 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Cardiology / June 2006Butterfly Effect: New Species Bred in Lab
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/06/15/wlab15.xml&sShee t=/news/2006/06/15/ixnews.html or, http://tinyurl.com/r45m7 "A butterfly has been reproduced by scientists, revealing for the first time the colourful past of a striking wild species. The experiment suggests that a South American species is the product of an evolutionary process that many scientists did not consider likely in animals." GG > http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/06/15/wlab15.xml&sShee t=/news/2006/06/15/ixnews.html > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > evolutionary process that many scientists did not consider likely in > animals." **emphasis** added. There is no mention of hybrid speciation in Darwin's Theory of Evolution as presented in his book "The Origin of Species." Sorry. Evolution is still dead. Whether a hybrid species is sterile (mules) or reproductive (Heliconius heurippa) is entirely up to GOD. No such thing as Mother Nature as Darwin has posited. Please forgive all my iniquities. To understand this, simply surf the link under my sig. All glory and praise to LORD GOD Almighty, Whom I love with all my heart, soul, mind, and strength. Still praying for your poor enslaved soul, dear GaryG. Prayerfully in Christ's amazing love, Andrew http://tinyurl.com/m3gnu > > http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/06/15/wlab15.xml&sShee t=/news/2006/06/15/ixnews.html > > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > **emphasis** added. Most scientific studies are written that way (e.g., "our results suggest..."). That's because, unlike the certainty that derives from the voices in your head, science understands that its knowledge is provisional and subject to further revision or even refutation. > There is no mention of hybrid speciation in Darwin's Theory of > Evolution as presented in his book "The Origin of Species." Yet another reason science trumps religion in this arena...science marches forward, with new findings and interpretations, while religion looks firmly backwards. > Sorry. Evolution is still dead. Whether a hybrid species is sterile > (mules) or reproductive (Heliconius heurippa) is entirely up to GOD. Science continues to advance, with new data and new interpretations. Over time, the body of scientific knowledge tends to coalesce and become more accepted by all, as the evidence warrants. This is clearly the case with the theory of evolution of species, and this study simply adds more evidence in favor of it. Religion, on the other hand, looks backward in time, depending on myths, legends, and political tracts that were written back in the Bronze Age. The varying interpretations of same result in increasing schisms over time, rather than increasing coalescence. If there were a universal "truth" present in religion, wouldn't we be seeing more and more people come together supporting that one version of the truth? Instead, we see more and more interpretations, with religions splitting into new religions as they split hairs over their picayune differences (and, often, killing each other in the process). > No such thing as Mother Nature as Darwin has posited. Please forgive > all my iniquities. I do, Andy...in your mental state, you can't help yourself. BTW - could you provide a cite for where Darwin posited "Mother Nature"? I don't think he ever did (however, unlike religious fundamentalists and lunatics, I'm open to evidence to the contrary). GG > To understand this, simply surf the link under my sig. > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Andrew > http://tinyurl.com/m3gmu > http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/06/15/wlab15.xml&sShee t=/news/2006/06/15/ixnews.html > > > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Most scientific studies are written that way (e.g., "our results > suggest..."). Yes, because there is much uncertainty in science, which is the search for the truth which continues to elude non-Christian scientists. > That's because, unlike the certainty that derives from the > voices in your head, Actually, during my continued walk with Christ, HE has been keeping me completely well. All thanks and praises and glory to LORD GOD Almighty, Whom I love with all my heart, soul, mind and strength. > science understands that its knowledge is provisional > and subject to further revision or even refutation. For this reason, true scientists have rejected Darwin's TOE. Theories are formulated to be either rejected and replaced with a new theory or promoted to Law when proven to be true. > > There is no mention of hybrid speciation in Darwin's Theory of > > Evolution as presented in his book "The Origin of Species." > > Yet another reason science trumps religion in this arena...science marches > forward, with new findings and interpretations, while religion looks firmly > backwards. Thankfully, Christianity is not a religion but an ongoing personal relationship with Christ and so Christians look forward to the future, which the LORD GOD Almighty promises to be the rest of eternity with HIM. All praises and glory to GOD, now and forever. > > Sorry. Evolution is still dead. Whether a hybrid species is sterile > > (mules) or reproductive (Heliconius heurippa) is entirely up to GOD. > > Science continues to advance, with new data and new interpretations. Only because the LORD wills it. > Over > time, the body of scientific knowledge tends to coalesce and become more > accepted by all, as the evidence warrants. This is clearly the case with > the theory of evolution of species, and this study simply adds more evidence > in favor of it. Actually, it does not. The mating of two different species to create a new species occurred because GOD permitted humans to do this just as he permitted mules. Darwin's Mother Nature had nothing do with any of this because she does not exist. > Religion, on the other hand, looks backward in time, depending on myths, > legends, and political tracts that were written back in the Bronze Age. The > varying interpretations of same result in increasing schisms over time, > rather than increasing coalescence. If there were a universal "truth" > present in religion, wouldn't we be seeing more and more people come > together supporting that one version of the truth? The truth is LORD Jesus Christ, Who is not a religion. "I am the way, the truth, and the life... " -- LORD Jesus Christ. > Instead, we see more and > more interpretations, with religions splitting into new religions as they > split hairs over their picayune differences (and, often, killing each other > in the process). That is what happens when folks lose sight of the truth. > > No such thing as Mother Nature as Darwin has posited. Please forgive > > all my iniquities. > > I do, Andy...in your mental state, you can't help yourself. It remains my personal choice to continue walking with Christ, Whom I love with all my being. > BTW - could you provide a cite for where Darwin posited "Mother Nature"? I > don't think he ever did (however, unlike religious fundamentalists and > lunatics, I'm open to evidence to the contrary). Certainly: http://tinyurl.com/jp4kt Truth is simple. Truth is invincible. Truth is absolute. "I am the way, the truth, and the life..." -- LORD Jesus Christ. Marana tha ! Still praying for your poor tortured soul, dear Gary. Prayerfully in Christ's amazing love, Andrew B. Chung Cardiologist, Atlanta, Georgia, USA http://tinyurl.com/m3gnu > Actually, during my continued walk with Christ, HE has been keeping me > completely well. > > All thanks and praises and glory to LORD GOD Almighty, Whom I love with > all my heart, soul, mind and strength. You're a f.cking idiot. > > Actually, during my continued walk with Christ, HE has been keeping me > > completely well. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > You're a f.cking idiot. Sorry the truth bothers you so terribly. Please forgive all my iniquities. To understand this, simply surf the link below my sig. All praises and glory to LORD GOD Almighty. You will be in my prayers, dear neighbor. Prayerfully in Christ's amazing love, Andrew http://tinyurl.com/m3gnu > Actually, during my continued walk with Christ, HE has been keeping me > completely well. > > All thanks and praises and glory to LORD GOD Almighty, Whom I love with > all my heart, soul, mind and strength. You're a f.cking idiot. > The truth is LORD Jesus Christ, Who is not a religion. > > "I am the way, the truth, and the life... " -- LORD Jesus Christ. Just a THEORY, and one with no evidence. Why don't you Christers, and other god-botherers ever accept that your articles of blind faith should be subject to the same standards of scrutiny as reality is? Why are you scared of proper scrutiny, that you need to throw dust in the faces of mankind? Why do you need to shroud your sacred objects in mysticism? Why can those who preach the word of God never be straight with anybody? Is it because they don't actually believe it themselves? Confirmed Whacko LIAR: > Here's the BIG LIE: >> > Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Chung caught in a boldfaced lie! <snip> > Theories are formulated to be either rejected and replaced with a new > theory or promoted to Law when proven to be true. ABC shows that doctors follow normal curves also and joins the select few at the far end who never really learned any science. > <snip> > > Theories are formulated to be either rejected and replaced with a new > > theory or promoted to Law when proven to be true. > > > ABC shows that doctors follow normal curves also and joins the select few at > the far end who never really learned any science. You remind me of the blind man who would feign vision among the seeing by pretending to evaluate their visual acuity. To understand this, simply surf the link below my sig. All praises and glory to LORD GOD Almighty, Whom I love with all my heart, soul, mind and strength. Marana tha ! Still praying for your tortured soul, dear Mike. Prayerfully in Christ's amazing love, Andrew http://tinyurl.com/m3gnu >> <snip> >> > Theories are formulated to be either rejected and replaced with a new [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > You remind me of the blind man who would feign vision among the seeing > by pretending to evaluate their visual acuity. You remind me of the many mentally ill people I have met. > To understand this, simply surf the link below my sig. > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Andrew > http://tinyurl.com/m3gnu >> <snip> >>> Theories are formulated to be either rejected and replaced with a [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > To understand this, simply surf the link below my sig. There is nothing to understand. You don't know what a theory is. I've worked with docs like you and seen the results. > >> <snip> > >>> Theories are formulated to be either rejected and replaced with a [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > There is nothing to understand. You don't know what a theory is. "A plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena." Source: http://www.m-w.com > I've worked with docs like you and seen the results. Without the LORD, all your experiences are meaningless (Ecclesiastes). Still praying for you, dear Mike. Prayerfully in Christ's amazing love, Andrew http://tinyurl.com/m3gnu > > There is nothing to understand. You don't know what a theory is. > > "A plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of > principles offered to explain phenomena." Which is as whole lot different, isn't it, from the conjecture that you lying creationists/IDers like to portray the word as meaning. > Source: http://www.m-w.com > > > I've worked with docs like you and seen the results. > > Without the LORD, all your experiences are meaningless (Ecclesiastes). "When reason reared it's ugly head Sir Andrew turned his tail and fled Brave, brave, brave, brave Sir Andrew" Apologies to Neil Innes. > > > There is nothing to understand. You don't know what a theory is. > > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Which is as whole lot different, isn't it, from the conjecture that you > lying creationists/IDers like to portray the word as meaning. No. A theory's utility depends upon how well it predicts observed events because it is "offered to explain phenomena." Darwin's TOE for this reason has had no utility and should be discarded To understand the case against Darwin' TOE, simply surf the link below my sig. Still praying for you poor enslaved soul, dear neigbor. Prayerfully in Christ's amazing love, Andrew http://tinyurl.com/m3gnu >>>>There is nothing to understand. You don't know what a theory is. >>> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >>Which is as whole lot different, isn't it, from the conjecture that you >>lying creationists/IDers like to portray the word as meaning. Chung is a fraud, a liar, and is dangerous to the health of the gullible. Chung is also a cross-posting, spamming nuisance, which makes him by definition a troll. UseNet Posting ARE electronic mail. Also any telecommunication advisory service should employ certain safeguards to prevent misuse. For example, the physician responding to the call should not make a clinical diagnosis, according to the ethical standards of the American Medical Association. That specifically includes "Broken Hearts" which cannot be clinically diagnosed online. References: http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/8349.html AMA ethics for telecommunications http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc977.html UseNet groups are Internet Mail lists http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc850.html UseNet posts are electronic mail http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc3865.html Definition of Spam - Unsolicited Bulk e-mail http://www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/posting-rules/part1/ Selecting a proper group http://groups.google.com/group/alt.christnet.christianlife/msg/1590460ba000f7d6 Chung cites URL for "Broken Heart" URL cited about "Broken Heart" after decompression http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstra ct&list_uids=16749326&query_hl=4&itool=pubmed_docsum