 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Cardiology / January 2008Vascular events in healthy older women receiving calcium supplementation: randomised controlled trial
BMJ, doi:10.1136/bmj.39440.525752.BE (published 15 January 2008) Research Vascular events in healthy older women receiving calcium supplementation: randomised controlled trial Mark J Bolland, research fellow1, P Alan Barber, senior lecturer1, Robert N Doughty, associate professor1, Barbara Mason, research officer1, Anne Horne, research fellow1, Ruth Ames, research officer1, Gregory D Gamble, research fellow1, Andrew Grey, associate professor1, Ian R Reid, professor1 1 Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences, University of Auckland, Private Bag 92019, Auckland, New Zealand Correspondence to: I R Reid i.reid@auckland.ac.nz Abstract Objective To determine the effect of calcium supplementation on myocardial infarction, stroke, and sudden death in healthy postmenopausal women. Design Randomised, placebo controlled trial. Setting Academic medical centre in an urban setting in New Zealand. Participants 1471 postmenopausal women (mean age 74): 732 were randomised to calcium supplementation and 739 to placebo. Main outcome measures Adverse cardiovascular events over five years: death, sudden death, myocardial infarction, angina, other chest pain, stroke, transient ischaemic attack, and a composite end point of myocardial infarction, stroke, or sudden death. Results Myocardial infarction was more commonly reported in the calcium group than in the placebo group (45 events in 31 women v 19 events in 14 women, P=0.01). The composite end point of myocardial infarction, stroke, or sudden death was also more common in the calcium group (101 events in 69 women v 54 events in 42 women, P=0.008). After adjudication myocardial infarction remained more common in the calcium group (24 events in 21 women v 10 events in 10 women, relative risk 2.12, 95% confidence interval 1.01 to 4.47). For the composite end point 61 events were verified in 51 women in the calcium group and 36 events in 35 women in the placebo group (relative risk 1.47, 0.97 to 2.23). When unreported events were added from the national database of hospital admissions in New Zealand the relative risk of myocardial infarction was 1.49 (0.86 to 2.57) and that of the composite end point was 1.21 (0.84 to 1.74). The respective rate ratios were 1.67 (95% confidence intervals 0.98 to 2.87) and 1.43 (1.01 to 2.04); event rates: placebo 16.3/1000 person years, calcium 23.3/1000 person years. For stroke (including unreported events) the relative risk was 1.37 (0.83 to 2.28) and the rate ratio was 1.45 (0.88 to 2.49). Conclusion Calcium supplementation in healthy postmenopausal women is associated with upward trends in cardiovascular event rates. This potentially detrimental effect should be balanced against the likely benefits of calcium on bone. Trial registration Australian Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN 012605000242628. > BMJ, doi:10.1136/bmj.39440.525752.BE (published 15 January 2008) > [quoted text clipped - 57 lines] > Trial registration Australian Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN > 012605000242628. An alternate more plausible explanation is that the carbohydrates (sugar/starch) in the placebo tablets had a CV protective effect for the women in the placebo group because of background harmful carbohydrate deficiency (hyperketonemia increases lipid peroxidation) from the current high prevalence of low-carb dieting especially in women to lose weight Be hungry... be healthy... be hungrier... be blessed: http://TheWellnessFoundation.com/BeHealthy Prayerfully in the infinite power and might of the Holy Spirit, Andrew <>< -- Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD Lawful steward of http://EmoryCardiology.com Bondservant to the KING of kings and LORD of lords. On Jan 16, 7:33 am, "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <heartdo...@emorycardiology.com> wrote: > > BMJ, doi:10.1136/bmj.39440.525752.BE (published 15 January 2008) > [quoted text clipped - 64 lines] > from the current high prevalence of low-carb dieting especially in > women to lose weight Wow. You think there is a high prevalence of low carb-dieting in women, average age 74? In the general population, generous estimates of carb watchers (as opposed to ketogenic dieters) is maybe 20%. I would guess that when you get up into Boniva territory, you're talking a much lower incidence. In other words, I think you're off your rocker and talking out of the wrong end. But you knew that already and everyone who knows you knew that. PS- If you're employing people now, rather than working, what are you using for capital to pay these "employees" with. If they're working for free, they aren't employees. They're volunteers. Or cultists. Either way. satan via a sockpuppet (corporeal demon) hissed: > Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote: > > [quoted text clipped - 72 lines] > maybe 20%. I would guess that when you get up into Boniva > territory, you're talking a much lower incidence. This would still be high. Using your 20% figure considering the source being you, who are the source of all lies, with an eye toward it being a conservatively low-ball figure would still mean nearly 300 women (a fifth of 1500) counting carbs. This easily allows plenty of room for a 17 women differential to achieve the statistical effect observed in this study. Bottom line: You are the liar and murderer described in Scripture. Many thanks, much praise, and all the glory to GOD for HIS compelling you to unwittingly provide the proof that you remain the liar and murderer you have been from the outset as it is written in the Bible. May we, who are Jesus' brethren, continue to rebuke you at each GOD- given opportunity in the manner and with the timing that GOD wants: http://HeartMDPhD.com/Convicts/Rebukesatan <>< May dear neighbors, friends, and brethren have a blessedly wonderful 2008th year since the birth of our LORD Jesus Christ as the Son of Man ... ... by being hungrier: http://TruthRUS.org/KnowingGOD Hunger is wonderful :-) It's how we know what GOD wants, which is what is good. Yes, hunger is our knowledge of good versus evil that Adam and Eve paid for with their and our immortal lives. Those who suffer from the powerful delusion predicted by the prophecy of 2 Thessalonians 2:9-11 would deny this and perish however: http://HeartMDPhD.com/Convicts/CrazyOne http://HeartMDPhD.com/Convicts/CrazyTwo http://HeartMDPhD.com/Convicts/CrazyThree http://HeartMDPhD.com/Convicts/CrazyFour Be hungry... be healthy... be hungrier... be blessed: http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit/BeBlessed "Blessed are you who hunger NOW... ... for you will be satisfied." -- LORD Jesus Christ (Luke 6:21) Amen. Prayerfully in the infinite power and might of the Holy Spirit, Andrew <>< -- Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD Lawful steward of http://EmoryCardiology.com Bondservant to the KING of kings and LORD of lords. On Jan 16, 9:02 am, "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <heartdo...@emorycardiology.com> wrote: > satan via a sockpuppet (corporeal demon) hissed: > [quoted text clipped - 81 lines] > room for a 17 women differential to achieve the statistical effect > observed in this study. So, not only are you deluded, but you cannot read and are a moron as well. My 20% figure was generous, not conservative. So, you cannot read. As a proven liar yourself, you should act as if you live in a glass house, when calling others liars. Lastly, I suggested that low carb would tend to be LOWER in an older population, it being against the common idiocy of the last 30 years and the study women being liable to believe that idiocy over new science/idiocy. So, if you use the conservative number of 10%, and then cut it to 25% of that, you get 2.5% 2.5% of ~750 is.... 18-19 women in the whole non-placebo group, and about the same in the placebo group. Theoretically possible to cover your 17 events, except for... the FACT that any LC adherents are as liable to be in the treatment group as the placebo group. If you think that 2g of sugar pill is going to move ALL of the LC adherents from the vascular nonevent to vascular event category, you clearly don't know what you speak of. But everyone knew that already. > Bottom line: > > You are the liar and murderer described in Scripture. Pretend you live in a glass house. You do. satan via a sockpuppet (corporeal demon) hissed: > Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote: > > satan via a sockpuppet (corporeal demon) hissed: [quoted text clipped - 84 lines] > So, not only are you deluded, but you cannot read and are a moron > as well. Many thanks, much praise, and all the