How to cut?

Discussion in 'Health and medical' started by Francispoon, Dec 20, 2003.

  1. Francispoon

    Francispoon Guest

    Our body is a very complex mechanism and it is dangerous to try to 'fine-tune' it without knowing
    enough about it. There are levels that are empirically too high or low and as such should be
    'adjusted'. For example, too high a level of blood pressure represents great risk and this has been
    proved time after time. But there are other levels and the elevation or lowering of them has been
    quite debatable among the medical community.

    I would like to recommend an approach, similar in nature to the one which is espoused by Dr. Milton
    Friedman, a Nobel price winner in economics, to reduce govenment expenditure, in cutting what we
    take into our bodies daily.

    In cutting government expenditure, each department in the government fights like hell to keep its
    budget intact while shifting the axe to other departments. What Dr. Friedman proposes is: keep the
    defense budget intact while apply a fixed % cut to ALL the other departments!

    Perhaps an idea that is worthy of pondering over is this: keep your blood pressure under relatively
    safe levels but *trying* to cut a fixed quantity of your food intake into the body each day and see
    if it would make a difference. That is to say, rather than to focus upon lowering this or that
    level, just EAT LESS of *everything*, including your favorite chocolate bar, your beloved glass of
    red wine...and cigar, you have been enjoying. After all, even tobacco has its role to play in our
    daily life. Nicotin helps reduce tension. Too much of ANYTHING is no good. Moderation is the key!
    You won't die or suffer from taking *less* of what you have been taking.

    I am no doctor but I wonder if such an approach should be resorted to prior to taking any junk-
    lowering drugs that might produce unwanted effects.

    Comments?

    FP
     
    Tags:


  2. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    "francispoon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > Our body is a very complex mechanism and it is dangerous to try to 'fine-tune' it without knowing
    > enough about it. There are levels that are empirically too high or low and as such should be
    > 'adjusted'. For example, too high a level of blood pressure represents great risk and this has
    > been proved time after time. But there are other levels and the elevation or lowering of them has
    > been quite debatable among the medical community.
    >
    > I would like to recommend an approach, similar in nature to the one which is espoused by Dr.
    > Milton Friedman, a Nobel price winner in economics, to reduce govenment expenditure, in cutting
    > what we take into our bodies daily.
    >
    > In cutting government expenditure, each department in the government fights like hell to keep its
    > budget intact while shifting the axe to other departments. What Dr. Friedman proposes is: keep the
    > defense budget intact while apply a fixed % cut to ALL the other departments!
    >
    > Perhaps an idea that is worthy of pondering over is this: keep your blood pressure under
    > relatively safe levels but *trying* to cut a fixed quantity of your food intake into the body each
    > day and see if it would make a difference. That is to say, rather than to focus upon lowering this
    > or that level, just EAT LESS of *everything*, including your favorite chocolate bar, your beloved
    > glass of red wine...and cigar, you have been enjoying. After all, even tobacco has its role to
    > play in our daily life. Nicotin helps reduce tension. Too much of ANYTHING is no good. Moderation
    > is the key! You won't die or suffer from taking *less* of what you have been taking.
    >
    > I am no doctor but I wonder if such an approach should be resorted to prior to taking any junk-
    > lowering drugs that might produce unwanted effects.
    >
    > Comments?
    >
    > FP

    Whatever works for you.

    Bill
     
  3. Steve

    Steve Guest

    On Sat, 20 Dec 2003 22:30:14 -0500, francispoon wrote
    (in message <[email protected]>):

