Waist circumference is a better predictor of hypertension than BMI



Thu, 05 Feb 2004 13:50:16 -0500 in article
<[email protected]> "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>Why are you interested in only elderly japanese men, Matti?
>
Is that rhetoric question? The referred study serves as an example that BMI probably should not be
used as predictor of mortality in all subpopulations.

>Here are some better studies, including one looking at women.
>
Better? Different, but in what way better? Please be careful, when you reply that you don't write
anything which can easily be proven wrong ;-)

>http://makeashorterlink.com/?X54D23F47
>
>http://makeashorterlink.com/?I27D12F47
>
>http://makeashorterlink.com/?U2AD42F47
>
These are large studies of general population, where deviating subpopulations largely cancel each
others' effects. They don't tell anything about validity of BMI in certain subpopulations. What was
your point for bringing up these studies?

--
Matti Narkia
 
Matti Narkia <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> Thu, 5 Feb 2004 13:34:39 -0500 in article <[email protected]>
> Steve <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 5 Feb 2004 10:00:02 -0500, Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote (in message
>><[email protected]>):
>>
>>> Nigel wrote:
>>>
>>>> Matti Narkia <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>>>>
>><snip>
>>
>>>
>>> Correct.
>>>
>>>
>>> Servant to the humblest person in the universe,
>>>
>>> Andrew
>>
>>Thanks for quoting all of this, Mr. Humble, just so that you could add "Correct". After all, it's
>>sooooo important for everyone to have your IMAX certified approval. What a puffed-up, pompous, self-
>>important jerk.
>>
> Funny thing is that Chung's comment "correct" was probably incorrect, because BMI's validity as an
> assesment of all-cause mortality is questionable at least for some fairly large subpopulations.
>
>
> --
> Matti Narkia

I do agree that waist to hip is a better predictor for CHD. It is an indicator of visceral fat,
which in this instance is the important predictor.

However, BMI remains useful for risk screening; most people know their height and weight, however,
few would know the difference between their waist and hip measures let alone what they are. Those
with BMI>25 would do well to progress to waist to hip measures. As well, those with BMI<20 can be
flagged for follow up.

But it is important not to hang everything on one measure. One needs many measures to correctly
estimate risk. As well, neither BMI nor waist to hip ratio are the best predictors for CHD or all
cause mortality. Body fat measures are likely better than both BMI and waist to hip ratio. Diabetes
and smoking leap to mind as very good predictors.

If we were creating a new measure, I would be tempted to try the inches the belly overhangs the
belt as a predictor. Simple, but likely accurate for screening purposes and can be eyeballed in a
lot of cases.
 
Matti Narkia wrote:

> Thu, 05 Feb 2004 13:50:16 -0500 in article <[email protected]> "Dr. Andrew B.
> Chung, MD/PhD" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >Why are you interested in only elderly japanese men, Matti?
> >
> Is that rhetoric question? The referred study serves as an example that BMI probably should not be
> used as predictor of mortality in all subpopulations.
>

Sounds like you are back-pedalling here.

>
> >Here are some better studies, including one looking at women.
> >
> Better? Different, but in what way better?

(1) More people: 900,000 (1st study), 1,046,153 (2nd study), 115,195 (3rd study) versus 3741 (your
citation).

(2) More women.

(3) Broader age range.

(4) More esteemed journal (New England Journal of Medicine).

... just listing a few.

> Please be careful, when you reply that you don't write anything which can easily be proven
> wrong ;-)
>

Have at it :)

>
> >http://makeashorterlink.com/?X54D23F47
> >
> >http://makeashorterlink.com/?I27D12F47
> >
> >http://makeashorterlink.com/?U2AD42F47
> >
> These are large studies of general population, where deviating subpopulations largely cancel each
> others' effects.

If that were true, there should be *zero* net effect.

> They don't tell anything about validity of BMI in certain subpopulations.

See the third study. Last I checked, women (or men) are a subpopulation.

> What was your point for bringing up these studies?
>

Truth <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Weren't you trying to refute Nigel's assertion that:

"But BMI is still a quick and easy risk assessment for _all_cause_ mortality"

Care to do some more backpedalling?

This time try to be more truthful :)

(see how the gift of truth discernment works :)

Servant to the humblest person in the universe,

Andrew

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

--
Who is the humblest person in the universe?

http://makeashorterlink.com/?L21532147
 
Thu, 05 Feb 2004 21:28:21 GMT in article <[email protected]> Nigel
<I.don'[email protected]> wrote:

>Matti Narkia <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>
>> Thu, 5 Feb 2004 13:34:39 -0500 in article <[email protected]>
>> Steve <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 5 Feb 2004 10:00:02 -0500, Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote (in message
>>><[email protected]>):
>>>
>>>> Nigel wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Matti Narkia <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>>>>>
>>><snip>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Correct.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Servant to the humblest person in the universe,
>>>>
>>>> Andrew
>>>
>>>Thanks for quoting all of this, Mr. Humble, just so that you could add "Correct". After all, it's
>>>sooooo important for everyone to have your IMAX certified approval. What a puffed-up, pompous,
>>>self-important jerk.
>>>
>> Funny thing is that Chung's comment "correct" was probably incorrect, because BMI's validity as
>> an assesment of all-cause mortality is questionable at least for some fairly large
>> subpopulations.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Matti Narkia
>
>I do agree that waist to hip is a better predictor for CHD. It is an indicator of visceral fat,
>which in this instance is the important predictor.
>
>However, BMI remains useful for risk screening; most people know their height and weight, however,
>few would know the difference between their waist and hip measures let alone what they are. Those
>with BMI>25 would do well to progress to waist to hip measures. As well, those with BMI<20 can be
>flagged for follow up.
>
>But it is important not to hang everything on one measure. One needs many measures to correctly
>estimate risk. As well, neither BMI nor waist to hip ratio are the best predictors for CHD or all
>cause mortality. Body fat measures are likely better than both BMI and waist to hip ratio. Diabetes
>and smoking leap to mind as very good predictors.
>
>If we were creating a new measure, I would be tempted to try the inches the belly overhangs the
>belt as a predictor. Simple, but likely accurate for screening purposes and can be eyeballed in a
>lot of cases.

