Which BP reading?

Al. Lohse said:

Dr. Andrew B. Chung said:

Al. Lohse said:

"Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" wrote:
>
> "Al. Lohse" wrote:
>
> > "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" wrote:
> > <snip>
> > > Opinions get stale after a few years.
> > >
>
> Time.
>

Chung's Law: Every idea, finding, opinion,
conclusion drawn more than 20 years ago is
null and void?

Lohse's Law: If it supports your belief, use it no matter how old or
outdated.

Naughty! I reserve a belief system for
matters of the soul, almost exclusively.

I can deal with fact or lack of fact.

If the 300+ year old Newton's laws had been
revoked, as Chung's Law suggests it should,
then my left shoulder would not be separated.
Bike stopped, rider kept going, damn Isaac
Newton and all his old (expired?) laws.

Chung's Law fails the test of time. It
contradicts itself. Ergo, Chung's Law is null
and void.

Fine with me as I did not come up with "Chung's Law" as you state.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > I
> > would guess, more than anything else,
> > physicians have been coaxed, prodded and
> > cajoled by "The People Who Take Physicians
> > Out To Dinner." Yes, the TPWTPOTD! Yes, even
> > our best and brightest can be lead 'down the
> > garden path.'
> >
>
> You should really try to curb the guessing.

What would you guess, then?

I try not to be a hypocrite.

Great. A scientist will be first to admit his
own inconsistencies.
So, what do you **believe** led our best and
brightest 'down the garden path?'

Would still be guessing at something that hasn't happened.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Present us with one individual
whose life has been improved by drugging
these chronic conditions. Just one. You have
been asked before, and you are not the only
one.

> > On the
> > other hand, they will always be able to
> > determine the side effects and adverse
> > reactions to treatment... harm they have
> > caused.
>
> These would be rare.

Why did 30% drop out of the ALLHAT-LLT trial?
Rare side effects?

Or they moved...or they felt it was a waste of time...or their doctor
initiated other treatments that disqualified the patient...

Sure, "a waste of time." Cholesterol is hated
like the plague even though it is both very
useful and not well understood!

Lohse's corollary to Lohse's law:

If you don't understand it, then it must be very useful.

Quoted message said:

Madison
Avenue saw to that.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > > > > > Weightlifters can achieve pressures of 400
> > > > > > mmHg without apparent damage.
> > > > >
> > > > > It's called Russian Roulette.
> > > >
> > > > One in six succumb to the pressure????????
> > >
> > > Weight lifters are not known for long life.
> >
> > An opinion formed in a vacuum?
>
> Are observations?

You will have seen weight lifters perish at
younger ages on a continuing basis?

They do.

That remains unsubstantiated. Would not want
you, Dr. Chung, to be spreading rumour.

Not rumor. It has been an observation.

Quoted message said:

It would make sense that they perish at a
younger age. Steroids would be an
accelerating factor. If such younger age
deaths have not been recorded, however, it is
only a matter of speculation, certainly not
fact.

Still observation.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > Documents? I would guess someone will have
> > pressurized the bloodstream of animals and
> > recent cadavers to determine the failure
> > pressures. Would have to suspect that since
> > it is not in the open literature, such
> > pressures are likely very much higher than
> > the 400 mmHg, very much higher.
>
> See below.

Here's a quote from "below:"

"Arterial hypertension occurring during heavy
resistance exercise may be a risk factor for
stroke in healthy young adults."

{{{{{ corrected below, A.L.}}}}}}

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Why the words "may be?" If it were at all proven,
the word "is" would be there.

If it were baseless, they wouldn't have written it at all.

That is an inference. Inferences are useful,
but not necessarily here.

Where is the basis?

Observation.

Quoted message said:

How can you speculate a basis exists if none
is even given?

Observation is not speculation.

Quoted message said:

Maybe some people do not require a basis,
they can infer facts.

Some people are better at observing than others.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

So, if the speculation (may) is correct,
they have a cure for it. How many
speculations are people going to be treated
for?

However many are a concern to the doctor.

So, doctors may treat on speculation alone.
A welcome revelation.

Would you prefer doctors that have no concerns when it comes to their patients?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Why no alarm at the reported pressure
of 370/360?"

I find it alarming. I would have told the guy to breath and stop holding
his breath.

Quoted message said:

That dude should have expired,
no?

Could have.

Like John Ritter?

Was Mr. Ritter doing a valsalva manuver when he expired?

Quoted message said:

Though, he did not present
himself as a weight lifter.