glory to GOD for HIS compelling you to unwittingly concede thereby resulting in your utter defeat. Laus Deo ! ! ! May we, who are Jesus' brethren ever-victorious in HIM, continue to rebuke you at each GOD-given opportunity as GOD wants: http://HeartMDPhD.com/Convicts/Rebukesatan <>< May dear neighbors, friends, and brethren have a blessedly wonderful 2008th year since the birth of our LORD Jesus Christ as the Son of Man ... ... by being hungrier: http://TruthRUS.org/KnowingGOD Hunger is wonderful :-) It's how we know what GOD wants, which is what is good. Yes, hunger is our knowledge of good versus evil that Adam and Eve paid for with their and our immortal lives. Those who suffer from the powerful delusion predicted by the prophecy of 2 Thessalonians 2:9-11 would deny this and perish however: http://HeartMDPhD.com/Convicts/CrazyOne http://HeartMDPhD.com/Convicts/CrazyTwo http://HeartMDPhD.com/Convicts/CrazyThree http://HeartMDPhD.com/Convicts/CrazyFour Be hungry... be healthy... be hungrier... be blessed: http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit/BeBlessed "Blessed are you who hunger NOW... ... for you will be satisfied." -- LORD Jesus Christ (Luke 6:21) Amen. Prayerfully in the infinite power and might of the Holy Spirit, Andrew <>< -- Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD Lawful steward of http://EmoryCardiology.com Bondservant to the KING of kings and LORD of lords. On Jan 17, 10:03 pm, "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <heartdo...@emorycardiology.com> wrote: > satan via a sockpuppet (corporeal demon) hissed: > [quoted text clipped - 89 lines] > Many thanks, much praise, and all the glory to GOD for HIS compelling > you to unwittingly concede thereby resulting in your utter defeat. Uhm what part of describing your delusions, inability to read and generally moronic nature would you describe as concession? Again. For the slow one in the group: A very GENEROUS (meaning: giving, or in this case LIBERAL) interpretation would show a 20% prevalence in the general population of people who watch carbs. I specifically noted that there is a difference between "watching carbs" and pursuing a ketogenic diet. If you want an example, a carb watcher maybe switches to unbreaded hot wings to accompany his regular beers at the bar on Sunday, while a ketogenic dieter probably has unbreaded hotwings, eats the veggies, and the blue cheese dressing, and slowly nurses a low carb lite beer. Maybe he has a salad as well. This is above you, since you're against eating, in general. A CONSERVATIVE estimate puts low carb eating at about 10%, with a smaller portion being ketogenic. A person who has spent time with elderly women might notice a lower incidence of ketogenic dieting. All tolled, your assertation that sugar pills made the difference in the population due to unbalancing ketogenic dieting in a population of 700+ little old ladies is pattently absurd. On the face and upon deeper examination. We'd expect no less from someone who has reached their delusions from years of hunger. You should find your nearest desert and roam for 40 days. Perhaps the Lord will talk to you for real at that time. satan via a sockpuppet (corporeal demon) hissed: > Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote: > > satan via a sockpuppet (corporeal demon) hissed: [quoted text clipped - 92 lines] > Uhm what part of describing your delusions, inability to read and > generally moronic nature would you describe as concession? Name-calling is an automatic and apparenty unwitting concession for you, satan, as it is for those who would unwisely follow you to annihilation. May we, who are Jesus' brethren, continue to rebuke you at each GOD- given opportunity as GOD wants: http://HeartMDPhD.com/Convicts/Rebukesatan <>< May dear neighbors, friends, and brethren have a blessedly wonderful 2008th year since the birth of our LORD Jesus Christ as the Son of Man ... ... by being hungrier: http://TruthRUS.org/KnowingGOD Hunger is wonderful :-) It's how we know what GOD wants, which is what is good. Yes, hunger is our knowledge of good versus evil that Adam and Eve paid for with their and our immortal lives. Those who suffer from the powerful delusion predicted by the prophecy of 2 Thessalonians 2:9-11 would deny this and perish however: http://HeartMDPhD.com/Convicts/CrazyOne http://HeartMDPhD.com/Convicts/CrazyTwo http://HeartMDPhD.com/Convicts/CrazyThree http://HeartMDPhD.com/Convicts/CrazyFour Be hungry... be healthy... be hungrier... be blessed: http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit/BeBlessed "Blessed are you who hunger NOW... ... for you will be satisfied." -- LORD Jesus Christ (Luke 6:21) Amen. Prayerfully in the infinite power and might of the Holy Spirit, Andrew <>< -- Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD Lawful steward of http://EmoryCardiology.com Bondservant to the KING of kings and LORD of lords. On Jan 18, 12:02 pm, "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <heartdo...@emorycardiology.com> wrote: > satan via a sockpuppet (corporeal demon) hissed: > [quoted text clipped - 98 lines] > you, satan, as it is for those who would unwisely follow you to > annihilation. 1- Calling me Satan is a bigger name calling than calling out your lack of reading comprehension, your obviously psychopathic tendencies and your general moronic nature. The difference: The things I point out in you are clearly demonstrable. Whereas you merely slander me. I'm not Satan. I'm not even his puppet. He can't have a puppet, because that would imply His reality, and he's as fictional as your Lord, your employer and your reason. 2- Keep starving yourself. I'll keep eating food and shunning carbs. And you'll get to annihilation before me. 3- Keep dodging the content. You still cannot comprehend what you are reading to. Your replies (both what is replied to and what isn't... the negative space of reply if you will) demonstrate this. It's still pattently absurd that sugar pills or low carb dieting had anything to do with the results in this study. Apply Occam's Razor and you will come to the same conclusion as the study's authors. The Razor should appeal to you. It's the simplest explanation, just like you are the simplest troll. > 1- Calling me Satan is a bigger name calling than calling out your > lack of reading comprehension, your obviously psychopathic tendencies [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > that would imply His reality, and he's as fictional as your Lord, your > employer and your reason. Talking to good old Yahoo-Wahoo too much is a sign of Schizophrenia, not Psychopathy or Sociopathy. (Yahoo-Wahoo is another way to say Yahwah, since ancient Hebrew didn't have vowels printed) Not that I mind you making fun of him, I just don't want to misdiagnose him. On Jan 18, 4:02 pm, Nico Kadel-Garcia > Talking to good old Yahoo-Wahoo too much is a sign of Schizophrenia, not Psychopathy or Sociopathy. (Yahoo-Wahoo is another way to say Yahwah, since ancient Hebrew didn't have vowels printed) > > Not that I mind you making fun of him, I just don't want to misdiagnose him. "And everyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but he who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him. [Luke 12:10] > On Jan 18, 4:02 pm, Nico Kadel-Garcia >> Talking to good old Yahoo-Wahoo too much is a sign of Schizophrenia, not Psychopathy or Sociopathy. (Yahoo-Wahoo is another way to say Yahwah, since ancient Hebrew didn't have vowels printed) [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > forgiven him; but he who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit, it will > not be forgiven him. [Luke 12:10] You can shove your Holy Spirit where the sun don't shine, and keep shoving until you choke on it. On Jan 18, 8:52 pm, percy > You can shove your Holy Spirit where the sun don't shine, and keep > shoving until you choke on it. Everyone knows what God did on the 6 days He created the Universe, but what is not known is what he did on the 7th Day when he rested. He had a supper of chopper liver for an appetizer, a large bowl of matzo ball soup and a large corn beef on pumpernickel with mustard, not mayo, and with a big dill pickle and chips and cole slaw and two large pieces of cheese cake and gave a big burp and said "Hunger Sucks" and went back for a third piece of cheese cake. "Hunger Sucks" GOD said on the 7th Day of Creation as he realized he did not create all that meat and vegetables for nothing. Actually God would have preferred to have apple pie instead of cheese cake for supper on the seventh day, but after Adam and Eve, the elves were afraid to make apple pie. On Jan 18, 9:13 pm, andrewbch...@yahoo.com wrote: > On Jan 18, 8:52 pm, percy > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > large pieces of cheese cake and gave a big burp and said "Hunger > Sucks" and went back for a third piece of cheese cake. > imposter@yahoo.