 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / Asthma / December 2004who the hell is this dr. hahn?!
dude -- y'all talk about this dr. hahn like he's a saint. who the heck is this guy?! Dude, really? Can you post some links to where he's talked about like he's a saint? dude -- y'all talk about this dr. hahn like he's a saint. who the heck is this guy?! >Dude, really? Can you post some links to where he's >talked about like he's a saint? It's clearly a matter of interpretation. Why not just answer his question? dude -- y'all talk about this dr. hahn like he's a saint. who the heck is this guy?! > It's clearly a matter of interpretation. Why not just answer his question? That probably would be because he is a newbie who has insulted regulars and has failed to lurk and learn. Should sound familiar to you. Joy >> It's clearly a matter of interpretation. Why not just answer his >> question? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Joy Hi Joy, I see that the group has a new troll. > Hi Joy, I see that the group has a new troll. Well, at the least a difference of opinion. I have discussed this at length with others and about everyone agrees that they didn't like the old system where newbies had to lurk and learn. But I have come to the opposite conclusion, particularly after answering the SAME questions OVER and OVER again. And I also don't like how some supposed innocent newbie can set off a flame war. So everyone has their points of view, but I am now thinking lurk and learn had it's advantages. But in the case of the latest question, this newbie foolishly insulted the people who knew the answer and so now they will have to Google the group to get their answer because the answer is not forthcoming. I don't work here. I volunteer.......... as does Maureen and CBI and the others who know the answer. I guess that is why lurk and learn was established. And you know, you can go on forever with the Mary thing, but in the end, she is just a loose cannon who seems to have little to contribute and only posts if she views it as somehow protecting her reputation which was lost some time ago; she just doesn't seem to realize it yet. Joy > > Hi Joy, I see that the group has a new troll. > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Joy Pfft. You LIVE with your panties in a knot, don't you? lol > Pfft. You LIVE with your panties in a knot, don't you? lol WOW That is such an effective insult. LOLOL You lose. > > Pfft. You LIVE with your panties in a knot, don't you? lol > > > WOW That is such an effective insult. LOLOL > > You lose. See? It was a simple observation, not an insult. You're way too tense. Control freaks usually are. How's that narcotics problem, by the way? > How's that narcotics problem, by the way? I hope you understand the accusation you are making. That would mean that I was having a problem on 2 bottles of codeine a year, what I was allowed. FOR SURE. You're out in left field. You are clearly a jerk and the sad part is you are sucking others into your problem. ? It was a simple observation, not an insult. You're way too tense. > Control freaks usually are. > > How's that narcotics problem, by the way? Hey Mary, Since you have so much time on your hands, why don't you help out on this question? You know the answer of course. > >> It's clearly a matter of interpretation. Why not just answer his > >> question? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Hi Joy, I see that the group has a new troll. Hello, a.shole. I see you're one of the morons who calls anyone you disagree with a troll. > Hello, a.shole. I see you're one of the morons who calls > anyone you disagree with a troll. Mary are you in the service by any chance? Idiot, twit, a.shole, moron, troll. Where did you learn this excellent vocabulary? Joy > > Hello, a.shole. I see you're one of the morons who calls > > anyone you disagree with a troll. > > Mary are you in the service by any chance? Idiot, twit, a.shole, moron, > troll. Where did you learn this excellent vocabulary? > Joy I had to find some way to describe people like you that would not challenge your vocabulary, now didn't I? I never write to impress. It's about communication, see? That's c-o-m-m- ... > I had to find some way to describe people like you that would > not challenge your vocabulary, now didn't I? I never write to impress. > It's about communication, see? > > That's c-o-m-m- ... Why I am sure everyone is so blown away by your intellect. But then there is the variety factor. Some of us are getting bored. Spell that for me one more time! Joy Holy sh.t! The great war continues! But to answer your question, Joy: yes, my post in the other thread was quite satisfying to me, since it got you started all over again. After that prolonged silence there, I was afraid you'd lost your nutso card and had to go wait in line to get another. Seriously now, I should apologize. I don't wanna be mean to you, but my god is it easy to get a rise outta you. It's like one of those automatic toilet flushers. You walk by and it's a deluge of abuse. A guy just can't resist... Oh and: damn! I've lost my greatest resource! The spastic asthmatics won't answer my question about their high priest! Guess I'll just have to look it up on Pubmed. And what do I find? Some quack doctor who puts out one paper every two years, all with more or less the same title: "Does Chlamydia cause asthma???" "Chlamydia and asthma!" "Chlamydia, asthma, and my cult of spastics who really think I'll cure them!" Dude. Wake up, people. This guy doesn't even write research papers. He writes comments and letters. They have about 9 references each. No one cites him. He's bullshit. And you're all buying it. But you know what? You're not gonna believe me anyway. And in fact, this is just going to rouse a roaring tide of spastic behavior. So bring it on. And keep taking your 50 meds and spending your whole life surfing around a netgroup. I'm sure that'll help your asthma more than going out and getting fit ever would. And hey, Mary, you're right. I don't know a chick from a cheeseburger, and this is something my girlfriend complains about regularly. "Eat me," she says, and then I go hunting for that darn cheeseburger. So since you sound slightly more sane than your sparring partner here, why don'tcha come and show me what a real woman's like? I'm here in Stanford and I'll gladly give you my address. Nah, I'm just kidding with you. Don't bite me. > > I had to find some way to describe people like you that would > > not challenge your vocabulary, now didn't I? I never write to impress. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Spell that for me one more time! > Joy Dude. Wake up, people. This guy doesn't even write research papers. He writes comments and letters. They have about 9 references each. No one cites him. He's bullshit. And you're all buying it. You've just proven your inability to do proper research. But you know what? You're not gonna believe me anyway. And in fact, this is just going to rouse a roaring tide of spastic behavior. So bring it on. And keep taking your 50 meds and spending your whole life surfing around a netgroup. I'm sure that'll help your asthma more than going out and getting fit ever would. You're absolutely right. Now....then...what to tell all those people who have had their asthma either improved or resolved because of Dr. Hahn? And what do we tell researchers all over the world who have also done their own studies and come up with the same conclusions? And what do we say to National Jewish Medical and Research Center now that they're doing ongoing research based on what he found nearly twenty years ago? Oh, for the record, I've been off all asthma meds for 18 months now and haven't had any problems with my breathing. My son has been off his asthma meds for over a year and hasn't had any problems either. I just hang out here to answer questions people might have about Dr. Hahn or about the link between bacteria and some asthma. Polite people, anyway. "anatak" <anatakk99@gmail.com> wrote in message news:cpf55h$oj2$1@news.Stanford.EDU... Dude. Wake up, people. This guy doesn't even write research papers. He writes comments and letters. They have about 9 references each. No one cites him. He's bullshit. And you're all buying it. You've just proven your inability to do proper research. But you know what? You're not gonna believe me anyway. And in fact, this is just going to rouse a roaring tide of spastic behavior. So bring it on. And keep taking your 50 meds and spending your whole life surfing around a netgroup. I'm sure that'll help your asthma more than going out and getting fit ever would. You're absolutely right. Now....then...what to tell all those people who have had their asthma either improved or resolved because of Dr. Hahn? And what do we tell researchers all over the world who have also done their own studies and come up with the same conclusions? And what do we say to National Jewish Medical and Research Center now that they're doing ongoing research based on what he found nearly twenty years ago? Here is a link to Dr. Chu at National Jewish, who has been investigating this pathogenesis as well... http://www.nationaljewish.org/faculty/chu.html "ARoberts" <a-roberts1@comcast.net> >Here is a link to Dr. Chu at National Jewish, who has >been investigating this pathogenesis as well... >http://www.nationaljewish.org/faculty/chu.html Don't *slap* post *slap* in html! > "ARoberts" <a-roberts1@comcast.net> > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > in html! I didn't, just replied, but thanks for the slaps... > > "ARoberts" <a-roberts1@comcast.net> > > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > I didn't, just replied, but thanks for the slaps... You REPLIED in html. A reply is a post. Anyway, I was just joshing you. "NorthShoreCEO" <NorthShoreCEO@aol.com> wrote : >You've just proven your inability to do proper research. Must you post in html, you idiot? Yes, I must. Must you be such a bitch? Generally, I try to help people with adult onset asthma which can often be cured, but in your case - I'll pass. ;-) "NorthShoreCEO" <NorthShoreCEO@aol.com> wrote : >You've just proven your inability to do proper research. Must you post in html, you idiot? > > Holy sh.t! The great war continues! Heh heh heh. > But to answer your question, Joy: yes, my post in the other thread was quite > satisfying to me, since it got you started all over again. After that [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > flushers. You walk by and it's a deluge of abuse. A guy just can't > resist... I'm afraid this is true. But then she elicits a reponse in you ... and in me ... so who's the troll? :) > Oh and: damn! I've lost my greatest resource! The spastic asthmatics won't > answer my question about their high priest! Guess I'll just have to look it [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > writes comments and letters. They have about 9 references each. No one > cites him. He's bullshit. And you're all buying it. I'm not. I'm new here, recently diagnosed. Still caught up in the necessary process of flushing out the control freaks and aggressively stupid posters from the ones that might know something about the disease. > And hey, Mary, you're right. I don't know a chick from a cheeseburger, and > this is something my girlfriend complains about regularly. "Eat me," she > says, and then I go hunting for that darn cheeseburger. So since you sound > slightly more sane than your sparring partner here, why don'tcha come and > show me what a real woman's like? I'm here in Stanford and I'll gladly give > you my address. Nah, I'm just kidding with you. Don't bite me. Oh you vulgar, vulgar boy. So. What are you wearing? ;) > Oh you vulgar, vulgar boy. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > ;) ....heh. Don't tease, chica. > ....heh. Don't tease, chica. I actually never tease. Ask anyone. Joy > > ....heh. Don't tease, chica. > > I actually never tease. Ask anyone. > > Joy eeeeyuuuuuu. :P Good god, I was talking to Mary, not you. My dear madam, I wouldn't dare flirt (harmlessly!) with you. You might drown me in a deluge of abuse. Speaking of which... holy sh.t, did I EVER set you off this time. Half a dozen rabid replies in an hour! I wonder if I can repeat that feat... ...and I wonder if it's worth it, coming from someone who thinks Nature and Science have fallen out of respect. Whoa. And you have a dad at MIT? Poor fella, raising such a backwaters ignorant for a daughter. Good luck to your sons. Hope they get out of ... whatever southern bush-voting state you're in, though your bible-thumping Hahn-glorifying self would probably rather they stayed tied to your apron strings for the rest of their lives. (automatic flush: engage!) > > > ....heh. Don't tease, chica. > > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > :P > Good god, I was talking to Mary, not you. My dear madam, I wouldn't dare > flirt (harmlessly!) with you. You might drown me in a deluge of abuse. > Speaking of which... holy sh.t, did I EVER set you off this time. Half a > dozen rabid replies in an hour! I wonder if I can repeat that feat... She also sees OCD people everywhere. Heh. PKB, maybe? > Good god, I was talking to Mary, not you. My dear madam, I wouldn't dare > flirt (harmlessly!) with you. You might drown me in a deluge of abuse. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > in, though your bible-thumping Hahn-glorifying self would probably rather > they stayed tied to your apron strings for the rest of their lives. Cute. I love it. Keep flirting with Mary. And you go proving my recently discovered disapproval of Stanwhatever. Yes, I can type (quickly) and yes Dear old dad teaches at MIT. But those were skip-a -generation smarts, I will admit. So my niece, the oldest Grandchild is a Fulbright Scholar. And my boys can get into any school out there. I instead am wasting my time with the likes of you. You have me confused with someone else. I would have never voted for Bush, except I am stuck in this God forsaken state, so my vote didn't count. However, if the draft is reinstated, I will be a resident of Canada, where I already have many friends. I do feel sorry for you because the President isn't as smart as some of those who voted for him and the draft is a possibility. Just remember, you can have dual citizenship to Canada, should it come to that. But that has little to do with Hahn and how I feel he is on the right track for some of us. Not for you, but then, you knew that there was more than one cause of asthma. Why don't you busy Mary with your theory? Joy But you know what? You're not gonna believe me anyway. And in fact, this is just going to rouse a roaring tide of spastic behavior. So bring it on. And keep taking your 50 meds and spending your whole life surfing around a netgroup. I'm sure that'll help your asthma more than going out and getting fit ever would. Sounds like you're fit and asthma free, so what are you doing here? Trolling? Mary, you're right. I don't know a chick from a cheeseburger, and > this is something my girlfriend complains about regularly. "Eat me," she > says, and then I go hunting for that darn cheeseburger. So since you sound > slightly more sane than your sparring partner here, why don'tcha come and > show me what a real woman's like? I'm here in Stanford and I'll gladly give > you my address. Nah, I'm just kidding with you. Don't bite me. God Mary, the great part is now you are being invited to service this fellow. So, you have great thoughts about him. Or Stanford? Joy Wow. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=joke --since you're so good at research and reading up on things, and all. > Mary, you're right. I don't know a chick from a cheeseburger, and > > this is something my girlfriend complains about regularly. "Eat me," she [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Joy Rage= Stanford (can't engage in a normal discussion) Stupid= Stanford (can't figure out the evidence?) 1+2+= no interest or respect for Sanford ANATEK = Stanford LOLOL. What a waste of an education. Joy > Wow. > > http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=joke > > --since you're so good at research and reading up on things, and all. news:cpf55h$oj2$1@news.Stanford.EDU... So Sanford is so proud they would gladly support you in your post. And Dr Martin and Kraft and the Europeans. And in addition, look at the quality of the journals these studies are published in: NEJM, Ann Allergy Asthma, Am J Respir Dis, Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol just to name a few. So MEDLINE before you reply there since you are at Stanford and supposed to be smart. But what this fellow really requires a chance to research the past fitness studies which don't seem to support his point of view. I mean if that made any sense, there would be no Olympic athletes with asthma. Another topic beat to death on this NG. But he knows that. I wonder if Stanford would be interested in the online behavior of its future graduates????? Ah, new day, new posts. No, lady. Those aren't big journals. Not for the magnitude of the breakthrough you think it is. If this was really a cure for asthma, or even *potentially* a cure with solid enough data to support it, someone would have put it in Nature or Science. This could change the lives of millions. But it's just letters and comments -- *opinions* -- in highly specialized journals, which means the vast majority of the public is rightly skeptical. And I don't claim to have read all relevant papers since I don't have the time you all seem to have, but those I did had absolutely no data and no figures in them. No error bars. Nothing. I don't trust it. Mom was right: don't believe everything you read. Especially not on Pubmed and Medline. If you know half of jackshit about research, you'd know reading papers consists of skimming the abstract and the methods, and then poring over the figures and ignoring *their* interpretation of their results. That's the only way to make your own decision, and making your own decision is what you gotta do with data. As for fitness, I don't claim it'll help everyone. But it can't hurt. Keeping my lungs fit sure as hell helped me more than pills ever did. For about a year I let myself turn into a couch potato, and that's the year my issues surfaced. I got back into shape, they subsided. Coincidence? Maybe. I don't think so. And, damn are you big about my being in Stanford. Or Sanford?????, as you like to spell it. What is this now, college envy? And really, lady. It's a university. Think about it. Liberal minds, nimble fingers. Stanford's own newsgroups have about 10x as much debate on them. Only difference is, they're a little more coherent than your rabid attacks. Sometimes. > And Dr Martin and Kraft and the Europeans. And in addition, look at the > quality of the journals these studies are published in: [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > I wonder if Stanford would be interested in the online behavior of its > future graduates????? You're so stupid, you don't know what NEJM is, do you ? And yes, it will change the lives of half the asthmatics and I am voting for you to be in the NOT recipient class. You're so damn brilliant, find your own answer. Joy > Ah, new day, new posts. > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > time you all seem to have, but those I did had absolutely no data and no > figures in them. No error bars. Nothing. I don't trust it. You're not liberal. You have no ability to see beyond your own point of view. > Ah, new day, new posts. > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > time you all seem to have, but those I did had absolutely no data and no > figures in them. No error bars. Nothing. I don't trust it. Nature and Science? Boy are you out of touch.They are out of it by 10 years at least. And the rest of your statement indicates you failed to read, but that was not unexpected. > Mom was right: don't believe everything you read. Especially not on Pubmed > and Medline. If you know half of jackshit about research, you'd know > reading papers consists of skimming the abstract and the methods, and then > poring over