    > Our body is a very complex mechanism and it is dangerous to try to 'fine-tune' it without knowing
    > enough about it. There are levels that are empirically too high or low and as such should be
    > 'adjusted'. For example, too high a level of blood pressure represents great risk and this has
    > been proved time after time. But there are other levels and the elevation or lowering of them has
    > been quite debatable among the medical community.
    >
    > I would like to recommend an approach, similar in nature to the one which is espoused by Dr.
    > Milton Friedman, a Nobel price winner in economics, to reduce govenment expenditure, in cutting
    > what we take into our bodies daily.
    >
    > In cutting government expenditure, each department in the government fights like hell to keep its
    > budget intact while shifting the axe to other departments. What Dr. Friedman proposes is: keep the
    > defense budget intact while apply a fixed % cut to ALL the other departments!
    >
    > Perhaps an idea that is worthy of pondering over is this: keep your blood pressure under
    > relatively safe levels but *trying* to cut a fixed quantity of your food intake into the body each
    > day and see if it would make a difference. That is to say, rather than to focus upon lowering this
    > or that level, just EAT LESS of *everything*, including your favorite chocolate bar, your beloved
    > glass of red wine...and cigar, you have been enjoying. After all, even tobacco has its role to
    > play in our daily life. Nicotin helps reduce tension. Too much of ANYTHING is no good. Moderation
    > is the key! You won't die or suffer from taking *less* of what you have been taking.
    >
    > I am no doctor but I wonder if such an approach should be resorted to prior to taking any junk-
    > lowering drugs that might produce unwanted effects.
    >
    > Comments?

    You could call it the Two Percent Diet... however I fear you would soon suffer from "inflation" :)

    --

    Steve
     
  4. mattb

    mattb Guest

    On 20 Dec 2003 19:30:14 -0800, [email protected] (francispoon)
    wrote:

    >just EAT LESS of *everything*, including your favorite chocolate bar, your beloved glass of red
    >wine...and cigar, you have been enjoying.

    To lose weight, you must cut CALORIES. Most people eat high-calorie foods. One of the best ways to
    lose weight and keep it off is to switch from high-calorie foods to low-calorie foods, with emphasis
    on vegetables. A side benefit of this switch is that you can still eat enough to be very satisfied
    at each meal, and not be hungry. Another benefit is that your new diet will likely be more
    nutritious than your old diet. The type of food you eat is very important.

    Some foods tend to make you hungry a while after you eat them. This is true of many carbohydrate
    foods. Simply eating less of these foods will leave you hungry much of the time, and you will not
    likely stick to your diet. It will be unlikely that this will work in the long run either. The type
    of food you eat is very important.

    Any diet that ignores the type of food will not be as good for you as one that changes the types of
    food you eat. Unless, of course, you already eat a good diet. But, then, you would not be overweight
    either. <g>

    Keep in mind that Chung has a huge psychological investment in his diet. His ego is on the line.
    There is nothing more determined than a fanatic whose belief has been challenged. He will push his
    diet as hard as he can, no matter what. Fanatics are like that. It is very unlikely that you will
    get good, medically-sound diet advice from him. Look elsewhere for unbiased diet advice.

    Check the sci.med.nutrition newsgroup. The 2PD was briefly mentioned and dismissed. There is a lot
    of good diet information available. Don't settle for an inferior approach. Matt
     
  5. To reduce BP see the "Dash" diet. Much research has already been done.
    http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/public/heart/hbp/dash/

    [email protected] (francispoon) wrote in message
    news:<[email protected]>...
    > Our body is a very complex mechanism and it is dangerous to try to 'fine-tune' it without knowing
    > enough about it. There are levels that are empirically too high or low and as such should be
    > 'adjusted'. For example, too high a level of blood pressure represents great risk and this has
    > been proved time after time. But there are other levels and the elevation or lowering of them has
    > been quite debatable among the medical community.
    >
    > I would like to recommend an approach, similar in nature to the one which is espoused by Dr.
    > Milton Friedman, a Nobel price winner in economics, to reduce govenment expenditure, in cutting
    > what we take into our bodies daily.
    >
    > In cutting government expenditure, each department in the government fights like hell to keep its
    > budget intact while shifting the axe to other departments. What Dr. Friedman proposes is: keep the
    > defense budget intact while apply a fixed % cut to ALL the other departments!
    >
    > Perhaps an idea that is worthy of pondering over is this: keep your blood pressure under
    > relatively safe levels but *trying* to cut a fixed quantity of your food intake into the body each
    > day and see if it would make a difference. That is to say, rather than to focus upon lowering this
    > or that level, just EAT LESS of *everything*, including your favorite chocolate bar, your beloved
    > glass of red wine...and cigar, you have been enjoying. After all, even tobacco has its role to
    > play in our daily life. Nicotin helps reduce tension. Too much of ANYTHING is no good. Moderation
    > is the key! You won't die or suffer from taking *less* of what you have been taking.
    >
    > I am no doctor but I wonder if such an approach should be resorted to prior to taking any junk-
    > lowering drugs that might produce unwanted effects.
    >
    > Comments?
    >
    > FP
     