Then why bring him up?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Being a scientist is a state of mind, not
what is written on a sheepskin hanging on
your wall.

Still am.

Great, let us get it together, then.

Have been.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Could it be said that med school turns our
best and brightest into most superb
technicians?

You can write anything you want (short of libel). I certainly subscribe
to free speech.

I am simply offering a hypothesis. Presented
as a polite question, please, anyone, prove
it to be wrong.

Hypotheses should become theories before folks try to prove the theories wrong.

Quoted message said:

You may have taken that the wrong way. I am
not spiteful, merely interested in how we got
to this juncture. The hypothesis tends to
explain much of it. Agreed?

What hypothesis are you referring to?

Quoted message said:

There is absolutely nothing wrong with
technicians. They are very important. If
physicians are seen more as technicians than
scientists, then the whole thing makes a lot
more sense, at least, to me. Perhaps
something else explains the phenomenon, but
it was almost 30 years ago when I first
suggested to a friend having been denied
admission to med school that physicians are
technicians.

Sounds like sour grapes to me.

Quoted message said:

The "if-this-then-that" is
seriously useful in cutting through a
mountain of information and it usually works.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

(Technicians being people who act on
information and principles without requiring
a solid, detailed foundation for them.)

Being that you are a self-reported engineer (technician), it surprises me
that you would insult your profession in such a manner.

Let me repeat. Technicians are extremely
useful people, there is no insult implied or
intended. Dentists are superb technicians
combining, at the very least, medicine,
science, art, dexterity, and skill. We,
engineers, do use rote; if it works, why
shouldn't we? We abhor contradiction, though.

Quoted message said:

Your failure to comment on the reasons for your having been subjected to
stress test is very telling. Are you hiding things that would sink your
arguments?

You have caught on, there is information in
non-information, in missing information. Step
in the right direction!

You made that request in a different thread,
kind sir. Am hiding nothing. I had 3 stress
tests.

~25 May, 2000: minimal test to verify heart
is good enough for release from hospital.

Why were you in the hospital?

Quoted message said:

~25 Aug, 2000: cardiac refit programme base
line test.

What does cardiac refit programme mean?

Was this rehabilitation?

Did you have a heart attack?

Quoted message said:

~15 Jan, 2001: Measure effectiveness of refit
programme. This is when I pumped 240 mmHg.
Lugging my 160 pounds up an incline
(artificial Mount Everest) at 4 to 5 miles
per hour. (No evidence of heart attack
remained on EKG/ECG record.)

Hypertension would continue to place you at higher risk for additional heart
attacks.

Quoted message said:

That is what we call a proof test for a
pressure vessel. Nothing burst!

By chance.

Quoted message said:

I welcomed
that result.

As do your doctors. In Canada, would your heirs have been able to sue your
doctors had something burst when your blood pressure rose to 240 mmHg?

Quoted message said:

Thanks for your interest,

A.L.

P.S.

There was a mild request for information
that you chose to ignore, again.

I had written:

Quoted message said:

Present us with one individual
whose life has been improved by drugging
these chronic conditions.

Visit me in Atlanta and I will introduce you to several.

Quoted message said:

Just one. You have

Quoted message said:

been asked before, and you are not the only
one.

There is, indeed, information in missing
information, my good man.

Anything on animal or cadaver pressure tests?

If you were a physician, you would have had the experience of caring for
patients who have died as a consequence of high blood pressure. Such
experiences will always carry greater weight than anything observed in dead
animals.

--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com/

Al. Lohse said:

If the 300+ year old Newton's laws had been
revoked, as Chung's Law suggests it should,Chung's Law fails the test of time. It
contradicts itself. Ergo, Chung's Law is null
and void.

Ergo, there is no Chung's Law except in your own mind.

Please Google the thread where Chung proclaimed his Law.

Lift well, Eat less, Walk fast, Live long.

Bob Cardone said:

Al. Lohse said:

A.L. (BTW: What is a Poser?)

Someone who pretends they are something they are not.

Bob

Thank you again. Learned something. Poser =
impostor.

What makes you think I am one of those?

Now, please, the items you have had
difficulty with. "Strange ideas?" What else?

Now that the niceties have been dealt with,
let's go.

A.L.

Dr. Andrew B. Chung said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>snipped >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.

Then answer the question.

Quoted message said:

The question, posed by Bob Cardone, is: "Are
you a Doctor or are you just trying to
pretend you are one?"