the figures and ignoring *their* interpretation of their > results. That's the only way to make your own decision, and making your own > decision is what you gotta do with data.'' Mom seems to not know what she is talking about. She of course has an MD or PHD in a medical field. And you are so new to this that you haven't a clue how much research people on this newsgroup have done. JUST spouting off doesn't impress me or anyone here. As for fitness, I don't claim it'll help everyone. But it can't hurt. > Keeping my lungs fit sure as hell helped me more than pills ever did. For > about a year I let myself turn into a couch potato, and that's the year my > issues surfaced. I got back into shape, they subsided. Coincidence? > Maybe. I don't think so. Well , maybe your asthma has a different cause. You are then lucky. But stupid if you think all asthma has the same cause. But what this fellow really requires a chance to research the past fitness studies which don't seem to support his point of view. I mean, if that made any sense, there would be no Olympic athletes with asthma. Another topic beat to death on this NG. But he knows that. > And, damn are you big about my being in Stanford. Or Sanford?????, as you > like to spell it. What is this now, college envy? And really, lady. It's > a university. Think about it. Liberal minds, nimble fingers. Stanford's > own newsgroups have about 10x as much debate on them. Only difference is, > they're a little more coherent than your rabid attacks. Sometimes. I'd be more careful if I were you to act superior to the rest of us. My Dad teaches at MIT. So I have no college envy. I actually could feel sorry for those of you who got stuck going to Stanfor. Debate is worthless without the facts and you and clearly clueless. Not that it bothers me. Just proves you aren't up to the task. I am however, disappointed that Standwhatever has had to scrape the barrel. Well, I won't be looking there for my kids. Joy > Mom was right: don't believe everything you read. That is so great you brought up your mother. Why don't you email her the wonderful things you have been saying? Joy > Ah, new day, new posts. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > support it, > someone would have put it in Nature or Science. Those are two of the biggest journals for basic science. If it has to do with medicine the big 4 are NEJM, JAMA, Lancet, and BMJ. Since asthma si a disease of people one would expect a cure to appear in one of these.  Signature00doc You might disagree with this one, doc, but I'd include the European Respiratory Journal to that list. anatak wrote: > Ah, new day, new posts. > > No, lady. Those aren't big journals. Not for the > magnitude of the > breakthrough you think it is. If this was really a cure > for asthma, > or even *potentially* a cure with solid enough data to > support it, > someone would have put it in Nature or Science. Those are two of the biggest journals for basic science. If it has to do with medicine the big 4 are NEJM, JAMA, Lancet, and BMJ. Since asthma si a disease of people one would expect a cure to appear in one of these. -- 00doc > anatak wrote: > > Ah, new day, new posts. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Lancet, and BMJ. Since asthma si a disease of people one > would expect a cure to appear in one of these. > You might disagree with this one, doc, but I'd include the > European > Respiratory Journal to that list. It depends on what you are talking about. If you are talking about the top couple of medical journals where a major scientific breakthrough is likely to be published regardless of specialty - yeah, I would disagree. If you are talking about top respiratory journals - assuming that the news would break in the specialty journals first - then that and Chest rank right up there. Signature00doc The latter. Thanks for the confirmation. > It depends on what you are talking about. If you are talking about the top couple of medical journals where a major scientific breakthrough is likely to be published regardless of specialty - yeah, I would disagree. If you are talking about top respiratory journals - assuming that the news would break in the specialty journals first - then that and Chest rank right up there. -- 00doc Oh my. I just took a quick count and see that a 1991 article written by Dr. Hahn and published in JAMA has been cited 48 times in articles written by others - most of them between the years 2000 and 2004. Dude, you don't know anything about researching medicine, do you???!!! Ah, new day, new posts. No, lady. Those aren't big journals. Not for the magnitude of the breakthrough you think it is. If this was really a cure for asthma, or even *potentially* a cure with solid enough data to support it, someone would have put it in Nature or Science. This could change the lives of millions. But it's just letters and comments -- *opinions* -- in highly specialized journals, which means the vast majority of the public is rightly skeptical. And I don't claim to have read all relevant papers since I don't have the time you all seem to have, but those I did had absolutely no data and no figures in them. No error bars. Nothing. I don't trust it. Mom was right: don't believe everything you read. Especially not on Pubmed and Medline. If you know half of jackshit about research, you'd know reading papers consists of skimming the abstract and the methods, and then poring over the figures and ignoring *their* interpretation of their results. That's the only way to make your own decision, and making your own decision is what you gotta do with data. As for fitness, I don't claim it'll help everyone. But it can't hurt. Keeping my lungs fit sure as hell helped me more than pills ever did. For about a year I let myself turn into a couch potato, and that's the year my issues surfaced. I got back into shape, they subsided. Coincidence? Maybe. I don't think so. And, damn are you big about my being in Stanford. Or Sanford?????, as you like to spell it. What is this now, college envy? And really, lady. It's a university. Think about it. Liberal minds, nimble fingers. Stanford's own newsgroups have about 10x as much debate on them. Only difference is, they're a little more coherent than your rabid attacks. Sometimes. "Joy" <none@nospam.com> wrote in message news:5ZLud.139163$IQ.36239@bignews6.bellsouth.net... > And Dr Martin and Kraft and the Europeans. And in addition, look at the > quality of the journals these studies are published in: > > NEJM, Ann Allergy Asthma, Am J Respir Dis, Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol just > to name a few. So MEDLINE before you reply there since you are at Stanford > and supposed to be smart. > > But what this fellow really