http://groups.google.com/group/alt.christnet.christianlife/msg/3e75efefaee23f24 Chung claims exemption from the rules and regulations > No. A theory's utility depends upon how well it predicts observed > events because it is "offered to explain phenomena." Darwin's TOE for [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Andrew > http://tinyurl.com/m3gnu > > > > There is nothing to understand. You don't know what a theory is. > > > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > events because it is "offered to explain phenomena." Darwin's TOE for > this reason has had no utility and should be discarded In your demented opinion. <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"> <html> <head> <meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type"> </head> <body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000"> <blockquote cite="mid1150441454.468944.146920@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com" type="cite"> <pre wrap="">Pastor Kutchie wrote: </pre> <blockquote type="cite"> </pre> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre wrap="">Mike Painter wrote: </pre> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre wrap="">There is nothing to understand. You don't know what a theory is. </pre> </blockquote> <pre wrap="">"A plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena." Source: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.m-w.com">http://www.m-w.com</a> </pre> </blockquote> <pre wrap="">Which is as whole lot different, isn't it, from the conjecture that you lying creationists/IDers like to portray the word as meaning. </pre> </blockquote> <pre wrap=""><!----> No. A theory's utility depends upon how well it predicts observed events because it is "offered to explain phenomena." Darwin's TOE for this reason has had no utility and should be discarded To understand the case against Darwin' TOE, simply surf the link below my sig. Still praying for you poor enslaved soul, dear neigbor. Prayerfully in Christ's amazing love, Andrew <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://tinyurl.com/m3gnu">http://tinyurl.com/m3gnu</a> </pre> </blockquote> <br> <div align="center"><font color="#993399"><big><big><b>Thus Spake: *G* *O* *D* *S* *C* *R* *E* *A* *T* *O* *R</b></big></big>*<br> <br> <br> </font></div> <br> (<big><big><b><font color="#cc0000">Some <u>very unusual </u>fetuses mutations)</font></b></big></big><br> <b>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------<br> <font color="#000066"><big> <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://english.pravda.ru/science/health/9418-mutation-0">http://english.pravda.r u/science/health/9418-mutation-0</a><br> <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://english.pravda.ru/science/health/9418-1/">http://english.pravda.ru/scienc e/health/9418-1/</a><br> <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://english.pravda.ru/science/health/9418-2/">http://english.pravda.ru/scienc e/health/9418-2/</a><br> <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://english.pravda.ru/science/health/9418-3/">http://english.pravda.ru/scienc e/health/9418-3/</a><br> </big></font></b><b><br> </b><br> <br> <big><big><b>God's Creator! <br> (<small><small><font color="#ff0000">That was my only sin...</font></small></small>) <span class="moz-smiley-s11"><span> 8-) </span></span><br> </b></big></big> <pre class="moz-signature" cols="77">-- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ <b> Psstt.... Hey! ---> </b><font color="#ff0000">USED GODS SALE! : ---> </font><b> <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.godchecker.com/">http://www.godchecker.com/</a> </b> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ </pre> </body> </html> > > > > There is nothing to understand. You don't know what a theory is. > > > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > events because it is "offered to explain phenomena." Darwin's TOE for > this reason has had no utility and should be discarded The TOE has been observed, Andy. Biology and medicine benefit from its predictions; if you were really a doctor, you'd know that. Why would we discard a theory that has so much evidence supporting it? > > > > > There is nothing to understand. You don't know what a theory is. > > > > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > predictions; if you were really a doctor, you'd know that. Why would > we discard a theory that has so much evidence supporting it? For many (including Andy) it's rejected due to cognitive dissonance. Their "faith" is so fragile and dependent on ancient myths, that if even one piece is shown to be false, it would bring their whole worldview crashing down. I actually had one tell me one time that if evolution were true, then there would be no point to life, and no morals or ethics, and we would just as well all live as savages. Talk about "all of your eggs in one basket"...sheesh. GG It seems to me I heard somewhere that Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote in article <1150441454.468944.146920@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>: >> Which is as whole lot different, isn't it, from the conjecture that you >> lying creationists/IDers like to portray the word as meaning. >No. A theory's utility depends upon how well it predicts observed >events because it is "offered to explain phenomena." Darwin's TOE for >this reason has had no utility and should be discarded I'm afraid that raises the question of just how the theory of creationism "predicts observed events." Got any ideas?  SignatureDon Kirkman > It seems to me I heard somewhere that Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote in > article <1150441454.468944.146920@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>: [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > I'm afraid that raises the question of just how the theory of > creationism "predicts observed events." Got any ideas? Creation by LORD GOD Almighty would simply be the truth. GOD creating all things seen and unseen effectively predicts everything. All praises and glory to the LORD, Whom I love with all my heart, soul, mind and strength. Marana tha ! Still praying for you, dear Don. Prayerfully in Christ's amazing love, Andrew http://tinyurl.com/m3gnu > > >> <snip> > > >>> Theories are formulated to be either rejected and replaced with a [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > "A plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of > principles offered to explain phenomena." Parroting the words doesn't mean you understand them. > > I've worked with docs like you and seen the results. > > Without the LORD, all your experiences are meaningless (Ecclesiastes). It's funny how you can't actually explain the mechanics of that. > > <snip> > > > Theories are formulated to be either rejected and replaced with a new [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > You remind me of the blind man who would feign vision among the seeing > by pretending to evaluate their visual acuity. Oops, Andy's still grasping at invisible straws. > > <snip> > > > Theories are formulated to be either rejected and replaced