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > You can shove your Holy Spirit where the sun don't shine, and keep > shoving until you choke on it. Sad to read about your unwise choice to blaspheme against the Holy Spirit. May others be wiser and choose instead to be forgiven by GOD... http://www.interviewwithgod.com/forgiven/ ... by publicly declaring with their mouths that "Jesus is LORD:" http://TruthRUS.org/Jesus Prayerfully in the infinite power and might of the Holy Spirit, Andrew <>< -- Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD Lawful steward of http://EmoryCardiology.com Bondservant to the KING of kings and LORD of lords. On Jan 18, 10:42 am, Hollywood > You should find your nearest desert and roam for > 40 days. Perhaps the Lord will talk to you for > real at that time. He has. http://emmanuel.godisjesus.net/head-in-sand.jpg > On Jan 18, 10:42 am, Hollywood > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > http://emmanuel.godisjesus.net/head-in-sand.jpg Probably should go back. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD schrieb: >>BMJ, doi:10.1136/bmj.39440.525752.BE (published 15 January 2008) >> [quoted text clipped - 64 lines] > from the current high prevalence of low-carb dieting especially in > women to lose weight This is extremly unlikly for a variety of reasons, some of which have been mentioned by Hollywood. Other reasons include: 1. The amount of sugar or starch in the placebo is so small that a physiological effect is unlikly, even in low-carbers. 2. It is absolutly plausible that a calcium supplement should raise the risk of heart disease, because calcium is an antagonist for magnesium, and magnesium has been linked to a lowered risk of heart disease. Many people get too much calcium and not enough magnesium to begin with. A calcium supplement worsens this, of course. 3. If ketogenic diets were _that_ dangerous, the raise of heart disease should have skyrocketed alongside the "current high prevalence of low-carb dieting". This does not seem to be the case. Thorsten > Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote: > > [quoted text clipped - 69 lines] > This is extremly unlikly for a variety of reasons, some of which have > been mentioned by Hollywood. The reasons given by satan via his sockpuppet have already been countered. > Other reasons include: > > 1. The amount of sugar or starch in the placebo is so small that a > physiological effect is unlikly, even in low-carbers. That would be a guess that would depend on knowing the size/weight of the placebo tablet(s) that were administered. Since the information about the size/weight of the placebo tablet(s) was not given, your likelihood estimate here is automatically without basis. > 2. It is absolutly plausible that a calcium supplement should raise the > risk of heart disease, because calcium is an antagonist for magnesium, > and magnesium has been linked to a lowered risk of heart disease. Many > people get too much calcium and not enough magnesium to begin with. A > calcium supplement worsens this, of course. In our collective clinical experience, chronic hypomagnesemic states are not associated with an increased incidence of heart attacks. > 3. If ketogenic diets were _that_ dangerous, the raise of heart disease > should have skyrocketed alongside the "current high prevalence of > low-carb dieting". This does not seem to be the case. In our collective clinical experience, we are seeing an increase in the number of heart attacks that we would attribute to low-carbing. Be hungry... be healthy... be hungrier... be blessed: http://TheWellnessFoundation.com/BeHealthy Prayerfully in the infinite power and might of the Holy Spirit, Andrew <>< -- Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD Lawful steward of http://EmoryCardiology.com Bondservant to the KING of kings and LORD of lords. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD schrieb: >>Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 72 lines] > The reasons given by satan via his sockpuppet have already been > countered. But not successfully so. >>Other reasons include: >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > about the size/weight of the placebo tablet(s) was not given, your > likelihood estimate here is automatically without basis. The size and weight of the placebo tablets will have been similar to the calcium tablet. Clacium tablets are not _that_ big usually. Let's say two grams per day and that is already quite a lot. Two grams of carbs don't make a difference. >>2. It is absolutly plausible that a calcium supplement should raise the >>risk of heart disease, because calcium is an antagonist for magnesium, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > In our collective clinical experience, chronic hypomagnesemic states > are not associated with an increased incidence of heart attacks. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=104806 91&dopt=Abstract "CONCLUSION: Serum magnesium concentrations were inversely associated with mortality from IHD and all-cause mortality." >>3. If ketogenic diets were _that_ dangerous, the raise of heart disease >>should have skyrocketed alongside the "current high prevalence of >>low-carb dieting". This does not seem to be the case. > > In our collective clinical experience, we are seeing an increase in > the number of heart attacks that we would attribute to low-carbing. Surely you are able to back this claim with a statistic? Thorsten Thorsten, Chung is a troll and a crazy one at that. Almost everyone has him killfiled, and nobody answers his bizarre posts.  SignatureBest Regards, Evelyn > Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD schrieb: >> [quoted text clipped - 116 lines] > > Thorsten > Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote: > >>Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote: [quoted text clipped - 75 lines] > > But not successfully so. If that were true, there would be no need for "other reasons" from you ... > >>Other reasons include: > >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > two grams per day and that is already quite a lot. Two grams of carbs > don't make a difference. Actually, it would for the carb deficient. > >>2. It is absolutly plausible that a calcium supplement should raise the > >>risk of heart disease, because calcium is an antagonist for magnesium, [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > "CONCLUSION: Serum magnesium concentrations were inversely associated > with mortality from IHD and all-cause mortality." Mortality from IHD is not the same endpoint as heart attack. Serum potassium concentration is related to serum magnesium concentration so that both are involved in stabilizing myocardial cell membrane potentials in the setting of destabilizing ischemic injury **after** plaque rupture from a heart attack. > >>3. If ketogenic diets were _that_ dangerous, the raise of heart disease > >>should have skyrocketed alongside the "current high prevalence of [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Surely you are able to back this claim with a statistic? http://www.atkinsexposed.org/ Be hungry... be healthy... be hungrier... be blessed: http://TheWellnessFoundation.com/BeHealthy Prayerfully in the infinite power and might of the Holy Spirit, Andrew <>< -- Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD Lawful steward of http://EmoryCardiology.com Bondservant to the KING of kings and LORD of lords. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD schrieb: >>Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 81 lines] > If that were true, there would be no need for "other reasons" from > you ... There is no need, I just feel free to provide further reasons. >>>>Other reasons include: >>>> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Actually, it would for the carb deficient. Hardly. People on a standard american diet consume usually about 4-500 g of carbs per day, if memory serves. Strict low carbers will usually consume still at least 20 g, standard low carbers quite a bit more, let's say 50 g. In your answer to Hollywood you claimed that taking the placebo would be enough to explain the difference in heart attack numbers between the study group and the control group with 20 % low carbers. In order to explain the difference in heart attacks by this it would follow that just 2 g of sugar and/or starch reduced the risk among the low carbers by at least 80 %. If just 2 g are making such a difference, then why has the surely much bigger effect on heart disease by going from 4-500 g to 20-50 g gone unnoticed until now (except by you, of course)? >>>>2. It is absolutly plausible that a calcium supplement should raise the >>>>risk of heart disease, because calcium is an antagonist for magnesium, [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > membrane potentials in the setting of destabilizing ischemic injury > **after** plaque rupture from a heart attack. The following study used heart attacks as endpoint: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16675428?ordinalpos=14&itool=EntrezSystem2.PE ntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum = (http://tinyurl.com/3aa6ac) "Results of this study with specific Bayesian statistical analysis support earlier findings of a protective role of Mg and low Ca:Mg ratio against coronary heart disease but do not support the earlier hypothesis of a protective role of Ca." >>>>3. If ketogenic diets were _that_ dangerous, the raise of heart disease >>>>should have skyrocketed alongside the "current high prevalence of [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > http://www.atkinsexposed.org/ I asked for a statistic that backs up your claim of an increase in heart attacks, not for speculations on how the Atkins Diet might theoretically cause heart attacks. So, please, where on this site do I find such a statistic? Thorsten On Jan 18, 2:35 pm, Thorsten Schier > I asked for a statistic that backs up your claim of an increase in heart > attacks, not for speculations on how the Atkins Diet might theoretically > cause heart attacks. So, please, where on this site do I find such a > statistic? > > Thorsten Yea also, when he that is a fool walketh by the way, his wisdom faileth him, and he saith to every one that he is a fool. [Ecclesiastes 10:3] On Jan 18, 2:43 pm, andrewbch...@yahoo.com wrote: > On Jan 18, 2:35 pm, Thorsten Schier > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > faileth him, and he saith to every one that he is a fool. > [Ecclesiastes 10:3] When faced with an inability to answer, quote scripture, out of context, that's nowhere near related to the conversation. You are the simplest of trolls, Andy. When you lack actual scripture, make some up. Attribute it to the Holy Spirit. Don't make me find it Andy. We all know you do it. Thorsten's kicked your butt. Not that it's hard. But it was such a kicking, I image we can tell what kind of boot he wears by looking at the mark he's left. > Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote: > >> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote: [quoted text clipped - 83 lines] > > There is no need, I just feel free to provide further reasons. Your "feeling" is telling, betraying what is in your heart. > >>>>Other reasons include: > >>>> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > consume still at least 20 g, standard low carbers quite a bit more, > let's say 50 g. For deficiencies, pathology observes a threshold effect. > In your answer to Hollywood you claimed that taking the placebo would be > enough to explain the difference in heart attack numbers between the > study group and the control group with 20 % low carbers. It remains a plausible explanation until this variable is controlled. > In order to > explain the difference in heart attacks by this it would follow that > just 2 g of sugar and/or starch reduced the risk among the low carbers > by at least 80 %. If just 2 g are making such a difference, then why has > the surely much bigger effect on heart disease by going from 4-500 g to > 20-50 g gone unnoticed until now (except by you, of course)? Others have noticed an association and have accordingly expressed concerns: http://www.atkinsexposed.org/ > >>>>2. It is absolutly plausible that a calcium supplement should raise the > >>>>risk of heart disease, because calcium is an antagonist for magnesium, [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > against coronary heart disease but do not support the earlier hypothesis > of a protective role of Ca." Here is the full abstract: "Several epidemiologic studies have shown an association between calcium and magnesium and coronary heart disease mortality and morbidity. In this small-area study, we examined the relationship between acute myocardial infarction (AMI) risk and content of Ca, Mg, and chromium in local groundwater in Finnish rural areas using Bayesian modeling and geospatial data aggregated into 10 km times symbol 10 km grid cells. Data on 14,495 men 35-74 years of age with their first AMI in the years 1983, 1988, or 1993 were pooled. Geochemical data consisted of 4,300 measurements of each element in local groundwater. The median concentrations of Mg, Ca, and Cr and the Ca:Mg ratio in well water were 2.61 mg/L, 12.23 mg/L, 0.27 microg/L, and 5.39, respectively. Each 1 mg/L increment in Mg level decreased the AMI risk by 4.9%, whereas a one unit increment in the Ca:Mg ratio increased the risk by 3.1%. Ca and Cr did not show any statistically significant effect on the incidence and spatial variation of AMI. Results of this study with specific Bayesian statistical analysis support earlier findings of a protective role of Mg and low Ca:Mg ratio against coronary heart disease but do not support the earlier hypothesis of a protective role of Ca." Comment: A normal level of serum magnesium is more than 15 mg/L so that well- water median concentration of 2.61 mg/L is clinically meaningless especially with the understanding that that the primary source of magnesium is not from drinking well-water. > >>>>3. If ketogenic diets were _that_ dangerous, the raise of heart disease > >>>>should have skyrocketed alongside the "current high prevalence of [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > cause heart attacks. So, please, where on this site do I find such a > statistic? It would be the choice of low-carbers to become such a statistic because it remains unethical to conduct studies where investigators knowingly randomized study participants to diets that are believed to be likely harmful. Dr. Atkins' own untimely demise under suspicious circumstances with his background of idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy and history of sudden cardiac death requiring cardiopulmonary resuscitation while low-carbing serve as grounds to believe low- carbing to be likely harmful. Moreover, there have been other anecdotal examples as you should be well aware by recalling earlier discussions on this topic. May we, who have had our hearts made discerning by the Holy Spirit, continue to pray for your perishing soul: http://HeartMDPhD.com/Convicts/PrayForThorsten Prayerfully in the infinite power and might of the Holy Spirit, Andrew <>< -- Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD Lawful steward of http://EmoryCardiology.com Bondservant to the KING of kings and LORD of lords. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD schrieb: >>Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 87 lines] > > Your "feeling" is telling, betraying what is in your heart. You wouldn't know what is my heart. >>>>>>Other reasons include: >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > For deficiencies, pathology observes a threshold effect. Please provide evidence that such a threshold exists for carbs and please explain, why all those alleged low carbers in the study should have had their carb intake precisly below this threshold so that just 2 g of additional carbs pushed them over. >>In your answer to Hollywood you claimed that taking the placebo would be >>enough to explain the difference in heart attack numbers between the >>study group and the control group with 20 % low carbers. > > It remains a plausible explanation until this variable is controlled. Have you discussed this bizzare view with other health care professionals? >>In order to >>explain the difference in heart attacks by this it would follow that [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > http://www.atkinsexposed.org/ Where on this side can I find evidence for such an association? I'm not interested in in theoretical concerns. >>>>>>2. It is absolutly plausible that a calcium supplement should raise the >>>>>>risk of heart disease, because calcium is an antagonist for magnesium, [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] > especially with the understanding that that the primary source of > magnesium is not from drinking well-water. Obviously the body tries to retain magnesium as much as possibly, so the serum concentration being higher than the well-water concentration does not exclude a clinical significance of the latter. Apart from that it could be the case that the well-water concentrations of magnesium and calcium are a marker for the geology of region and that this geology might not only influence said concentrations, but also the content of magnesium and calcium in crops that grow in the region. >>>>>>3. If ketogenic diets were _that_ dangerous, the