requires a chance to research the past fitness > studies which don't seem to support his point of view. I mean if that made > any sense, there would be no Olympic athletes with asthma. Another topic > beat to death on this NG. But he knows that. > > I wonder if Stanford would be interested in the online behavior of its > future graduates????? > > Oh my. I'm about to do something you have never heard of: Admit when someone else might be right. Thanks for the citation -- even if you didn't bother to cite it. Nevertheless, I found the article. It's not online, but that's fine. I'll go look it up in the library and read through it. Then I'll make my own decisions. Now let me note that if you'd given me this link to start with, rather than barrage me with abuse, I would've been one helluva lot nicer in return. As for Joy -- well, that lady was just asking for it, after she turned some other poster's perfectly valid, calm, advice-seeking question into her personal battleground because she was a spastic. If you want to be respected as an oldtimer on this forum, learn to accept differing viewpoints. Or at least, bother to learn about them before you rip into them with all the fervor of a blind doberman. Oh, and NorthShore, dude???!!! Don't say dude, dude, unless you know how to use it. You don't. Dude. So dude, get off it already. You're not funny, dude, and you're not clever. Your little attempt at mocking is not working as an offensive strategy. And frankly, dude, it never did. Dude! Oh my. I just took a quick count and see that a 1991 article written by Dr. Hahn and published in JAMA has been cited 48 times in articles written by others - most of them between the years 2000 and 2004. Dude, you don't know anything about researching medicine, do you???!!! "anatak" <anatakk99@gmail.com> wrote in message news:cpg4tk$dl4$1@news.Stanford.EDU... Ah, new day, new posts. No, lady. Those aren't big journals. Not for the magnitude of the breakthrough you think it is. If this was really a cure for asthma, or even *potentially* a cure with solid enough data to support it, someone would have put it in Nature or Science. This could change the lives of millions. But it's just letters and comments -- *opinions* -- in highly specialized journals, which means the vast majority of the public is rightly skeptical. And I don't claim to have read all relevant papers since I don't have the time you all seem to have, but those I did had absolutely no data and no figures in them. No error bars. Nothing. I don't trust it. Mom was right: don't believe everything you read. Especially not on Pubmed and Medline. If you know half of jackshit about research, you'd know reading papers consists of skimming the abstract and the methods, and then poring over the figures and ignoring *their* interpretation of their results. That's the only way to make your own decision, and making your own decision is what you gotta do with data. As for fitness, I don't claim it'll help everyone. But it can't hurt. Keeping my lungs fit sure as hell helped me more than pills ever did. For about a year I let myself turn into a couch potato, and that's the year my issues surfaced. I got back into shape, they subsided. Coincidence? Maybe. I don't think so. And, damn are you big about my being in Stanford. Or Sanford?????, as you like to spell it. What is this now, college envy? And really, lady. It's a university. Think about it. Liberal minds, nimble fingers. Stanford's own newsgroups have about 10x as much debate on them. Only difference is, they're a little more coherent than your rabid attacks. Sometimes. "Joy" <none@nospam.com> wrote in message news:5ZLud.139163$IQ.36239@bignews6.bellsouth.net... > And Dr Martin and Kraft and the Europeans. And in addition, look at the > quality of the journals these studies are published in: > > NEJM, Ann Allergy Asthma, Am J Respir Dis, Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol just > to name a few. So MEDLINE before you reply there since you are at Stanford > and supposed to be smart. > > But what this fellow really requires a chance to research the past fitness > studies which don't seem to support his point of view. I mean if that made > any sense, there would be no Olympic athletes with asthma. Another topic > beat to death on this NG. But he knows that. > > I wonder if Stanford would be interested in the online behavior of its > future graduates????? > > Oh, and -- Joy, irregardless of how I might disagree with your means and ideas, I do apologize for attacking you. You sounded distinctly hurt in your last response, which is I've kept silent until now. I don't blame you -- I hurled some fairly cutting comments your way. I was simply reacting to the tone of your messages at the time (and was also quite grumpy due to stress, finals and papers), but that sort of behavior is never acceptable, no matter what precipitates it. This sort of discussion shouldn't lead to all-out war. I'm sorry. I'm sure you're a wonderful parent to your sons. I just hope you learn to accept other viewpoints a little more easily. This'll probably be my last post on this for a while, if not permanently. I'm going abroad for winter break and when I get back I'll be wall to wall with school again. Hey Mary: it's been fun ;-) Oh my. I'm about to do something you have never heard of: Admit when someone else might be right. Thanks for the citation -- even if you didn't bother to cite it. Nevertheless, I found the article. It's not online, but that's fine. I'll go look it up in the library and read through it. Then I'll make my own decisions. Now let me note that if you'd given me this link to start with, rather than barrage me with abuse, I would've been one helluva lot nicer in return. As for Joy -- well, that lady was just asking for it, after she turned some other poster's perfectly valid, calm, advice-seeking question into her personal battleground because she was a spastic. If you want to be respected as an oldtimer on this forum, learn to accept differing viewpoints. Or at least, bother to learn about them before you rip into them with all the fervor of a blind doberman. Oh, and NorthShore, dude???!!! Don't say dude, dude, unless you know how to use it. You don't. Dude. So dude, get off it already. You're not funny, dude, and you're not clever. Your little attempt at mocking is not working as an offensive strategy. And frankly, dude, it never did. Dude! "NorthShoreCEO" <NorthShoreCEO@aol.com> wrote in message news:4Ijvd.564858$D%.376770@attbi_s51... Oh my. I just took a quick count and see that a 1991 article written by Dr. Hahn and published in JAMA has been cited 48 times in articles written by others - most of them between the years 2000 and 2004. Dude, you don't know anything