Certainly the choices are not exhaustive. I
considered this to be a rhetorical question.
But, as some of you may have forgotten, I
have made it quite clear in the past, that
no, I do not have what it takes to be a
doctor. Never wanted to be one. Never thought
it would be necessary to question their
methods and then their motives, though.

Satisfied?

This is a relatively new forum. I suppose
people from other disciplines will also have
different points of view. Looking at any
subject from all sides is certainly to be
preferred. Perhaps the medical profession
will benefit from being asked new, poignant
questions, observing a new train of thought.
Perhaps it has become too set in its ways.

Furthermore, my questions have not been
especially difficult ones. The problem arises
from obtaining nebulous answers to straight
forward questions.

Then questions of motive arise:
Why so vague?
Why the inferences?
Why the misdirections?
Why the evasiveness?
Why the allusions?
Why? Why? Why?

Why not resolve to get pertinent answers to
pertinent questions?

An answer like, "I have not the time nor
inclination to find an answer or verify an
answer for you." is good enough. Why the
other stuff?

If one does not get a satisfactory answer to
one's question one certainly has a right
(obligation?) to rephrase it and try again.

If I make anyone uncomfortable, that
certainly is not my fault. Might give up a
this point, but then had a look at "Actos and
Heart Failure." Here we may have another
person with a similar problem. Might his
physicians have "led him down the garden
path?" Time will tell. He tells a credible
story, very well! I may still be on the right
track.

A.L.

Dr. Andrew B. Chung said:

This is Usenet. Those who are intimidated by discussion
have long since departed.

That's a scary thought.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Al. Lohse said:

Bob Cardone said:

Al. Lohse said:

A.L. (BTW: What is a Poser?)

Someone who pretends they are something they are not.

Bob

Thank you again. Learned something. Poser =
impostor.

What makes you think I am one of those?

Now, please, the items you have had
difficulty with. "Strange ideas?" What else?

Now that the niceties have been dealt with,
let's go.

A.L.

Actually I think it is pointless to get into a debate-flame war with
you , and frankly I don't have the interest or the time. There are
other more knowledgable people on this newsgroup than I , that appear
to be doing an excellent job of pointing out the errors in your
reasoning, so I will leave it at that.

Bob

Hi Bob, I don't understand that comment about technicians. Whether it be
cardiology or medical laboratory a good technician needs to have a strong
background and understand of the area of their endeavor. The technician needs
to know their specific area inside and out, just as the MD only the scope of
their specific job is much narrower. Technicians are not robots who just
follow proceedures.
Just condsider, respiratory technicians, cardiology technicians, hematology
technicians..........
Did I miss understand you?

(Complex592) said:

Hi Bob, I don't understand that comment about technicians. Whether it be
cardiology or medical laboratory a good technician needs to have a strong
background and understand of the area of their endeavor. The technician needs
to know their specific area inside and out, just as the MD only the scope of
their specific job is much narrower. Technicians are not robots who just
follow proceedures.
Just condsider, respiratory technicians, cardiology technicians, hematology
technicians..........
Did I miss understand you?

Guess, so. I never made a comment about technicians. Where did you
come up with that?

Bob

actually I was responding to the discussion between you and AL. on this thread.

(Complex592) said:

actually I was responding to the discussion between you and AL. on this thread.

I guess I will ask again where you came up with my alleged comment on
"technicians".

Bob

Bob Cardone said:

Al. Lohse said:

Bob Cardone said:

"Al. Lohse" <[email hidden]> wrote:

>A.L. (BTW: What is a Poser?)

Someone who pretends they are something they are not.

Bob

Thank you again. Learned something. Poser =
impostor.

What makes you think I am one of those?

Now, please, the items you have had
difficulty with. "Strange ideas?" What else?

Now that the niceties have been dealt with,
let's go.

A.L.

Actually I think it is pointless to get into a debate-flame war with
you , and frankly I don't have the interest or the time. There are
other more knowledgable people on this newsgroup than I , that appear
to be doing an excellent job of pointing out the errors in your
reasoning, so I will leave it at that.

Bob

You will notice you are not being flamed. I
certainly have no interest in calling you
down. I do, however, know all the words.

Since you cannot come up with any specifics,
your allegations carry no weight.

Please, specify or apologize. Simple?

It is impolite to suggest someone has
"strange ideas" without being able to point
out even one of them.

Your acknowledgment of having lost some
judgemental abilities by being on drugs would
be a more than adequate apology.

Now, you, have a nice day, Bob. Have a nice
day.

A.L.