raise of heart disease >>>>>>should have skyrocketed alongside the "current high prevalence of [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > knowingly randomized study participants to diets that are believed to > be likely harmful. I didn't ask for a randomized study. I asked for a simple statistic showing the alleged rise in heart attacks in the US in recent years, whatever the reason for this increase might be. I take it there is no such statistic or else you would not have failed to provide it twice in a row now. > Dr. Atkins' own untimely demise Atkins was 73 when he died. > under suspicious > circumstances with his background of idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy > and history of sudden cardiac death requiring cardiopulmonary > resuscitation while low-carbing serve as grounds to believe low- > carbing to be likely harmful. If if his death was caused by heart disease, which seems unlikely, it would hardly be any reason to believe low-carbing to be harmful because of this. At the age of 73 heart attacks are quite common, they can happen on every diet. > Moreover, there have been other > anecdotal examples as you should be well aware by recalling earlier > discussions on this topic. As a cardioglogist, you should be aware of the low value of anecdotal examples. Thorsten On Jan 18, 4:40 pm, Thorsten Schier > Have you discussed this bizzare view with other health care professionals? Chung is in many ways "unique" in his views compared to other doctors and scientists. His views are based on scripture rather than medical journals and on "discerning" rather than science and those who use science and logic to disagree are "convicted" by the Holy Spirit who uses Chung's web site to list those convicted and then with persistence become corporeal demons of Satan. > On Jan 18, 4:40 pm, Thorsten Schier >> Have you discussed this bizzare view with other health care professionals? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > uses Chung's web site to list those convicted and then with > persistence become corporeal demons of Satan. It's common in the faith healing profession, homeopathy, and various other "I wish this would work, I wish this would work!" practices. >> On Jan 18, 4:40 pm, Thorsten Schier >>> Have you discussed this bizzare view with other health care [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > It's common in the faith healing profession, homeopathy, and various > other "I wish this would work, I wish this would work!" practices. Did you press this button here atalt Christian Life? Are getting ready to receive the Holy Spirit? Welcome, gather at the Fire. > convicted neighbor Nico Garcia wrote: > > satan via a sockpuppet (corporeal demon) hissed: [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Welcome, gather at the Fire. May we, who are Jesus' brethren because we have stopped sinning though we remain sinners, continue to pray for our dear convicted neighbors and friends: http://HeartMDPhD.com/Convicts Be hungry... be healthy... be hungrier... be blessed: http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit/BeBlessed Prayerfully in the infinite power and might of the Holy Spirit, Andrew <>< -- Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD Lawful steward of http://EmoryCardiology.com Bondservant to the KING of kings and LORD of lords. > Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote: > >>Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote: [quoted text clipped - 88 lines] > > You wouldn't know what is my heart. Were it not for your tell. > >>>>>>Other reasons include: > >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > Please provide evidence that such a threshold exists for carbs and > please explain It exists for all disease arising from deficiencies. > ,why all those alleged low carbers in the study should > have had their carb intake precisly below this threshold so that just 2 > g of additional carbs pushed them over. It remains possible that 2 grams of carbs is sufficient to rescue those teetering at deficiency because of their unwise choice to count carbs. > >>In your answer to Hollywood you claimed that taking the placebo would be > >>enough to explain the difference in heart attack numbers between the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Have you discussed this bizzare view with other health care professionals? The perspective of a scientist is not a bizarre view fo those who are medical scientists. > >>In order to > >>explain the difference in heart attacks by this it would follow that [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Where on this side can I find evidence for such an association? I'm not > interested in in theoretical concerns. Yours is the side of delusion. While deluded, you will find neither evidence nor knowledge, which is the eminent domain of the discerning. > >>>>>>2. It is absolutly plausible that a calcium supplement should raise the > >>>>>>risk of heart disease, because calcium is an antagonist for magnesium, [quoted text clipped - 63 lines] > might not only influence said concentrations, but also the content of > magnesium and calcium in crops that grow in the region. Not while fertilizer use is widespread and pervasive. > >>>>>>3. If ketogenic diets were _that_ dangerous, the raise of heart disease > >>>>>>should have skyrocketed alongside the "current high prevalence of [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > Atkins was 73 when he died. http://TruthRUS.org/DreadNought > > under suspicious > > circumstances with his background of idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > of this. At the age of 73 heart attacks are quite common, they can > happen on every diet. It is not good for the champion of a diet to die as Atkins has died. My condolences to his surviving friends and family. > > Moreover, there have been other > > anecdotal examples as you should be well aware by recalling earlier > > discussions on this topic. > > As a cardioglogist, you should be aware of the low value of anecdotal > examples. Not when they are in sync with our collective clinical experience. May we, who have hearts made discerning by the Holy Spirit, continue to pray for your perishing soul: http://HeartMDPhD.com/Convicts/PrayForThorsten Prayerfully in the infinite power and might of the Holy Spirit, Andrew <>< -- Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD Lawful steward of http://EmoryCardiology.com Bondservant to the KING of kings and LORD of lords. We are also pleased to announce that we have been able to purchase at great savings 10 Commandment plaques for your home and will pass those savings on to you and we have received those plaques. Contact us for details. Please remember the acronym contest for the Complete Unified Nutritional Teachings of Chung will be closing soon. We have received may entries and still time to enter for the personally signed edition by our Lawful Steward Dr. Andrew B. Chung. Andres Butch Chinga President Of OMER Productions (POOP) OMER Approach Facts (OAF) is Part of OMER Productions Call toll free: 1- GODHUNGRY Hunger is GOoD P.O. Box 666 Hell, Michigan 48169 Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD schrieb: >>Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 93 lines] > > Were it not for your tell. Then you stick with what I wrote and not with what suppose it "betrays". >>>>>>>>Other reasons include: >>>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > It exists for all disease arising from deficiencies. 1. This does not make a lot of sense to me. Please provide evidence. 