with a new [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > You remind me of the blind man who would feign vision among the seeing > by pretending to evaluate their visual acuity. You remind me of the child who insists that Santa Claus is "real", even after discovering Mom and Dad putting presents under the tree. BTW - does Mrs. Chung still reside with you? GG >> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/06/15/wlab15.xml&sShee t=/news/2006/06/15/ixnews.html >> > > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Yes, because there is much uncertainty in science, which is the search > for the truth which continues to elude non-Christian scientists. No, it is just how science works, nothing to do with religion. >> That's because, unlike the certainty that derives from the >> voices in your head, > > Actually, during my continued walk with Christ, HE has been keeping me > completely well. Really, then how come you lost privledges at your hospital, effectively ensuring that you can't practice medicine? And I challenge your statement about being completely well. Someone who goes so completely off the deep end, to the point that they loose their job, has a serious mental illness, get help. > All thanks and praises and glory to LORD GOD Almighty, Whom I love with > all my heart, soul, mind and strength. That's nice, why don't you keep it too yourself, and stop bothering everybody. >> science understands that its knowledge is provisional >> and subject to further revision or even refutation. > > For this reason, true scientists have rejected Darwin's TOE. No, you are lying, or seriously demented, the TOE is accepted by real scientists. > Theories are formulated to be either rejected and replaced with a new > theory or promoted to Law when proven to be true. Bullshit, learn what a theory is, in the scientific world. A theory is the strongest possible support in science. It is still falsifiable, but hasn't been yet. >> > There is no mention of hybrid speciation in Darwin's Theory of >> > Evolution as presented in his book "The Origin of Species." [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > which the LORD GOD Almighty promises to be the rest of eternity with > HIM. No, it's just one branch of religion, of many, many different variants. You, on the other hand, are showing strong signs of mental illness, get help. > All praises and glory to GOD, now and forever. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Only because the LORD wills it. Whatever >> Over >> time, the body of scientific knowledge tends to coalesce and become more [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > permitted mules. Darwin's Mother Nature had nothing do with any of > this because she does not exist. Neither does your god >> Religion, on the other hand, looks backward in time, depending on myths, >> legends, and political tracts that were written back in the Bronze Age. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > That is what happens when folks lose sight of the truth. Yes (pointed look at Andrew B. Chung) >> > No such thing as Mother Nature as Darwin has posited. Please forgive >> > all my iniquities. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > It remains my personal choice to continue walking with Christ, Whom I > love with all my being. That's nice, why don't you keep it too yourself and stop bothering the adults. >> BTW - could you provide a cite for where Darwin posited "Mother Nature"? >> I [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > http://tinyurl.com/jp4kt Religious crap snipped > Ex-Cardiologist, Atlanta, Georgia, USA > http://tinyurl.com/m3gnu > >> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/06/15/wlab15.xml&sShee t=/news/2006/06/15/ixnews.html > >> > > [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > Really, then how come you lost privledges at your hospital, effectively > ensuring that you can't practice medicine? I have never lost hospital priviledges. Truth is simple. All praise and glory to LORD GOD Almighty, Whom I love with all my heart soul, mind, and strength. You will be in my prayers, dear Robert. Prayerfully in Christ's amazing love, Andrew http://tinyurl.com/m3gnu > > >> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/06/15/wlab15.xml&sShee t=/news/2006/06/15/ixnews.html > > >> > > [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > I have never lost hospital priviledges. Prove it. Evidence has already been presented that you're lying. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/06/15/wlab15.xml&sShee t=/news/2006/06/15/ixnews.html > > > >> > > or, http://tinyurl.com/r45m7 > > > >> > > [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > Prove it. Evidence has already been presented that you're lying. It's likely he never had hospital privileges granted. He was fired from his first and only job after only 88 days. And he's been such a failure and a flake in Atlanta that no hospital will grant him privileges. GG It seems to me I heard somewhere that Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote in article <1150435997.824700.109880@y41g2000cwy.googlegroups.com>: >> Really, then how come you lost privledges at your hospital, effectively >> ensuring that you can't practice medicine? Then I assume you have a truthful explanation for the fact that at one time you listed yourself as having privileges at three Atlanta area hospitals and now list yourself as having none. SignatureDon Kirkman > It seems to me I heard somewhere that Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote in > article <1150435997.824700.109880@y41g2000cwy.googlegroups.com>: [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > time you listed yourself as having privileges at three Atlanta area > hospitals and now list yourself as having none. Asked and answered long ago. Some physician profiling databases automatically gather hospital privilege information while others make it voluntary to be provided by the physicians. For those databases where it is an option, I have elected to not disclose the hospitals where I have privileges. Truth is simple. Still praying for you, dear Don. Prayerfully in Christ's amazing love, Andrew http://tinyurl.com/m3gnu It seems to me I heard somewhere that Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote in article <1150502877.198968.17380@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>: >> It seems to me I heard somewhere that Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote in >> article <1150435997.824700.109880@y41g2000cwy.googlegroups.com>: >> >> Really, then how come you lost privledges at your hospital, effectively >> >> ensuring that you can't practice medicine? >> Then I assume you have a truthful explanation for the fact that at one >> time you listed yourself as having privileges at three Atlanta area >> hospitals and now list yourself as having none. >Asked and answered long ago. > Some physician profiling databases automatically gather hospital >privilege information while others make it voluntary to be provided by >the physicians. For those databases where it is an option, I have >elected to not disclose the hospitals