about researching medicine, do you???!!! "anatak" <anatakk99@gmail.com> wrote in message news:cpg4tk$dl4$1@news.Stanford.EDU... Ah, new day, new posts. No, lady. Those aren't big journals. Not for the magnitude of the breakthrough you think it is. If this was really a cure for asthma, or even *potentially* a cure with solid enough data to support it, someone would have put it in Nature or Science. This could change the lives of millions. But it's just letters and comments -- *opinions* -- in highly specialized journals, which means the vast majority of the public is rightly skeptical. And I don't claim to have read all relevant papers since I don't have the time you all seem to have, but those I did had absolutely no data and no figures in them. No error bars. Nothing. I don't trust it. Mom was right: don't believe everything you read. Especially not on Pubmed and Medline. If you know half of jackshit about research, you'd know reading papers consists of skimming the abstract and the methods, and then poring over the figures and ignoring *their* interpretation of their results. That's the only way to make your own decision, and making your own decision is what you gotta do with data. As for fitness, I don't claim it'll help everyone. But it can't hurt. Keeping my lungs fit sure as hell helped me more than pills ever did. For about a year I let myself turn into a couch potato, and that's the year my issues surfaced. I got back into shape, they subsided. Coincidence? Maybe. I don't think so. And, damn are you big about my being in Stanford. Or Sanford?????, as you like to spell it. What is this now, college envy? And really, lady. It's a university. Think about it. Liberal minds, nimble fingers. Stanford's own newsgroups have about 10x as much debate on them. Only difference is, they're a little more coherent than your rabid attacks. Sometimes. "Joy" <none@nospam.com> wrote in message news:5ZLud.139163$IQ.36239@bignews6.bellsouth.net... > And Dr Martin and Kraft and the Europeans. And in addition, look at the > quality of the journals these studies are published in: > > NEJM, Ann Allergy Asthma, Am J Respir Dis, Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol just > to name a few. So MEDLINE before you reply there since you are at Stanford > and supposed to be smart. > > But what this fellow really requires a chance to research the past fitness > studies which don't seem to support his point of view. I mean if that made > any sense, there would be no Olympic athletes with asthma. Another topic > beat to death on this NG. But he knows that. > > I wonder if Stanford would be interested in the online behavior of its > future graduates????? > > Oh, and -- Joy, irregardless of how I might disagree with your means and ideas, I do apologize for attacking you. You sounded distinctly hurt in your last response, which is I've kept silent until now. I don't blame you -- I hurled some fairly cutting comments your way. I was simply reacting to the tone of your messages at the time (and was also quite grumpy due to stress, finals and papers), but that sort of behavior is never acceptable, no matter what precipitates it. This sort of discussion shouldn't lead to all-out war. I'm sorry. I'm sure you're a wonderful parent to your sons. I just hope you learn to accept other viewpoints a little more easily. Anatak, The really sad part is the person who started this whole mess was actually a spammer as Alison said (see all the Brad posts of today). My entry into this fray was Sheldon really, and in my attempts to keeps newbies from getting hurt, I posted they should killfile him (and most people do, in the end) which somehow set off Mary who thinks it is childish to post that you have killfiled. Well, I make an exception in his case. And I decided she was so rude, that I would just play it out to the end. Apology on my part also. Hopefully now everyone can settle down. Joy > Oh, and -- Joy, irregardless of how I might disagree with your means and > ideas, I do apologize for attacking you. You sounded distinctly hurt in [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > fray was Sheldon really, and in my attempts to keeps newbies from getting > hurt Pfft. You are a censorious control freak. And now a LYING censorious control freak. But at least you are not so uncouth as to post in HTML, so that's something. I appreciate your initial thoughts here, and just want to add that it's a little hard to take someone seriously given the tone of your initial post, and the Dude business. I'm not a dude, by the way, I'm a dudette. And my asthma was completely resolved after suffering with it for 33 years, thanks to the research initially started by Dr. Hahn. My sons asthma was resolved, my friends sons asthma was resolved. Joy's was greatly improved, so she only has allergy triggered asthma in the summer. If you want to do some more research, do a search at www.jama.com, and using the advanced search engine, scroll to the bottom of the page and click on Search multiple journals. Click on the major journals we've already mentioned here and enter the words chlamydia pneumoniae and asthma and then do another search using the words mycoplasma and asthma. You'll find this isn't really new research, and that Dr. Hahn isn't the only one recognizing this. You can also find information about those bacteria and the thought that they're linked to a whole host of diseases at www.immed.org. By the way - nobody is saying that all asthma is caused by this, researchers feel many things can cause asthma, and bacteria is but one. As for Joys response to a perfectly calm question, if you're talking about your partner in crime here, then look back a little further and you'll find that she (not Joy) has managed to get everyone mad here because she's a foul mouthed bulldozer trying to tell everyone to follow her rules for posting. Oh my. I'm about to do something you have never heard of: Admit when someone else might be right. Thanks for the citation -- even if you didn't bother to cite it. Nevertheless, I found the article. It's not online, but that's fine. I'll go look it up in the library and read through it. Then I'll make my own decisions. Now let me note that if you'd given me this link to start with, rather than barrage me with abuse, I would've been one helluva lot nicer in return. As for Joy -- well, that lady was just asking for it, after she turned some other poster's perfectly valid, calm, advice-seeking question into her personal battleground because she was a spastic. If you want to be respected as an oldtimer on this forum, learn to accept differing viewpoints. Or at least, bother to learn about them before you rip into them with all the fervor of a blind doberman. Oh, and