  6. On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 09:04:54 -0800, [email protected] wrote:

    >Keep in mind that Chung has a huge psychological investment in his diet. His ego is on the line.
    >There is nothing more determined than a fanatic whose belief has been challenged. He will push his
    >diet as hard as he can, no matter what. Fanatics are like that. It is very unlikely that you will
    >get good, medically-sound diet advice from him. Look elsewhere for unbiased diet advice.

    ...............

    Matt -

    You have double posted your message - both on sci.med.cardiology and on alt.support.tinnitus

    I cannot make recommendations or requests regarding *this* newsgroup, but on alt.support.tinnitus we
    have - through trial and (a lot of) error - found that ad hominem attacks (no matter how cleverly
    cloaked) ultimately serve no purpose but to reflect poorly on the attacker and to detract from the
    value of the newsgroup. If you are going to insist on double-posting, I very respectfully request
    that - at least for the purposes of alt.support.tinnitus - you please consider confining your
    comments to the merits (or lack thereof) of the various issues and refrain from making derogatory
    comments about the people espousing those issues.

    A happy and healthy holiday season to all - and the very best for the New Year.

    Thanks much -

    smn
     
  7. mattb

    mattb Guest

    On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 17:56:07 GMT, Stephen Nagler <[email protected]>
    wrote:

    >Matt -
    >
    >You have double posted your message - both on sci.med.cardiology and on alt.support.tinnitus

    You are correct. Sorry for the cross post, I was just following the original poster without checking
    the groups. It does seem clearly off topic for tinnitus.

    Unfortunately, some in this group make a practice of posting to other groups for reasons that have
    nothing to do with the topic. Matt
     
  8. mattb

    mattb Guest

    On 21 Dec 2003 09:53:08 -0800, [email protected] (Brad
    Sheppard) wrote:

    >To reduce BP see the "Dash" diet. Much research has already been done.

    What? You dare suggest that there are other diets that have been well studied and have research to
    back them up? What blasphemy! You must hate Christians, and probably anybody else handy too. Don't
    you know the "truth?" <huge grin, of course> Matt
     
  9. Francispoon

    Francispoon Guest

    Stephen Nagler <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
    > On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 09:04:54 -0800, [email protected] wrote:
    >
    >
    > >Keep in mind that Chung has a huge psychological investment in his diet. His ego is on the line.
    > >There is nothing more determined than a fanatic whose belief has been challenged. He will push
    > >his diet as hard as he can, no matter what. Fanatics are like that. It is very unlikely that you
    > >will get good, medically-sound diet advice from him. Look elsewhere for unbiased diet advice.
    >
    > ...............
    >
    > Matt -
    >
    > You have double posted your message

    Stephen, it is *me* that did it, not Matt.

    I did it for a purpose. The more I experience tinnitus, the more I am convinced that this being
    named T should be treated INTER-DEPARTMENTALLY or with a multi-approach. The ringing in our ears may
    signal something imbalanced in our heart, or our lung, or our kidney.

    I would refrain from doing that if that disturbed participants.

    Merry X'mas

    FP
    ==================================

    - both on sci.med.cardiology and
    > on alt.support.tinnitus
    >
    > I cannot make recommendations or requests regarding *this* newsgroup, but on alt.support.tinnitus
    > we have - through trial and (a lot of) error - found that ad hominem attacks (no matter how
    > cleverly cloaked) ultimately serve no purpose but to reflect poorly on the attacker and to detract
    > from the value of the newsgroup. If you are going to insist on double-posting, I very respectfully
    > request that - at least for the purposes of alt.support.tinnitus - you please consider confining
    > your comments to the merits (or lack thereof) of the various issues and refrain from making
    > derogatory comments about the people espousing those issues.
    >
    > A happy and healthy holiday season to all - and the very best for the New Year.
    >
    > Thanks much -
    >
    > smn
     
  10. Steve

    Steve Guest

    On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 21:10:51 -0500, francispoon wrote
    (in message <[email protected]>):

    > Stephen Nagler <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:<[email protected]>...