P.S. And curses on the cruel person, born out
of wedlock, who forces you to read my
offerings.

Al. Lohse said:

Dr. Andrew B. Chung said:

Quoted message said:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>snipped >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.

Then answer the question.

Quoted message said:

The question, posed by Bob Cardone, is: "Are
you a Doctor or are you just trying to
pretend you are one?"

Certainly the choices are not exhaustive. I
considered this to be a rhetorical question.
But, as some of you may have forgotten, I
have made it quite clear in the past, that
no, I do not have what it takes to be a
doctor. Never wanted to be one. Never thought
it would be necessary to question their
methods and then their motives, though.

Satisfied?

This is a relatively new forum.

Hardly.

Quoted message said:

I suppose
people from other disciplines will also have
different points of view. Looking at any
subject from all sides is certainly to be
preferred. Perhaps the medical profession
will benefit from being asked new, poignant
questions, observing a new train of thought.
Perhaps it has become too set in its ways.

Furthermore, my questions have not been
especially difficult ones. The problem arises
from obtaining nebulous answers to straight
forward questions.

Yes/no answers +/- references are hardly nebulous.

Quoted message said:

Then questions of motive arise:
Why so vague? Why the inferences? Why the misdirections? Why the
evasiveness? Why the allusions? Why? Why? Why?

Quoted message said:

Your imagination.

Quoted message said:

Why not resolve to get pertinent answers to
pertinent questions?

Why not listen to your doctor? Do you want to have another heart
attack or stroke?

Quoted message said:

An answer like, "I have not the time nor
inclination to find an answer or verify an
answer for you." is good enough.

Is it?

Quoted message said:

Why the
other stuff?

Didn't you want real answers?

Quoted message said:

If one does not get a satisfactory answer

Truth is not satisfactory to all.

Quoted message said:

to
one's question one certainly has a right
(obligation?) to rephrase it and try again.

By all means.

Quoted message said:

If I make anyone uncomfortable, that
certainly is not my fault.

It actually might be. Depends on what you are doing to make folks
uncomfortable. You do perseverate. That can make some people
uncomfortable. And, it would be your fault.

Quoted message said:

Might give up a
this point, but then had a look at "Actos and
Heart Failure." Here we may have another
person with a similar problem.

One that is easily remedied by adjustments in diabetic medications.

What side effect have you suffered from?

Quoted message said:

Might his
physicians have "led him down the garden
path?"

Is it your claim that your doctors have intentionally caused you harm?

Quoted message said:

Time will tell. He tells a credible
story, very well! I may still be on the right
track.

A.L.

Why don't you sue your doctor(s) for the harm you believe they caused
you?

--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com/

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

A.L.

Actually I think it is pointless to get into a debate-flame war with
you , and frankly I don't have the interest or the time. There are
other more knowledgable people on this newsgroup than I , that appear
to be doing an excellent job of pointing out the errors in your
reasoning, so I will leave it at that.

Bob

You will notice you are not being flamed. I
certainly have no interest in calling you
down. I do, however, know all the words.

Since you cannot come up with any specifics,
your allegations carry no weight.

Please, specify or apologize. Simple?

Which part of my statement , " I don't want to get in a debate-flame
war with you" are you having trouble understanding?

Quoted message said:

It is impolite to suggest someone has
"strange ideas" without being able to point
out even one of them.

It is my opinion and if you don't agree with it. or it bothers you,
hit the delete key when you see my name on a post.

Isn't that easy? 🙂

Bob

Bob Cardone said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>A.L.

Actually I think it is pointless to get into a debate-flame war with
you , and frankly I don't have the interest or the time. There are
other more knowledgable people on this newsgroup than I , that appear
to be doing an excellent job of pointing out the errors in your
reasoning, so I will leave it at that.

Bob

You will notice you are not being flamed. I
certainly have no interest in calling you
down. I do, however, know all the words.

Since you cannot come up with any specifics,
your allegations carry no weight.

Please, specify or apologize. Simple?

Which part of my statement , " I don't want to get in a debate-flame
war with you" are you having trouble understanding?

Quoted message said:

It is impolite to suggest someone has
"strange ideas" without being able to point
out even one of them.

It is my opinion and if you don't agree with it. or it bothers you,
hit the delete key when you see my name on a post.

Isn't that easy? 🙂

Bob

Since you cannot find it in yourself to
substantiate your negative impressions, or to
substantiate the negative label you put on
me, or to apologize, you present yourself as
a person of exceedingly low integrity.

A.L.