NorthShore, dude???!!! Don't say dude, dude, unless you know how to use it. You don't. Dude. So dude, get off it already. You're not funny, dude, and you're not clever. Your little attempt at mocking is not working as an offensive strategy. And frankly, dude, it never did. Dude! "NorthShoreCEO" <NorthShoreCEO@aol.com> wrote in message news:4Ijvd.564858$D%.376770@attbi_s51... Oh my. I just took a quick count and see that a 1991 article written by Dr. Hahn and published in JAMA has been cited 48 times in articles written by others - most of them between the years 2000 and 2004. Dude, you don't know anything about researching medicine, do you???!!! "anatak" <anatakk99@gmail.com> wrote in message news:cpg4tk$dl4$1@news.Stanford.EDU... Ah, new day, new posts. No, lady. Those aren't big journals. Not for the magnitude of the breakthrough you think it is. If this was really a cure for asthma, or even *potentially* a cure with solid enough data to support it, someone would have put it in Nature or Science. This could change the lives of millions. But it's just letters and comments -- *opinions* -- in highly specialized journals, which means the vast majority of the public is rightly skeptical. And I don't claim to have read all relevant papers since I don't have the time you all seem to have, but those I did had absolutely no data and no figures in them. No error bars. Nothing. I don't trust it. Mom was right: don't believe everything you read. Especially not on Pubmed and Medline. If you know half of jackshit about research, you'd know reading papers consists of skimming the abstract and the methods, and then poring over the figures and ignoring *their* interpretation of their results. That's the only way to make your own decision, and making your own decision is what you gotta do with data. As for fitness, I don't claim it'll help everyone. But it can't hurt. Keeping my lungs fit sure as hell helped me more than pills ever did. For about a year I let myself turn into a couch potato, and that's the year my issues surfaced. I got back into shape, they subsided. Coincidence? Maybe. I don't think so. And, damn are you big about my being in Stanford. Or Sanford?????, as you like to spell it. What is this now, college envy? And really, lady. It's a university. Think about it. Liberal minds, nimble fingers. Stanford's own newsgroups have about 10x as much debate on them. Only difference is, they're a little more coherent than your rabid attacks. Sometimes. "Joy" <none@nospam.com> wrote in message news:5ZLud.139163$IQ.36239@bignews6.bellsouth.net... > And Dr Martin and Kraft and the Europeans. And in addition, look at the > quality of the journals these studies are published in: > > NEJM, Ann Allergy Asthma, Am J Respir Dis, Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol just > to name a few. So MEDLINE before you reply there since you are at Stanford > and supposed to be smart. > > But what this fellow really requires a chance to research the past fitness > studies which don't seem to support his point of view. I mean if that made > any sense, there would be no Olympic athletes with asthma. Another topic > beat to death on this NG. But he knows that. > > I wonder if Stanford would be interested in the online behavior of its > future graduates????? > > >I appreciate your initial thoughts here, and just want to add that it's a little hard to take someone seriously given the tone of >your initial post, and the Dude business. I'm not a dude, by the way, I'm a dudette. And my asthma was completely >resolved after suffering with it for 33 years, thanks to the research initially started by Dr. Hahn. My sons asthma was >resolved, my friends sons asthma was resolved. Joy's was greatly improved, so she only has allergy triggered asthma in the >summer. If you want to do some more research, do a search at www.jama.com, and using the advanced search engine, So we have two salespeople here with an agenda. I was hoping for an exchange of information. Really? What do I sell and what's my agenda? "NorthShoreCEO" <NorthShoreCEO@aol.com> wrote in message news:u2qvd.256044$R05.161816@attbi_s53... >I appreciate your initial thoughts here, and just want to add that it's a little hard to take someone seriously given the tone of >your initial post, and the Dude business. I'm not a dude, by the way, I'm a dudette. And my asthma was completely >resolved after suffering with it for 33 years, thanks to the research initially started by Dr. Hahn. My sons asthma was >resolved, my friends sons asthma was resolved. Joy's was greatly improved, so she only has allergy triggered asthma in the >summer. If you want to do some more research, do a search at www.jama.com, and using the advanced search engine, So we have two salespeople here with an agenda. I was hoping for an exchange of information. I am afraid I cannot be bothered to convert your posts to non-html so that I can reply to you without top posting, a.shole. As it is I am risking my eternal soul this once, as everyone knows that top posters go straight to hell. Now STOP posing in html! Really? What do I sell and what's my agenda? "Mary" <crazyaboutfelines@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:f9wvd.5194$hc7.486827@twister.southeast.rr.com... "NorthShoreCEO" <NorthShoreCEO@aol.com> wrote in message news:u2qvd.256044$R05.161816@attbi_s53... >I appreciate your initial thoughts here, and just want to add that it's a little hard to take someone seriously given the tone of >your initial post, and the Dude business. I'm not a dude, by the way, I'm a dudette. And my asthma was completely >resolved after suffering with it for 33 years, thanks to the research initially started by Dr. Hahn. My sons asthma was >resolved, my friends sons asthma was resolved. Joy's was greatly improved, so she only has allergy triggered asthma in the >summer. If you want to do some more research, do a search at www.jama.com, and using the advanced search engine, So we have two salespeople here with an agenda. I was hoping for an exchange of information. I didn't think you'd answer my question about what I'm selling and what my agenda is. The truth is, I'm selling nothing and my only agenda is to help people, but since you're not one of the people I would ever help, I don't care if you can read my posts or not. By the way, your class is showing. I am afraid I cannot be bothered to convert your posts to non-html so that I can reply to you without top posting, a.shole. As it is I am risking my eternal soul this once, as everyone knows that top posters go straight to hell. Now STOP posing in html! The following appear in the ISI Science Citation Index. It seems that Dr Hahn wrote at least 100 scientific articles most of them cited many times. I