    >> On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 09:04:54 -0800, [email protected] wrote:

    [Snip]

    Both you guys crack me up :)

    You apologize to a guy in alt.support.tinnitus but post it only in sci.med.cardiology :)

    You must be applying Chung-logic :)

    --

    Steve
     
  11. On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 21:38:19 -0500, Steve <[email protected]> wrote:

    >Both you guys crack me up :)
    >
    >You apologize to a guy in alt.support.tinnitus but post it only in sci.med.cardiology :)
    >
    >You must be applying Chung-logic :)

    ...............

    I read the explanations here just fine on sci.med.cardiology

    Thanks for your concern!

    But why the not-so-subtle swipe at Dr. Chung? Couldn't resist the opportunity as this universal
    season of good will approaches?

    Look, I don't know Dr. Chung from Adam. But take it from an outsider looking in. Folks reading medically-
    oriented newsgroups are for the most part pretty sophisticated. They don't need a play-by-play
    announcer or color commentator to separate the wheat from the chaff. The ad hominem stuff just
    muddies the waters.

    smn
     
  12. Stephen Nagler <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
    > On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 21:38:19 -0500, Steve <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >
    > >Both you guys crack me up :)
    > >
    > >You apologize to a guy in alt.support.tinnitus but post it only in sci.med.cardiology :)
    > >
    > >You must be applying Chung-logic :)
    >
    > ...............
    >
    > I read the explanations here just fine on sci.med.cardiology
    >
    > Thanks for your concern!
    >
    > But why the not-so-subtle swipe at Dr. Chung? Couldn't resist the opportunity as this universal
    > season of good will approaches?
    >
    > Look, I don't know Dr. Chung from Adam. But take it from an outsider looking in. Folks reading medically-
    > oriented newsgroups are for the most part pretty sophisticated. They don't need a play-by-play
    > announcer or color commentator to separate the wheat from the chaff. The ad hominem stuff just
    > muddies the waters.
    >
    > smn

    Uh-oh. Prepare to be called a Chung sock-puppet.

    Humbly,

    Andrew

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

    Steve Guest

    On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 22:30:02 -0500, Stephen Nagler wrote
    (in message <[email protected]>):

    > On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 21:38:19 -0500, Steve <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >
    >> Both you guys crack me up :)
    >>
    >> You apologize to a guy in alt.support.tinnitus but post it only in sci.med.cardiology :)
    >>
    >> You must be applying Chung-logic :)
    >
    > ...............
    >
    > I read the explanations here just fine on sci.med.cardiology
    >
    > Thanks for your concern!
    >
    > But why the not-so-subtle swipe at Dr. Chung? Couldn't resist the opportunity as this universal
    > season of good will approaches?
    >
    > Look, I don't know Dr. Chung from Adam. But take it from an outsider looking in. Folks reading medically-
    > oriented newsgroups are for the most part pretty sophisticated. They don't need a play-by-play
    > announcer or color commentator to separate the wheat from the chaff. The ad hominem stuff just
    > muddies the waters.

    Sir,

    I take your points.

    To be fair, and you seem to be a fair person, there is quite a long history here... on both sides.
    And, by your own admission you are an "outsider". Reasoning with Dr. Chung on these topics in a
    civilized fashion does not appear to be possible. I don't expect you to take my word for that, but I
    would urge you to google Chung and "2PD" or Chung and "untruth" for a more balanced picture.

    When someone behaves fanatically and irrationally, I don't believe it is an "ad hominem" to call him
    on it. It's only libel if it isn't true
    :)

    --

    Steve
     
  14. On 21 Dec 2003 23:25:25 -0800, [email protected] (Dr. Andrew B.
    Chung, MD/PhD) wrote:

    >Uh-oh. Prepare to be called a Chung sock-puppet.
    >
    >Humbly,
    >
    >Andrew

    ..................

    I'm no sock puppet for anybody, Dr. Chung. Not for you - or anybody else.