where I have privileges. If you had privileges, then, they should appear in those databases that "automatically gather hospital privilege information" though in fact I'm not aware of any that do not have disclaimers that their information is submitted by the subject himself. I'm not talking about databases in general, I'm talking about the Georgia Composite Medical Board Web site, where at one time you were reporting admitting privileges in three hospitals and afterwards stopped reporting them when you were challenged. That database makes clear that the Board takes no responsibility for the accuracy of the information. Your response seems to be the first time you have implied that you actually have privileges since you removed that information from the GCMB site. I infer that you don't. SignatureDon Kirkman > It seems to me I heard somewhere that Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote in > article <1150502877.198968.17380@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>: [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > actually have privileges since you removed that information from the > GCMB site. I infer that you don't. Most assuredly, I have never provided hospital privileges information for the GCMB site. For this reason, all claims by you and others that the GCMB site has ever listed any hospital privileges information about me have been untrue. Though the GCMB takes no responsibility for the accuracy of the information, they do prosecute physicians who provide false information. Providing no information is not providing false information. It is a quirk of the GCMB site to indicate that the physician has no hospital privileges when no hospital privileges information has been provided to them. In summary, if your claim were true, I would no longer have an active license in Georgia. However, it should be obvious to the most casual observer that I remain licensed in good standing in the state of Georgia. Bottomline: You remain untruthful. Still praying for you, dear Don. Prayerfully in Christ's amazing love, Andrew B. Chung Cardiologist, Atlanta, Georgia, USA GA Med Lic# 040347 http://tinyurl.com/m3gnu It seems to me I heard somewhere that Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote in article <1150542055.062655.247160@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>: >> It seems to me I heard somewhere that Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote in >> article <1150502877.198968.17380@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>: >> >> It seems to me I heard somewhere that Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote in >> >> article <1150435997.824700.109880@y41g2000cwy.googlegroups.com>: >> >> >> Really, then how come you lost privledges at your hospital, effectively >> >> >> ensuring that you can't practice medicine? >> >> Then I assume you have a truthful explanation for the fact that at one >> >> time you listed yourself as having privileges at three Atlanta area >> >> hospitals and now list yourself as having none. >> >Asked and answered long ago. Being asked again, hoping for a more accurate answer. >> > Some physician profiling databases automatically gather hospital >> >privilege information while others make it voluntary to be provided by >> >the physicians. For those databases where it is an option, I have >> >elected to not disclose the hospitals where I have privileges. Neither the AMA or the GCMB gather this automatically, nor do they make it voluntary. The GCMB page says the law *requires* physicians to provide accurate information. >> If you had privileges, then, they should appear in those databases that >> "automatically gather hospital privilege information" though in fact I'm >> not aware of any that do not have disclaimers that their information is >> submitted by the subject himself. >> I'm not talking about databases in general, I'm talking about the >> Georgia Composite Medical Board Web site, where at one time you were >> reporting admitting privileges in three hospitals and afterwards stopped >> reporting them when you were challenged. I was in error for writing this but not for believing it to be true. My research continues. >For this reason, all claims by you and others that the GCMB site has >ever listed any hospital privileges information about me have been [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >physician has no hospital privileges when no hospital privileges >information has been provided to them. However, the GCMB site indicates you *have* provided information: "This physician has reported that he/she does not currently hold staff privileges at any hospital." Note that this says you provided the information and have reported that you do not have privileges at *any* hospital. Either your "no privileges" statement is false, or that you have not provided information to GCMB, as you strongly imply, is false. They cannot both be true. >In summary, if your claim were true, I would no longer have an active >license in Georgia. However, it should be obvious to the most casual >observer that I remain licensed in good standing in the state of >Georgia. Your AMA profile might clear up some issues and raise others: [Begin] The information contained in the AMA DoctorFinder report does NOT meet the primary source equivalency requirement as set forth in the credentialing standards of accreditation organizations such as the Joint Commission on the Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations (JCAHO) or the National Committee for Quality Assurance (NCQA). AMA members must adhere to the AMA's Principles of Medical Ethics Andrew Benhua Chung , MD Primary Specialty (Self Designated)(note): CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASES Secondary Specialties(note): INTERNAL MEDICINE Gender: Male Languages: CHINESE Location: Mableton, GA 30126 Office Phone: 404- Fax: 404- Office Hours: Day Open Close Monday 9:00 AM 5:00 PM Tuesday 9:00 AM 5:00 PM Wednesday 9:00 AM 5:00 PM Thursday 9:00 AM 5:00 PM Friday 9:00 AM 5:00 PM Saturday 9:00 AM 12:00 AM Sunday Accepts New Patients: Yes <The following appear in a column to the right of the ones above> Hospital Admitting Privileges: V A Med Ctr Atlanta, Decatur, GA Piedmont Hosp, Atlanta, GA Crawford Long Hosp, Atlanta, GA Accepts Medicare: Yes Accepts Medicaid: Yes Accepts Worker's Comp: Yes Medical School: EMORY UNIV SCH OF MED, ATLANTA GA 30322 Residency Training: EMORY UNIV SCH OF MED, CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASES EMORY UNIV SCH OF MED, INTERNAL MEDICINE Major Professional Activity: OFFICE BASED PRACTICE Practice Philosophy or Description: Primum non nocere. American Board of Medical Specialties Certification: Copyright 2005 American Board of Medical Specialties. All rights reserved. Internal Medicine Key Professional Achievements and Awards: Poster Presentation (1997), Research Fellowship Grant (1996), American Society of Hypertension Recipient (1995), American College of Physicians Clinical Vignette Oral Presentation Award [End] >Bottomline: You remain untruthful. The GCMB details page begins with this position statement: "Disclaimer: This information