agree he deserves respect. Hits Cited Author Cited Work Volume Page Year 1 HAHN DL 1972 1973 QUALITY EM 1974 1 HAHN DL 1972 73 QUALITY EMPL 1977 2 HAHN DL 1972 73 QUALITY EMPL 181 1977 1 HAHN DL 3RD ANN WISC RES NET 1989 1 HAHN DL 96 GEN M AM SOC MICR 29 1996 4 HAHN DL AM J RESP CRIT CAR 2 151 A470 1995 1 HAHN DL AM J RESP CRIT CARE 149 913 1994 3 HAHN DL AM J RESP CRIT CARE 149 A913 1994 1 HAHN DL AM REV RESPIR DIS 38 A297 1993 10 HAHN DL AM REV RESPIR DIS S 147 A297 1993 14 HAHN DL ANN ALLERG ASTHMA IM 84 227 2000 1 HAHN DL ANN ALLERG ASTHMA IM 84 115 1999 32 HAHN DL ANN ALLERG ASTHMA IM 83 271 1999 1 HAHN DL ANN ALLERG ASTHMA IM 83 339 1999 31 HAHN DL ANN ALLERG ASTHMA IM 81 339 1998 29 HAHN DL ANN ALLERG ASTHMA IM 80 45 1998 4 HAHN DL ANN ALLERGY 73 276 1994 1 HAHN DL ANN INTERN MED 119 1051 1993 6 HAHN DL ANN INTERN MED 117 71 1992 6 HAHN DL ANN INTERN MED 117 171 1992 Hits Cited Author Cited Work Volume Page Year 1 HAHN DL ANN INTERN MED 116 171 1992 2 HAHN DL ANN INTERN MED 114 431 1991 1 HAHN DL ANTIBIOTICS CLIN S3 2 9 1998 1 HAHN DL ARCH PEDIAT ADOL MED 149 219 1995 4 HAHN DL ARTERIOSCLER THROMB 12 255 1992 79 HAHN DL ARTERIOSCLER THROMB 12 945 1992 1 HAHN DL BIODRUGS 14 349 2000 8 ...Hahn DL CAN J SOIL SCI 77 497 1997 1 HAHN DL CHEST 122 1510 2002 1 HAHN DL CHEST 105 1914 1994 3 HAHN DL CHEST 104 649 1993 1 HAHN DL CHLAMYDIA PNEUMONIAE 114 1999 9 HAHN DL CHLAMYDIA PNEUMONIAE 65 1995 1 HAHN DL CHLAMYDIAL INFECT 183 1998 1 HAHN DL CHLAMYDIAL INFECT 235 1998 42 HAHN DL EPIDEMIOL INFECT 117 513 1996 1 HAHN DL EUR RESPIR REV 38 224 1996 1 HAHN DL EUR RESPIR REV 38 324 1996 18 HAHN DL EUR RESPIR REV 6 224 1996 2 HAHN DL FRONT BIOSCI 7 66 2002 Hits Cited Author Cited Work Volume Page Year 11 HAHN DL FRONT BIOSCI 7 E66 2002 1 HAHN DL IN PRESS 1 HAHN DL IN PRESS CHLAMYDIA P 1 HAHN DL IN PRESS J FAM PRACT 1994 2 HAHN DL IOWA ST U VET 42 52 1980 4 HAHN DL J AM BOARD FAM PRACT 6 529 1993 1 HAHN DL J AM BOARD FAM PRACT 6 5290 1993 6 HAHN DL J AM BOARD FAM PRACT 2 25 1989 4 HAHN DL J CLIN EPIDEMIOL 46 668 1993 2 HAHN DL J CLIN EPIDEMIOL 46 668 1992 1 HAHN DL J FAM PRAC 4 409 1990 1 HAHN DL J FAM PRACTICE 49 983 2000 3 ...Hahn DL J FAM PRACTICE 49 985 2000 2 HAHN DL J FAM PRACTICE 48 679 1999 4 HAHN DL J FAM PRACTICE 48 785 1999 1 HAHN DL J FAM PRACTICE 9 679 1999 8 HAHN DL J FAM PRACTICE 41 153 1995 35 HAHN DL J FAM PRACTICE 41 345 1995 2 HAHN DL J FAM PRACTICE 39 12 1994 1 HAHN DL J FAM PRACTICE 39 16 1994 Hits Cited Author Cited Work Volume Page Year 7 HAHN DL J FAM PRACTICE 39 431 1994 27 HAHN DL J FAM PRACTICE 38 373 1994 32 HAHN DL J FAM PRACTICE 38 589 1994 35 HAHN DL J FAM PRACTICE 37 432 1993 1 HAHN DL J FAM PRACTICE 81 492 1990 48 HAHN DL J FAM PRACTICE 31 492 1990 1 HAHN DL J FAM PRACTICE 31 502 1990 1 HAHN DL J FAM PRACTICE 31 668 1990 9 HAHN DL J FAM PRACTICE 30 409 1990 1 HAHN DL J FAM PRACTICE 30 409 1989 1 HAHN DL J FAM PRACTICE 11 43 1980 1 HAHN DL J NEUROCHEM 19 1887 1971 24 HAHN DL J NEUROCHEM 18 1887 1971 21 ...Hahn DL J SHOULDER ELB SURG 6 37 1997 1 HAHN DL JAMA-J AM MED ASSOC 266 225 1992 2 HAHN DL JAMA-J AM MED ASSOC 299 255 1991 264 HAHN DL JAMA-J AM MED ASSOC 266 225 1991 2 HAHN DL JAMA-J AM MED ASSOC 266 255 1991 2 HAHN DL JAMA-J AM MED ASSOC 266 2225 1991 2 HAHN DL LANCET 345 1244 1995 Hits Cited Author Cited Work Volume Page Year 10 HAHN DL LANCET 339 1173 1992 1 HAHN DL LANCET 337 849 1991 1 HAHN DL P 9 INT S HUM CHLAM 183 1998 1 HAHN DL P 9 INT S HUM CHLAM 235 1998 23 ...Hahn DL PEDIATR INFECT DIS J 12 790 1993 1 HAHN DL RESP INFECT ALLERGY 178 645 2003 1 HAHN DL THORAX 53 1094 1998 3 HAHN DL THORAX 53 1095 1998 1 HAHN DL UNPUB 2 HAHN DL WISC MED J 94 682 1995 Thank you for taking the time to look that up and share it here. It's very much appreciated. The following appear in the ISI Science Citation Index. It seems that Dr Hahn wrote at least 100 scientific articles most of them cited many times. I agree he deserves respect. Hits Cited Author Cited Work Volume Page Year 1 HAHN DL 1972 1973 QUALITY EM 1974 1 HAHN DL 1972 73 QUALITY EMPL 1977 2 HAHN DL 1972 73 QUALITY EMPL 181 1977 1 HAHN DL 3RD ANN WISC RES NET 1989 1 HAHN DL 96 GEN M AM SOC MICR 29 1996 4 HAHN DL AM J RESP CRIT CAR 2 151 A470 1995 1 HAHN DL AM J RESP CRIT CARE 149 913 1994 3 HAHN DL AM J RESP CRIT CARE 149 A913 1994 1 HAHN DL AM REV RESPIR DIS 38 A297 1993 10 HAHN DL AM REV RESPIR DIS S 147 A297 1993 14 HAHN DL ANN ALLERG ASTHMA IM 84 227 2000 1 HAHN DL ANN ALLERG ASTHMA IM 84 115 1999 32 HAHN DL ANN ALLERG ASTHMA IM 83 271 1999 1 HAHN DL ANN ALLERG ASTHMA IM 83 339 1999 31 HAHN DL ANN ALLERG ASTHMA IM 81 339 1998 29 HAHN DL ANN ALLERG ASTHMA IM 80 45 1998 4 HAHN DL ANN ALLERGY 73 276 1994 1 HAHN DL ANN INTERN MED 119 1051 1993 6 HAHN DL ANN INTERN MED 117 71 1992 6 HAHN DL ANN INTERN MED 117 171 1992 Hits Cited Author Cited Work Volume Page Year 1 HAHN DL ANN INTERN MED 116 171 1992 2 HAHN DL ANN INTERN MED 114 431 1991 1 HAHN DL ANTIBIOTICS CLIN S3 2 9 1998 1 HAHN DL ARCH PEDIAT ADOL MED 149 219 1995 4 HAHN DL ARTERIOSCLER THROMB 12 255 1992 79 HAHN DL ARTERIOSCLER THROMB 12 945 1992 1 HAHN DL BIODRUGS 14 349 2000 8 ...Hahn DL CAN J SOIL SCI 77 497 1997 1 HAHN DL CHEST 122 1510 2002 1 HAHN DL CHEST 105 1914 1994 3 HAHN DL CHEST 104 649 1993 1 HAHN DL CHLAMYDIA PNEUMONIAE 114 1999 9 HAHN DL CHLAMYDIA PNEUMONIAE 65 1995 1 HAHN DL CHLAMYDIAL INFECT 183 1998 1 HAHN DL CHLAMYDIAL INFECT 235 1998 42 HAHN DL EPIDEMIOL INFECT 117 513 1996 1 HAHN DL EUR RESPIR REV 38 224 1996 1 HAHN DL EUR RESPIR REV 38 324 1996 18 HAHN DL EUR RESPIR REV 6 224 1996 2 HAHN DL FRONT BIOSCI 7 66 2002 Hits Cited Author Cited Work Volume Page Year 11 HAHN DL FRONT BIOSCI 7 E66 2002 1 HAHN DL IN PRESS 1 HAHN DL IN PRESS CHLAMYDIA P 1 HAHN DL IN PRESS J FAM PRACT 1994 2 HAHN DL IOWA ST U VET 42 52 1980 4 HAHN DL J AM BOARD FAM PRACT 6 529 1993 1 HAHN DL J AM BOARD FAM PRACT 6 5290 1993 6 HAHN DL J AM BOARD FAM PRACT 2 25 1989 4 HAHN DL J CLIN EPIDEMIOL 46 668 1993 2 HAHN DL J CLIN EPIDEMIOL 46 668 1992 1 HAHN DL J FAM PRAC 4 409 1990 1 HAHN DL J FAM PRACTICE 49 983 2000 3 ...Hahn DL J FAM PRACTICE 49 985 2000 2 HAHN DL J FAM PRACTICE 48 679 1999 4 HAHN DL J FAM PRACTICE 48 785 1999 1 HAHN DL J FAM PRACTICE 9 679 1999 8 HAHN DL J FAM PRACTICE 41 153 1995 35 HAHN DL J FAM PRACTICE 41 345 1995 2 HAHN DL J FAM PRACTICE 39 12 1994 1 HAHN DL J FAM PRACTICE 39 16 1994 Hits Cited Author Cited Work Volume Page Year 7 HAHN DL J FAM PRACTICE 39 431 1994 27 HAHN DL J FAM PRACTICE 38 373 1994 32 HAHN DL J FAM PRACTICE 38 589 1994 35 HAHN DL J FAM PRACTICE 37 432 1993 1 HAHN DL J FAM PRACTICE 81 492 1990 48 HAHN DL J FAM PRACTICE 31 492 1990 1 HAHN DL J FAM PRACTICE 31 502 1990 1 HAHN DL J FAM PRACTICE 31 668 1990 9 HAHN DL J FAM PRACTICE &n |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message