2. Low carbers are not carb deficient. >>,why all those alleged low carbers in the study should >>have had their carb intake precisly below this threshold so that just 2 [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > those teetering at deficiency because of their unwise choice to count > carbs. And why would all those low carbers happen to be "teetering at deficiency" instead of being well below or above the alleged threshold? Please take in mind, that no one can count carbs that good, so that even if people were aiming for this threshold (assuming they know about it), most would miss it. >>>>In your answer to Hollywood you claimed that taking the placebo would be >>>>enough to explain the difference in heart attack numbers between the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > The perspective of a scientist is not a bizarre view fo those who are > medical scientists. However, your perspective is not the perspective of a scientist. >>>>In order to >>>>explain the difference in heart attacks by this it would follow that [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > evidence nor knowledge, which is the eminent domain of the > discerning. So you cannot provide any evidence. I cannot say that I am surprised. >>>>>>>>2. It is absolutly plausible that a calcium supplement should raise the >>>>>>>>risk of heart disease, because calcium is an antagonist for magnesium, [quoted text clipped - 65 lines] > > Not while fertilizer use is widespread and pervasive. Fertilizer cannot make up for the different geology of soils. >>>>>>>>3. If ketogenic diets were _that_ dangerous, the raise of heart disease >>>>>>>>should have skyrocketed alongside the "current high prevalence of [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >>such statistic or else you would not have failed to provide it twice in >>a row now. Three times in a row now. So, we can safely assume that no such statistic exists. So, the "current high prevalence of low-carb dieting" has not been associated with a rise in heart attack numbers. >>>Dr. Atkins' own untimely demise >> >>Atkins was 73 when he died. > > http://TruthRUS.org/DreadNought So you have found one person who lived longer than Atkins. Big Deal. A lot of persons die from attack much younger than Atkins was at his death. >>>under suspicious >>>circumstances with his background of idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > It is not good for the champion of a diet to die as Atkins has died. > My condolences to his surviving friends and family. He slipped on ice and hit his head. Could have happend on any diet. >>>Moreover, there have been other >>>anecdotal examples as you should be well aware by recalling earlier [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Not when they are in sync with our collective clinical experience. Why do you speak in pural when you talk about vour clinical experience? Thorsten On Jan 20, 6:52 am, Thorsten Schier > However, your perspective is not the perspective of a scientist. GOD is the ultimate scientist. For many are called, but few are chosen. [Matthew 22:14] > Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD schrieb: >> [quoted text clipped - 371 lines] > > Thorsten Because andy has none. Oh, excuse me, he has 88 days. > Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote: > >>Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote: [quoted text clipped - 93 lines] > > Then you stick with what I wrote and not with what suppose it "betrays". It remains my choice to stick with the truth: http://HeartMDPhD.com/LoveTheTruth > >>>>>>>>Other reasons include: > >>>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > 1. This does not make a lot of sense to me. Please provide evidence. Evidence will not give you understanding. > 2. Low carbers are not carb deficient. Hyperketonemia is an indication of carbohydrate deficiency. > >>,why all those alleged low carbers in the study should > >>have had their carb intake precisly below this threshold so that just 2 [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > And why would all those low carbers happen to be "teetering at > deficiency" instead of being well below or above the alleged threshold? Gluconeogenesis remains a possible but suboptimal option until all muscle has been catabolyzed. > Please take in mind, that no one can count carbs that good, so that even > if people were aiming for this threshold (assuming they know about it), > most would miss it. Counting carbs is not good. Ordering a low-carb sandwich and getting only the meat sans bread is not good. > >>>>In your answer to Hollywood you claimed that taking the placebo would be > >>>>enough to explain the difference in heart attack numbers between the [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > However, your perspective is not the perspective of a scientist. Identifying uncontrolled variable(s) is the perspective of a scientist especially when hypothesizing: "It remains a plausible explanation until this variable is controlled." Bottom line: You remain pathologically untruthful. This simply shows that the Holy Spirit is absolutely right to convict you: http://HeartMDPhD.com/Convicts May we, who are truthful because we know and love the truth, Who is LORD Jesus Christ, continue to pray for your perishing soul: http://HeartMDPhD.com/Convicts/PrayForThorsten Prayerfully in the infinite power and might of the Holy Spirit, Andrew <>< -- Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD Lawful steward of http://EmoryCardiology.com Bondservant to the KING of kings and LORD of lords. BondageSlave to Mark D. Sade, owner of the Bondage and SadoMasochist Club of Mapleton, Georgia Andrew B. Chung did moan: > It remains my choice to stick with the truth: Mrs Chung had a little Andy, And at first, everything was dandy And then Andy was hit on the head, And now fool Andy is brain dead. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD schrieb: >>Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 101 lines] > > http://HeartMDPhD.com/LoveTheTruth What an odd statement for you to make. >>>>>>>>>>Other reasons include: >>>>>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > Evidence will not give you understanding. So you have none. No surprise there. >>2. Low carbers are not carb deficient. > > Hyperketonemia is an indication of carbohydrate deficiency. Ketosis is an adaptation of the body to a low supply of carbs. >>>>,why all those alleged low carbers in the study should >>>>have had their carb intake precisly below this threshold so that just 2 [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Gluconeogenesis remains a possible but suboptimal option until all > muscle has been catabolyzed. So? What has that to do with my question? Let's say the alleged threshold, for which you are unable to provide any shred of evidence, lies at 30 g. Then, if a person ingests 25 g of carbs, 2 more won't push them over the threshold, if they are ingesting 35 g, this is above the threshold and 2 g more won't do much difference. So again, please explain why all those low carbers should mysteriously fall into this narrow margin, where 2 g more might theoretically do any difference. >>Please take in mind, that no one can count carbs that good, so that even >>if people were aiming for this threshold (assuming they know about it), >>most would miss it. > > Counting carbs is not good. Ordering a low-carb sandwich and getting > only the meat sans bread is not good. So? Again, what has this to do with what I wrote? Even if they were counting carbs, be that good or not, and they were aiming for this alleged threshold, most would miss it. >>>>>>In your answer to Hollywood you claimed that taking the placebo would be >>>>>>enough to explain the difference in heart attack numbers between the [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > "It remains a plausible explanation until this variable is > controlled." But this is not an uncontrolled variable, it is just you grasping at straw. You don't even know that they did use sugar or starch as placebo instead of, say, cellulose. But even if they did, that doesn't matter, as has been explained to you. You implied that just 2 g of sugar should cut the heart attack risk in low carbers by at least 80 %, yet you have failed to provide any evidence at all that going on a low carb diet in the first place is anything else than beneficial and you even failed to provide any evidence that there has been any rise in heart attacks at all in recent years, a rise, which should have been dramatic with the rising number of low carb dieters, if this diet were even nearly as harmful as you allege. > Bottom line: > > You remain pathologically untruthful. Talking to your mirror again? > This simply shows that the Holy Spirit is absolutely right to convict > you: > > http://HeartMDPhD.com/Convicts Again playing the convicts card? Running out of arguments? Thorsten > Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote: > >> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote: [quoted text clipped - 100 lines] > > What an odd statement for you to make. Not for the discerning. > >>>>>>>>>>Other reasons include: > >>>>>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > So you have none. Your lacking in something is not evidence of the non-existence of that something. Indeed, your lack of understanding is in stark contrast to the understanding possessed by those whose hearts have been made discerning by the Holy Spirit. Bottom line: You remain pathologically untruthful. This simply shows that the Holy Spirit is absolutely right to convict you: http://HeartMDPhD.com/Convicts May we, who are discerning, continue to pray for your perishing soul: http://HeartMDPhD.com/Convicts/PrayForThorsten Prayerfully in the infinite power and might of the Holy Spirit, Andrew <>< -- Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD Lawful steward of http://EmoryCardiology.com Bondservant to the KING of kings and LORD of lords. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD schrieb: >>Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote: >> >>>>Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote: >>>> >>>>>>Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote: [...] >>>>>>>>>>>>Other reasons include: >>>>>>>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > Your lacking in something is not evidence of the non-existence of that > something. Your refusing to give evidence is strong evidence that you have none. No evidence at all for any of your claims in this thread. > Indeed, your lack of understanding My what? Your the one who refuses to understand. Thorsten > Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote: > >>Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote: [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > > Your refusing to give evidence is strong evidence that you have none. Not for the discerning... ... for they know that truth is self-evident. "...knowledge comes easily to the discerning." (Proverbs 14:6) Bottom line: You remain pathologically untruthful. This continues to show that the Holy Spirit is absolutely right to convict you: http://HeartMDPhD.com/Convicts May we, who have hearts made discerning by the Holy Spirit, continue to pray for your perishing soul: http://HeartMDPhD.com/Convicts/PrayForThorsten Prayerfully in the infinite power and might of the Holy Spirit, Andrew <>< -- Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD Lawful steward of http://EmoryCardiology.com Bondservant to the KING of kings and LORD of lords. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD schrieb: >>Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > > Not for the discerning... Not for religious fanatics you mean. > ... for they know that truth is self-evident. Because they don't accept any evidence that is contrary to their beliefs anyway. So they have no need for evidence. Thorsten On Jan 21, 1:44 pm, Thorsten Schier <use...@naturfoto-hamburg.de> wrote: > Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD schrieb: > [quoted text clipped - 58 lines] > > Thorsten How can you reason with someone who uses no reason? > Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote: > >> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote: [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > > Not for religious fanatics you mean. Incorrect. It remains my choice to refrain from name-calling. This simply shows that the Holy Spirit is absolutely right to convict you: http://HeartMDPhD.com/Convicts GOD's purpose for me here remains to inform and not to convince. The evidence you require will be provided to you when the time is right just as the evidence that disciple "doubting" Thomas required was provided to him when GOD willed it. "My LORD and my GOD ! " -- disciple Thomas upon beholding the evidence of Jesus' resurrection, Who was GOD HimSelf. As it is written in Scripture, every knee will bend and every head will bow in acknowledging the KING of kings and LORD of lords: http://TruthRUS.org/Jesus Prayerfully in the infinite power and might of the Holy Spirit, Andrew <>< -- Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD Lawful steward of http://EmoryCardiology.com Bondservant to the KING of kings and LORD of lords. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD schrieb: >>Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 57 lines] > > It remains my choice to refrain from name-calling. Obviously, when done by Christians, you prefer to call name-calling "being openly Cristian". But it's the very same thing. Thorsten > Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD schrieb: > Obviously, when done by Christians, you prefer to call name-calling "being > openly Cristian". But it's the very same thing. > > <<major snip>> > Thorsten PLEASE, PLEASE... DON'T FEED THE TROLL It only encourages him and frustrates the rest of us. Or if you absolutely must, please don't perpetuate the crossposting. BB > Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote: > >> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote: [quoted text clipped - 57 lines] > Obviously, when done by Christians, you prefer to call name-calling > "being openly Cristian". But it's the very same thing. Openly professing a relationship with LORD Jesus Christ, Who is risen, is not name-calling. Bottom line: You remain pathologically untruthful. This again shows that the Holy Spirit is absolutely right to convict you: http://HeartMDPhD.com/Convicts May we, who are discerning, continue to pray for your perishing soul: http://HeartMDPhD.com/Convicts/PrayForThorsten Prayerfully in the infinite power and might of the Holy Spirit, Andrew <>< -- Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD Lawful steward of http://EmoryCardiology.com Bondservant to the KING of kings and LORD of lords. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD schrieb: >>Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 65 lines] > Openly professing a relationship with LORD Jesus Christ, Who is risen, > is not name-calling. Calling other people "satan", "demon" and the like, however, is. That seems to be your favourite pastime. May your God have mercy upon you, should he exists against all odds. On second thought, you should rather pray he doesn't exist. Thorsten > Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote: > >>Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote: [quoted text clipped - 63 lines] > > Calling other people "satan", "demon" and the like, however, is. Have not written that you are either satan or a demon. Bottom line: You remain pathologically untruthful. This simply shows that the Holy Spirit is absolutely right to convict you: http://HeartMDPhD.com/Convicts May we, who are openly Christian, continue to pray for your perishing soul: http://HeartMDPhD.com/Convicts/PrayForThorsten Prayerfully in the infinite power and might of the Holy Spirit, Andrew <>< -- Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD Lawful steward of http://EmoryCardiology.com Bondservant to the KING of kings and LORD of lords. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD schrieb: >>Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 71 lines] > > Have not written that you are either satan or a demon. I have not written that you did. You do it to other people though. If you don't remember doing so, maybe you should inform your doctors about this symptom. Thorsten > Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote: > >> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote: [quoted text clipped - 68 lines] > > I have not written that you did. You only know about your own identity and have no knowledge about the identity of others. > You do it to other people though. Neither satan nor demons are people. Without souls they do not have free will as people have. If you were to unwisely blaspheme against the Holy Spirit, your soul would also die as a consequence of eternal condemnation by GOD so that you too would no longer have the free will to do anything but satan's will and thus, you too would become one of satan's sockpuppets (corporeal demons). Thus, identifying either satan or his demons is not name-calling because such identification is **not** "the use of offensive names especially to win an argument or to induce rejection or condemnation (as of a person or project) without objective consideration of the facts." Source: http://m-w.com/dictionary/name-calling Bottom line: You remain pathologically untruthful. This simply shows that the Holy Spirit is absolutely right to convict you: http://HeartMDPhD.com/Convicts May we, who have stopped sinning though we remain sinners albeit forgiven ones, continue to pray for your perishing soul: http://HeartMDPhD.com/Convicts/PrayForThorsten Prayerfully in the infinite power and might of the Holy Spirit, Andrew <>< -- Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD Lawful steward of http://EmoryCardiology.com Bondservant to the KING of kings and LORD of lords. On Jan 22, 10:53 pm, "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <heartdo...