    But may I also suggest that there ain't a lot of "humbly" about a person using "Dr." and also
    "MD/PhD" in his usenet log-in name? It seems to me to be a bit of overkill that has the air of
    hyprcrisy even if it is not meant to. Perhaps you could change it simply to "Andrew Chung" and also
    lose the "Dr.," "MD/PhD," and "Board-Certified" stuff so often seen in your sig line. Folks might
    then accept the "humbly" more readily!

    Just a thought.

    smn

    Dr. Stephen M. Nagler, MD, FACS Board-Certified Surgeon (in case you wondered)
     
  15. Steve

    Steve Guest

    On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 7:45:31 -0500, Steve wrote
    (in message <[email protected]>):

    > On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 22:30:02 -0500, Stephen Nagler wrote (in message
    > <[email protected]>):
    >
    >> On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 21:38:19 -0500, Steve <[email protected]> wrote:

    [Snip]

    > I don't expect you to take my word for that, but I would urge you to google Chung and "2PD" or
    > Chung and "untruth" for a more balanced picture.

    Upon further reflection, I believe that would be a daunting task given the number of posts :) The
    recent thread "A Visit to Dr. Chung's Office"

    http://www.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-
    8&c2coff=1&safe=off&threadm=0001HW.BC05DF91000A91B709185470%40library.ai
    rnews.net&rnum=1&prev=/groups%3Fq%3Dgroup:sci.med.cardiology%2Binsubject
    :A%2Binsubject:Visit%2Binsubject:to%2Binsubject:Dr.%2Binsubject:Chung%27s%2Binsu bject:Office%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-
    8%26c2coff%3D1%26safe%3Doff%26filter%3D0

    I believe, captures the essence of the problem, which Dr. Chung obligingly validates in his
    responses to the thread.

    --

    Steve
     
  16. On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 7:45:31 -0500, Steve <[email protected]> wrote:

    >Sir,
    >
    >I take your points.
    >
    >To be fair, and you seem to be a fair person, there is quite a long history here... on both sides.
    >And, by your own admission you are an "outsider". Reasoning with Dr. Chung on these topics in a
    >civilized fashion does not appear to be possible. I don't expect you to take my word for that, but
    >I would urge you to google Chung and "2PD" or Chung and "untruth" for a more balanced picture.
    >
    >When someone behaves fanatically and irrationally, I don't believe it is an "ad hominem" to call
    >him on it. It's only libel if it isn't true
    >:)

    ...............

    I am indeed an outsider. And I mean no offense to anybody here.

    I can only counter by noting that ad hominem attacks - even if 100% true - are still ad hominem
    attacks and are in the main counterproductive, in my opinion. If somebody is behaving "fanatically
    and irrationally," it seems to me that such will become quite obvious to even the uninitiated
    reader if the discussion sticks to the position being espoused rather that to the person espousing
    the position.

    Look, I think I can speak with some authority on this topic. I have been the victim of numerous ad
    hominem attacks and have dealt out quite a few of my own. No good ever came of it on
    alt.support.tinnitus ... and I suspect no good will ever come of it here.

    With sincere best wishes to all for a healthy and happy 2004.

    Respectfully -

    smn
     
  17. On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 8:37:48 -0500, Steve <[email protected]> wrote:

    >I believe, captures the essence of the problem, which Dr. Chung obligingly validates in his
    >responses to the thread.
     
  18. On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 8:37:48 -0500, Steve <[email protected]> wrote:

    >Upon further reflection, I believe that would be a daunting task given the number of posts :) The
    >recent thread "A Visit to Dr. Chung's Office"
    >
    >http://www.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-
    >8&c2coff=1&safe=off&threadm=0001HW.BC05DF91000A91B709185470%40library.ai
    >rnews.net&rnum=1&prev=/groups%3Fq%3Dgroup:sci.med.cardiology%2Binsubject
    >:A%2Binsubject:Visit%2Binsubject:to%2Binsubject:Dr.%2Binsubject:Chung%27s%2Binsu bject:Office%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-
    >8%26c2coff%3D1%26safe%3Doff%26filter%3D0
    >
    >I believe, captures the essence of the problem, which Dr. Chung obligingly validates in his
    >responses to the thread.