has been provided by the physician and has not been verified by the board. The Patient Right to Know Act *requires* physicians licensed to practice in the State of Georgia to provide certain information to the Board that is to be made available to the public. The Board relies upon information provided by physicians to be true and correct, as required by statute. It is an act of unprofessional conduct for a licensee to provide erroneous information to the Board. The Board makes no warranty or guarantee concerning the accuracy or completeness of physician profiles." The AMA page says "AMA members must adhere to the AMA's Principles of Medical Ethics." A directory Web page search at both Emory Crawford Long Hospital and Piedmont Hospital, two of the Atlanta hospitals for which you claim admitting privileges on your AMA CV, does not locate you at either one. There is strong evidence that at one time you applied to both, but I've found no evidence that the application process was completed. Your Board certification information on the AMA page shows only one for internal medicine, not for cardiology or for, what was the other one that came up somewhere, hypertension? I know your cardiology certification is valid, but why isn't it on your AMA page? One or the other of the databases has erroneous information; both indicate that their information is supplied by physicians, not from other sources. Which one has the truth? I was in error for writing before completing my verification. However, perhaps you should clarify why you have reported to the AMA that you have privileges at three hospitals and tell the Georgia folks you don't have privileges at any hospital. SignatureDon Kirkman > It seems to me I heard somewhere that Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote in > article <1150542055.062655.247160@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>: [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > Neither the AMA or the GCMB gather this automatically, nor do they make > it voluntary. Actually, the AMA Masterfile is generated automatically. > The GCMB page says the law *requires* physicians to > provide accurate information. And, I have provided the mandatory information and what has been provided is accurate. > >> If you had privileges, then, they should appear in those databases that > >> "automatically gather hospital privilege information" though in fact I'm [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > I was in error for writing this but not for believing it to be true. My > research continues. You joined others in bearing false witness. This is a sin and not innocent error. > >For this reason, all claims by you and others that the GCMB site has > >ever listed any hospital privileges information about me have been [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > physician has reported that he/she does not currently hold staff > privileges at any hospital." Again, this is a quirk of the GCMB site where apparently the web programmers made the assumption that physicians would always want to publicize their privileges so that if a physician does not provide the information, it automatically means s/he does not have any privileges. > Note that this says you provided the > information and have reported that you do not have privileges at *any* > hospital. Either your "no privileges" statement is false, or that you > have not provided information to GCMB, as you strongly imply, is false. > They cannot both be true. Correct. The latter is true. The former is untrue because I have not informed GCMB that I have "no privileges." See above. > >In summary, if your claim were true, I would no longer have an active > >license in Georgia. However, it should be obvious to the most casual [quoted text clipped - 109 lines] > Piedmont Hospital, two of the Atlanta hospitals for which you claim > admitting privileges on your AMA CV, does not locate you at either one. Again, unlike the GCMB site, such information is automatically gathered and verified by the AMA. > There is strong evidence that at one time you applied to both, but I've > found no evidence that the application process was completed. In truth, I have admitted and rounded on patients in all the hospitals listed on the AMA web site. > Your Board certification information on the AMA page shows only one for > internal medicine, not for cardiology or for, what was the other one > that came up somewhere, hypertension? I know your cardiology > certification is valid, but why isn't it on your AMA page? Quirk of the AMA web site of gathering its own information about such things including hospital privileges. Apparently, their web programmers did not recognize that a physician can have more than one board certification. There is no board certification in hypertension. > One or the other of the databases has erroneous information; both > indicate that their information is supplied by physicians, not from > other sources. Which one has the truth? Their disclaimers of liability would indicate that neither can be held to the truth. > I was in error for writing before completing my verification. However, > perhaps you should clarify why you have reported to the AMA that you > have privileges at three hospitals and tell the Georgia folks you don't > have privileges at any hospital. It remains my choice to be truthful. Still praying for you, dear Don. Prayerfully in Christ's amazing love, Andrew http://tinyurl.com/m3gnu It seems to me I heard somewhere that Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote in article <1150592934.379928.54350@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>: >> It seems to me I heard somewhere that Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote in >> article <1150542055.062655.247160@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>: >> >> It seems to me I heard somewhere that Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote in >> >> article <1150502877.198968.17380@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>: >> >> >> It seems to me I heard somewhere that Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote in >> >> >> article <1150435997.824700.109880@y41g2000cwy.googlegroups.com>: >> >> >> Then I assume you have a truthful explanation for the fact that at one >> >> >> time you listed yourself as having privileges at three Atlanta area >> >> >> hospitals and now list yourself as having none. >> >> >Asked and answered long ago. >> Being asked again, hoping for a more accurate answer. >> >> > Some physician profiling databases automatically gather hospital >> >> >privilege information while others make it voluntary to be provided by >> >> >the physicians. For those databases where it is an option, I have >> >> >elected to not disclose the hospitals where I have privileges. >> Neither the AMA or the GCMB gather this automatically, nor do they make >> it voluntary. >Actually, the AMA Masterfile is generated automatically. Yes, you are correct; they state that they gather from a variety of sources, and note: "The database of physician information which drives AMA DoctorFinder does not contain sufficient information with which to