@emorycardiology.com> wrote: > > You do it to other people though. > > Neither satan nor demons are people. ... > Thus, identifying either satan or his demons is not name-calling > because such identification is **not** "the use of offensive names [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > http://m-w.com/dictionary/name-calling If I were a Christian, being called Satan and demon would be offensive, I guess. (I can only guess, because I don't really care, other than the hypocrisy). The convict tag annoys me to no end and I have asked you to remove me from your childish convict list on several occasions. We cannot possibly peer into the motivations of a madman, such as yourself, Andrew, but it would seem that the way in which you bandy about convict, demon and Satan at conversational adversaries is intended to "to induce rejection or condemnation (as of a person or project) without objective consideration of the facts." Your definition from your link. Since you have no special insight into my theoretical demonic heritage, you cannot factually present me as Satan, a sockpuppet of Satan, a demon, or even a convict of that manifestation of your madness, your interpretation of the Holy Spirit. You stand guilty as charged. A baseless name caller. A hypocrite of the first wash. In fact. On Jan 23, 9:40 am, Hollywood > Since you have no special insight into my theoretical > demonic heritage, you cannot factually present me > as Satan, a sockpuppet of Satan, a demon, or even > a convict of that manifestation of your madness, > your interpretation of the Holy Spirit. God knows "And a curse, if ye will not obey the commandments of the LORD your God, but turn aside out of the way which I command you this day, to go after other gods, which ye have not known." [Deuteronomy 11:28] satan via a sockpuppet (corporeal demon) hissed: > Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > annoys me to no end and I have asked you to remove > me from your childish convict list on several occasions. You have not been convicted by the Holy Spirit. Bottom line: You remain the liar, who is the source of all lies from the beginning as written in Scripture. May we, who are Jesus' brethren, continue to rebuke you at each GOD- given opportunity as GOD desires: http://HeartMDPhD.com/Convicts/Rebukesatan <>< May dear neighbors, friends, and brethren have a blessedly wonderful 2008th year since the birth of our LORD Jesus Christ as the Son of Man ... ... by being hungrier: http://TruthRUS.org/KnowingGOD Hunger is wonderful :-) It's how we know what GOD wants, which is what is good. Yes, hunger is our knowledge of good versus evil that Adam and Eve paid for with their and our immortal lives. Those who suffer from the powerful delusion predicted by the prophecy of 2 Thessalonians 2:9-11 would deny this and perish however: http://HeartMDPhD.com/Convicts/CrazyOne http://HeartMDPhD.com/Convicts/CrazyTwo http://HeartMDPhD.com/Convicts/CrazyThree http://HeartMDPhD.com/Convicts/CrazyFour Be hungry... be healthy... be hungrier... be blessed: http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit/BeBlessed "Blessed are you who hunger NOW... ... for you will be satisfied." -- LORD Jesus Christ (Luke 6:21) Amen. Prayerfully in the infinite power and might of the Holy Spirit, Andrew <>< -- Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD Lawful steward of http://EmoryCardiology.com Bondservant to the KING of kings and LORD of lords. On Jan 23, 11:52 am, "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <heartdo...@emorycardiology.com> wrote: <snip Chungcrap> Have I been convicted? Am I satan? Am I a sock puppet of satan? You Andrew B. Chung have called me all of these things when I disagreed with your medical advice and approach. And I'm an ABIM, board- certified practicing physician, not a corporeal demon. So you have lied and name-called in my instance. And the info is forever archived on Google. Your "discerning" heart has not been able to identify demons or liars accurately. You just apply that label to anyone who questions you or disagrees with your nonsense or asks you for evidence of your lies and claims. On Jan 23, 1:52 pm, "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <heartdo...@emorycardiology.com> wrote: > satan via a sockpuppet (corporeal demon) hissed: > > >http://m-w.com/dictionary/name-calling > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > You have not been convicted by the Holy Spirit. I had been on your convicts list. I thank you for removing me. I will now thank you for referring to me as: Hollywood or Max rather than: satan via a sockpuppet (corporeal demon) hissed: That is name calling of the first order. You remain convicted in the court of public opinion. Also, please do not supplement 3 lines of content with 50 lines of the same old junk and self referential links. On Jan 24, 8:29 am, Hollywood > I had been on your convicts list. I thank you for removing > me. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > rather than: > satan via a sockpuppet (corporeal demon) hissed: Hollywood or Max Since Dr. Chung is in Ethiopia with the band, KINGS and LORDS, teaching the APPROACH and entertaining the villages, I will answer for him. It is the Holy Spirit, not Dr. Chung, who convicts you and when you become a corporeal demon you are removed from the list of those convicted. I am sorry that you do not appreciate the effort and knowledge of of his many words of wisdom and cross referencing to his other words of wisdom, but most are very thankful of that. Many have read the Bible many times, and so enjoy reading his wisdom many times. Thanks you very much for taking your time to correspond with our Lawful Steward and Bandservant to the band the KINGS and LORDS. The ABC's of Life are Approach-Bible-Chung Ich Bin Arschloch Spokesperson for OMER Production satan via a sockpuppet hissed: > Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote wrote: > > satan via a sockpuppet (corporeal demon) hissed: [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > I had been on your convicts list. Incorrect. Bottom line: You remain the liar who is the source of all lies as it is written in Scripture. May we, who are Jesus' brethren, continue to rebuke you at each GOD- given opportunity as GOD desires: http://HeartMDPhD.com/Convicts/Rebukesatan <>< May dear neighbors, friends, and brethren have a blessedly wonderful 2008th year since the birth of our LORD Jesus Christ as the Son of Man ... ... by being hungrier: http://TruthRUS.org/KnowingGOD Hunger is wonderful :-) It's how we know what GOD wants, which is what is good. Yes, hunger is our knowledge of good versus evil that Adam and Eve paid for with their and our immortal lives. Those who suffer from the powerful delusion predicted by the prophecy of 2 Thessalonians 2:9-11 would deny this and perish however: http://HeartMDPhD.com/Convicts/CrazyOne http://HeartMDPhD.com/Convicts/CrazyTwo http://HeartMDPhD.com/Convicts/CrazyThree http://HeartMDPhD.com/Convicts/CrazyFour Be hungry... be healthy... be hungrier... be blessed: http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit/BeBlessed "Blessed are you who hunger NOW... ... for you will be satisfied." -- LORD Jesus Christ (Luke 6:21) Amen. Prayerfully in the infinite power and might of the Holy Spirit, Andrew <>< -- Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD Lawful steward of http://EmoryCardiology.com Bondservant to the KING of kings and LORD of lords. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD schrieb: >>Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >>>>>> >>>>>>>>Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote: [...] >>>>>>>>Not for religious fanatics you mean. >>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > You only know about your own identity and have no knowledge about the > identity of others. I may not know who exactly the persons writing here are. I'm pretty confident, however, that no one of them is either satan or a demon, because non-existing entities usually don't write on usenet. >>You do it to other people though. > > Neither satan nor demons are people. Isn't satan believed to be a fallen angel? Isn't it at least as bad to call an angel names then people? > Without souls they do not have free will as people have. If satan does not have free will, then, please, who directs his actions? > If you were to unwisely blaspheme against the Holy Spirit, your soul > would also die as a consequence of eternal condemnation by GOD so that > you too would no longer have the free will to do anything but satan's > will Ah, now, above in this very posting you claimed that satan has no (free) will. So how can anybody be doing his will? Or has he an unfree will and what is that supposed to mean? > and thus, you too would become one of satan's sockpuppets > (corporeal demons). [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > (as of a person or project) without objective consideration of the > facts." Surely you are aware that no one else agrees with your "identifications"? I don't see how your seeing satan and his sockpuppets on every corner has anything to do with "objective consideration of the facts". > Source: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > You remain pathologically untruthful. Hark who's talking ... Thorsten On Jan 23, 2:35 pm, Thorsten Schier > Surely you are aware that no one else agrees with your > "identifications"? God i |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message