:42:50 -0500 in article <[email hidden]>

Steve said:

On Thu, 8 Jan 2004 14:30:56 -0500, Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote (in message
<[email hidden]>😉:

Quoted message said:

Would strongly recommend that you stop before someone is moved to officially complain to the
medical board of the state where you are licensed.

All right, Junior Rocket Scientists... any guesses as to who that "someone" might be?

Put on your "thinking caps" ... this is a tough one.

Yep :-). But IMHO Chung has no case here. First, he doesn't know for sure who Sonos is, but he is
still threatening Patrick. Secondly, regardless of who Sonos is, there are plenty of anonymous
doctors on the Usenet. If anyone should be complained about it's Chung, for a libeling a
colleague, for trolling and preaching in a science newsgroup, for unprofessional and unscientific
behavior and for a psychological disorder affecting his professional competence.

Chung, as, usual defines "anonymous" to mean what he wants it to mean (Humpty-Dumpty Speak).

The fact that Patrick provides a link to his website and that everyone knows that "sonic" is a
pseudonym for Patrick doesn't count.

In the current environment, with malicious people such as Chung and Mu and the spam harvesters who
prey on the unsuspecting majority, one has to be quite naive to attach their email address to a
post. To me, not posting your email address on Usenet is the equivalent of having an unlisted phone
number or putting your correspondence in a sealed envelope rather than on a post card.

Privacy is not a vice. In fact, when you look at the sleazy way Chung and Mu employ private
information in their mean-spirited attacks, is it any wonder people are more and more choosing to
keep their private information private?

Chung, of course, cannot afford either privacy or anonymity, since he is relying on the Usenet to
market Chung, PLC. If he could not claim to be an MD, he would simply fade into the background noise
with his pseudo-Christian rantings and his wacko diet. Chung simply could not exist without
identifying himself.

I don't fault Mu for keeping his personal information private. He is not anonymous... we all know
it's Mu. I fault him for the despicable way he behaves. However, as long as he claims privacy, he
can't then turn around and expect anyone to give credence to his "trainer" claims. He just can't
have it both ways. Of course, he doesn't get that.

--
Steve

Weeding the Lord's Vineyards Since 2003

A Mugnificent Desolation said:

Matti Narkia said:

Yep :-). But IMHO

Matt, Matti, Mattilda...any relation?

You forgot Mu, the [censored] of the family. Nobody likes him.

Mu2

Dr. Andrew B. Chung said:

Quoted message said:

First, he doesn't know for sure who Sonos is, but he is still threatening Patrick.

Truthfully, I do know.

"Anonymity is unbecoming of a family physician, imho."

Who were your referring to?

Quoted message said:

But, no, I am not threatening Patrick.

Yea, right.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Secondly, regardless of who Sonos is, there are plenty of anonymous doctors on the usenet.

There are but it remains unbecoming.

Mu, perhaps? He is certainly unbecoming.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If anyone should be complained about it's Chung, for a libeling a colleague,

Whom have I libeled?

"Anonymity is unbecoming of a family physician, imho."

Who were your referring to?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

for trolling

Where?

Hey, you have this "innocence" routine down rather well.

Mu2

Steve said:

On Thu, 8 Jan 2004 14:30:56 -0500, Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote (in message
<[email hidden]>😉:

Quoted message said:

Would strongly recommend that you stop before someone is moved to officially complain to the
medical board of the state where you are licensed.

All right, Junior Rocket Scientists... any guesses as to who that "someone" might be?

Put on your "thinking caps" ... this is a tough one.

Only Mu is unable to figure it out.

Mu4