verify physician credentials under the standards of the Joint Commission (JCAHO), National Committee for Quality Assurance (NCQA) or the Utilization Review Accreditation Committee (URAC). " >> The GCMB page says the law *requires* physicians to >> provide accurate information. >And, I have provided the mandatory information and what has been >provided is accurate. And your info page at GCMB says you provided information that you have no privileges at any hospital. Either you have allowed incorrect information to remain on the AMA page or you have provided false information (or failed to provide any information) to Georgia. You have at least an ethical and moral duty to correct any false information with the AMA and according to GCMA you have a legal obligation to provide them with correct information. >> >For this reason, all claims by you and others that the GCMB site has >> >ever listed any hospital privileges information about me have been [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> >physician has no hospital privileges when no hospital privileges >> >information has been provided to them. But as I wrote: >> However, the GCMB site indicates you *have* provided information: "This >> physician has reported that he/she does not currently hold staff >> privileges at any hospital." >Again, this is a quirk of the GCMB site where apparently the web >programmers made the assumption that physicians would always want to >publicize their privileges so that if a physician does not provide the >information, it automatically means s/he does not have any privileges. Management staff, not programmers, make policy for the quality of what is contained on a commercial or organizational web site. That page is not for doctors who "want to publicize their privileges," it is to provide information to patients and potential consumers of services. Withholding or falsifying that information does not serve the purposes of the site. >> Note that this says you provided the >> information and have reported that you do not have privileges at *any* >> hospital. Either your "no privileges" statement is false, or that you >> have not provided information to GCMB, as you strongly imply, is false. >> They cannot both be true. >Correct. The latter is true. The former is untrue because I have not >informed GCMB that I have "no privileges." See above. It's your word against theirs whether or not you provided information to them; I'll take their word. The "latter," which you say is true, is of course "that you have not provided information . . . is false." I can accept that. >> >In summary, if your claim were true, I would no longer have an active >> >license in Georgia. However, it should be obvious to the most casual >> >observer that I remain licensed in good standing in the state of >> >Georgia. Which claim are you referring to? That GCMA says you provided them information that you have no privileges? >> The GCMB details page begins with this position statement: >> "Disclaimer: This information has been provided by the physician and has >> not been verified by the board. The Patient Right to Know Act *requires* [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> The Board makes no warranty or guarantee concerning the accuracy or >> completeness of physician profiles." >> There is strong evidence that at one time you applied to both, but I've >> found no evidence that the application process was completed. >In truth, I have admitted and rounded on patients in all the hospitals >listed on the AMA web site. The issue is whether you currently are credentialed to do that, not whether you did it as a student years ago. >Their disclaimers of liability would indicate that neither can be held >to the truth. To the truth of the information, not to the truth of their own assertions. They make clear that the information comes from other sources, the physician himself in the case of Georgia. >> I was in error for writing before completing my verification. However, >> perhaps you should clarify why you have reported to the AMA that you >> have privileges at three hospitals and tell the Georgia folks you don't >> have privileges at any hospital. SignatureDon Kirkman > It seems to me I heard somewhere that Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote in > article <1150592934.379928.54350@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>: [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > (JCAHO), National Committee for Quality Assurance (NCQA) or the > Utilization Review Accreditation Committee (URAC). " Bottomline: There is no truth in you. If you wish to become truthful, all you need to do is publicly declare (usenet is very public) that Jesus Christ is your LORD, your Savior, and your GOD. If you do not, all further discussion with you will be meaningless (Ecclesiastes). "I am the way, the truth, and the life... " -- LORD Jesus Christ (John 14:6) That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is LORD," and believe in your heart that GOD raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved. (Romans 10:9-10) Marana tha ! Still praying for you, dear Don. Prayerfully in Christ's amazing love, Andrew http://tinyurl.com/m3gnu > >> The GCMB page says the law *requires* physicians to > >> provide accurate information. [quoted text clipped - 92 lines] > >> have privileges at three hospitals and tell the Georgia folks you don't > >> have privileges at any hospital. > > It seems to me I heard somewhere that Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote in > > article <1150592934.379928.54350@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>: [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > Bottomline: There is no truth in you. Or, more accurately, "La-la-la-la...I can't *hear* you!". > If you wish to become truthful, all you need to do is publicly declare > (usenet is very pubic) that Jesus Christ is your LORD, your Savior, > and your GOD. > > If you do not, all further discussion with you will be meaningless > (Ecclesiastes). Or, more accurately, "If you don't share my delusions, I won't listen to you." GG > "I am the way, the truth, and the life... " -- LORD Jesus Christ (John > 14:6) [quoted text clipped - 109 lines] > > >> have privileges at three hospitals and tell the Georgia folks you don't > > >> have privileges at any hospital. > > > It seems to me I heard somewhere that Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote in > > > article <1150592934.379928.54350@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>: [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > > Or, more accurately, "La-la-la-la...I can't *hear* you!". You also are without the truth. Still praying for you, dear GaryG. Prayerfully in Christ's amazing love, Andrew http://tinyurl.com/m3gnu > > http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/06/15/wlab15.xml&sShee t=/news/2006/06/15/ixnews.html > > > > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Yes, because there is much uncertainty in science, which is the search > for the truth which continues to elude non-Christian scientists. Really? How is ... oh say, the search in materials science for