    .......................

    Then let the man's own words be his undoing.

    Look, why "facilitate" the process by attacks that you probably truly believe are in the best
    interests of the readership of this newsgroup and especially the newbies? I respectfully suggest
    that in the final analysis they will all be better off if permitted draw their own conclusions
    rather than being "shown the light."

    smn
     
  19. Steve

    Steve Guest

    On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 10:47:35 -0500, Stephen Nagler wrote
    (in message <[email protected]>):

    > On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 7:45:31 -0500, Steve <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >
    >> Sir,
    >>
    >> I take your points.
    >>
    >> To be fair, and you seem to be a fair person, there is quite a long history here... on both
    >> sides. And, by your own admission you are an "outsider". Reasoning with Dr. Chung on these topics
    >> in a civilized fashion does not appear to be possible. I don't expect you to take my word for
    >> that, but I would urge you to google Chung and "2PD" or Chung and "untruth" for a more balanced
    >> picture.
    >>
    >> When someone behaves fanatically and irrationally, I don't believe it is an "ad hominem" to call
    >> him on it. It's only libel if it isn't true
    >>> -)
    >
    > ...............
    >
    > I am indeed an outsider. And I mean no offense to anybody here.

    And none is taken, by me at least :)

    > I can only counter by noting that ad hominem attacks - even if 100% true - are still ad hominem
    > attacks and are in the main counterproductive, in my opinion.

    Again, I take your point. Ideas should be judged on their own merits and not based on who has them.
    "Your ideas suck because you are a jerk" is not a very convincing argument. On the other hand, if
    someone consistently behaves like a jerk, I'm not sure how saying "you are behaving like a jerk" is
    out of line :) It is, after all, a form of societal sanction.

    > If somebody is behaving "fanatically and irrationally," it seems to me that such will become quite
    > obvious to even the uninitiated reader if the discussion sticks to the position being espoused
    > rather that to the person espousing the position.

    One would hope. I am afraid we live in a world, however, where many people are swayed by fanaticism
    and by people trying to lever their degrees to lend false authority to flawed ideas. Many
    unsophisticated lay people come here seeking help... one can easily mislead them by appealing to
    one's credentials if so motivated. I deplore it, but I am not sure what to do about it.

    > Look, I think I can speak with some authority on this topic. I have been the victim of numerous ad
    > hominem attacks and have dealt out quite a few of my own. No good ever came of it on
    > alt.support.tinnitus ... and I suspect no good will ever come of it here.

    Perhaps you are right. And if the _only_ factor that was operative here was ad hominem attacks, you
    are certainly right :) Sometimes it is helpful for me at least to be reminded of these things and
    step back and re-examine my motives.

    > With sincere best wishes to all for a healthy and happy 2004.

    Same to you.

    --

    Steve
     
  20. Stephen Nagler wrote:

    > On 21 Dec 2003 23:25:25 -0800, [email protected] (Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD) wrote:
    >
    > >Uh-oh. Prepare to be called a Chung sock-puppet.
    > >
    > >Humbly,
    > >
    > >Andrew
    >
    > ..................
    >
    > I'm no sock puppet for anybody, Dr. Chung. Not for you - or anybody else.
    >

    Good for you. Now convince the detractors.

    >
    > But may I also suggest that there ain't a lot of "humbly" about a person using "Dr." and also
    > "MD/PhD" in his usenet log-in name?

    Humility resides in the heart and not in appearances.

    > It seems to me to be a bit of overkill that has the air of hyprcrisy even if it is not meant to.
    > Perhaps you could change it simply to "Andrew Chung" and also lose the "Dr.," "MD/PhD," and "Board-
    > Certified" stuff so often seen in your sig line. Folks might then accept the "humbly" more
    > readily!

    Thanks for the suggestion. I'll pray about it.

    >
    >
    > Just a thought.
    >

    Appreciate the thought.

    >
    > smn

    >
    > Dr. Stephen M. Nagler, MD, FACS Board-Certified Surgeon (in case you wondered)

    Thanks, Stephen (Steve?)

    Humble bond-servant of the almighty Christ,

    Andrew

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