a quantum level description with predictive power looking for something which eludes only non-Christian scientists? In what manner is pursuing room-temperature superconduction a search for something that only non-Christian scientists are missing? > > That's because, unlike the certainty that derives from the > > voices in your head, [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > For this reason, true scientists have rejected Darwin's TOE. Funny, I just attended four lecture by paleontologist Simon Conway Morris, a noted writer on evolution who also wears his Christian beliefs on his sleeve. Given the early age at which Conway Morris was elected to the Royal Society -- or simply given his incisive interpratations of the Burgess Shales and similar Cambrian fossils, for that matter -- I'd say he was a "true scientist" > Theories are formulated to be either rejected and replaced with a new > theory or promoted to Law when proven to be true. Nothing in science is ever proven to be true. Newton's laws of motion turned out to be only the limiting case. The Law of Conservation of Energy was found to be incomplete. Theories are as high in the conjecture/hypothesis/theory heirarchy as you can get. > > > There is no mention of hybrid speciation in Darwin's Theory of > > > Evolution as presented in his book "The Origin of Species." [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > permitted mules. Darwin's Mother Nature had nothing do with any of > this because she does not exist. And where does Darwin use the phrase "Mother Nature", pray tell? Here, one example will suffice: -- cary > > > http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/06/15/wlab15.xml&sShee t=/news/2006/06/15/ixnews.html > > > > > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Really? Yes. Truth is simple. All praise and glory to LORD GOD Almighty, Whom I love with all my being. Still praying for your tortured soul, dear Cary. Prayerfully in Christ's amazing love, Andrew http://tinyurl.com/m3gnu > > > > http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/06/15/wlab15.xml&sShee t=/news/2006/06/15/ixnews.html > > > > > > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > All praise and glory to LORD GOD Almighty, Whom I love with all my > being. Did the LORD GOD Almighty advise you that your best strategy was to snip, and thus avoid, answering my question? Me, I think better of Him than that, so I imagine it was just evasiveness on your part, bordering perhaps even on dishonesty. But hey, I'll give you a chance to prove me wrong. Ready? Here we go: > Yes, because there is much uncertainty in science, which is the > search for the truth which continues to elude non-Christian > scientists. Really? How is ... oh say, the search in materials science for a quantum level description with predictive power looking for something which eludes only non-Christian scientists? In what manner is pursuing room-temperature superconduction a search for something that only non- Christian scientists are missing? Oooh, wait, lookie here: here's another one you seem to inadvertently overlooked. Care to comment on it this time around?: > Theories are formulated to be either rejected and replaced with a new > theory or promoted to Law when proven to be true. Nothing in science is ever proven to be true. Newton's laws of motion turned out to be only the limiting case. The Law of Conservation of Energy was found to be incomplete. Theories are as high in the conjecture/hypothesis/theory heirarchy as you can get. Oh my goodness, there's a THIRD!! Imagine that. This one, in fact, appears to border on outright lying on Andrew's part. Want to erase that impression?: > Actually, it does not. The mating of two different species to create a > new species occurred because GOD permitted humans to do this just as he > permitted mules. Darwin's Mother Nature had nothing do with any of > this because she does not exist. And where does Darwin use the phrase "Mother Nature", pray tell? Here, one example will suffice: -- cary > > > > > http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/06/15/wlab15.xml&sShee t=/news/2006/06/15/ixnews.html > > > > > > > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > Did the LORD GOD Almighty advise you that your best strategy was > to snip, and thus avoid, answering my question? The Holy Spirit continues to guide me in everything I say, do, and write. > Me, I think better of Him than that, so I imagine it was > just evasiveness on your part, bordering perhaps even on > dishonesty. Actually, it seems you think more about your own words, holding them as sacred. Without the LORD, all your questions are meaningless (Ecclesiastes). If you truly seek answers to the questions you are asking, you may find them by surfing the link below my sig with a discerning heart. Still praying for your poor tortured soul, dear Cary. Prayerfully in Christ's amazing love, Andrew http://tinyurl.com/m3gnu > > > > > > http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/06/15/wlab15.xml&sShee t=/news/2006/06/15/ixnews.html > > > > > > > > [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > The Holy Spirit continues to guide me in everything I say, do, and > write. Provide objective, verifiable evidence you haven't been deceived by Satan. > > > > > > http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/06/15/wlab15.xml&sShee t=/news/2006/06/15/ixnews.html > > > > > > > > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > > All praise and glory to LORD GOD Almighty, Whom I love with all my > > > being. > > Did the LORD GOD Almighty advise you that your best strategy was > > to snip, and thus avoid, answering my question? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > just evasiveness on your part, bordering perhaps even on > > dishonesty. > Actually, it seems you think more about your own words, holding them as > sacred. Actually, it more than "seems" that you can't answer my questions, and so you're dodging and weaving, meanwhile trying to slap a quick coat of sanctimony over your retreat to make it seem like something less tawdry than it is. Your blatant evasion hardly makes anyone here reflect "If that's how serving his god leads him to act, than I want to be more like that". God's witnesses should more honest. -- cary http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/06/15/wlab15.xml&sShee t=/news/2006/06/15/ixnews.html > > > > > > > > > or, http://tinyurl.com/r45m7 > > > > > > > > > [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > you're dodging and weaving, meanwhile trying to slap a quick coat of sanctimony > over your retreat to make it seem like something less tawdry than it is. Andy often resorts to that childish tactic when challenged. As if the record of his cowardice isn't fully documented in the Google archives. But, hey, it's OK because the voices in his head told him that's what he should do. GG > Your blatant evasion hardly makes anyone here reflect "If that's how serving > his god leads him to act, than I want to be more like that". > > God's witnesses should more honest. > > -- cary |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.