Well put, no disagreement.

--
Matti Narkia
 
"Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> Weren't you trying to refute Nigel's assertion that:
>
> "But BMI is still a quick and easy risk assessment for _all_cause_ mortality"
>
>
> Care to do some more backpedalling?
>

I think you will find that we both agree that the two measures are blunt instruments and a
wholistic approach is more useful for risk assessment and that both are useful in screening
amoungst other measures.

This is not refuting, it is simply discussion of the relative utility of measures. Things do not
have to be black and white.

Truth is not simple, it is often complex and subject to points of view.
 
Thu, 05 Feb 2004 16:53:54 -0500 in article
<[email protected]> "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Matti Narkia wrote:
>
>> Thu, 05 Feb 2004 13:50:16 -0500 in article <[email protected]> "Dr. Andrew B.
>> Chung, MD/PhD" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> >Why are you interested in only elderly japanese men, Matti?
>> >
>> Is that rhetoric question? The referred study serves as an example that BMI probably should not
>> be used as predictor of mortality in all subpopulations.
>
>Sounds like you are back-pedalling here.
>
Interesting. How did you get that impression? You must be _a lot_ more specific, if you want to be
taken seriously.
>>
>> >Here are some better studies, including one looking at women.
>> >
>> Better? Different, but in what way better?
>
>(1) More people: 900,000 (1st study), 1,046,153 (2nd study), 115,195 (3rd study) versus 3741 (your
> citation).
>
As in food, more is not equivalent to better, especially if the purpose is to study a subpopulation,
which may be smaller than the number cited above.

>(2) More women.
>
So you like women? Nothing wrong with that, so do I :). But if the purpose is to research a
specific male subpopulation more women in the study is hardly an advantage :)

>(3) Broader age range.
>
If the purpose is to study a subpopulation of elderly men, broader age range is hardly an advantage
:). Your comments are getting somewhat hilarious :)
>
>> >http://makeashorterlink.com/?X54D23F47
>> >
>> >http://makeashorterlink.com/?I27D12F47
>> >
>> >http://makeashorterlink.com/?U2AD42F47
>> >
>> These are large studies of general population, where deviating subpopulations largely cancel each
>> others' effects.
>
>If that were true, there should be *zero* net effect.
>
Now here you have to be much more specific. Please elaborate in detail, what you mean to expel my
impression that you don't have a clue what you are writing about.

>> They don't tell anything about validity of BMI in certain subpopulations.
>
>See the third study. Last I checked, women (or men) are a subpopulation.
>
Ah, so if the BMI seems to reasonably valid assessment of obesity and mortality in some
subpopulations, the same must be true for all subpopulations? Chungish logic? Please elaborate.
>
>Weren't you trying to refute Nigel's assertion that:
>
>"But BMI is still a quick and easy risk assessment for _all_cause_ mortality"
>
I demonstrated that this cannot be generalized to all subpopulations, and that there are cases where
there are better equally simple predictors.

--
Matti Narkia
 
Matti Narkia <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

>>If we were creating a new measure, I would be tempted to try the inches the belly overhangs the
>>belt as a predictor. Simple, but likely accurate for screening purposes and can be eyeballed in a
>>lot of cases.

And if one is following the two foot diet, the same ruler used for measuring food can be used for
the belly to belt measurement.

>
> Well put, no disagreement.
>

Thank you.
 
"Al. Lohse" wrote:

> Matti Narkia wrote:
> >
>
> > >> >
> > >> Funny thing is that Chung's comment "correct" was probably incorrect, because BMI's validity
> > >> as an assesment of all-cause mortality is questionable at least for some fairly large
> > >> subpopulations.
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Matti Narkia
> > >
> > >I sense that Matti's BMI is 55.
> > >
> > In that case you are totally senseless and perhaps also have memory impairment, because you
> > can't remember that I've repeatedly mentioned that unfortunately my BMI is only 20.2. I'd like
> > to raise it a bit, so I guess I have to start eating more and lifting some weights ;-).
> >
>
> Getting married could raise it to a cool 27 or more ;-) .
>
> If you are already married, deal with the tape worm or quit smoking.
>
> Amongst the humblest,
> A.L.

Glad to hear that you are now walking with Jesus Christ, Al.

My prayers have been answered :)

Servant to the humblest person in the universe,

Andrew

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

--
Who is the humblest person in the universe?

http://makeashorterlink.com/?L21532147
 
Nigel wrote:

> Matti Narkia <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>
> >>If we were creating a new measure, I would be tempted to try the inches the belly overhangs the
> >>belt as a predictor. Simple, but likely accurate for screening purposes and can be eyeballed in
> >>a lot of cases.
>
> And if one is following the two foot diet, the same ruler used for measuring food can be used for
> the belly to belt measurement.
>

Or don't bother at all because the belly is not going to change :)

>
> >
> > Well put, no disagreement.
> >
>
> Thank you.

You're welcome :)

Servant to the humblest person in the universe,

Andrew

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

--
Who is the humblest person in the universe?

http://makeashorterlink.com/?L21532147
 
Thu, 05 Feb 2004 15:03:08 -0500 in article
<[email protected]> "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Matti Narkia wrote:
>
>> Now, should we really believe you, when you say that you have hospital privileges?
>
>In truth, I haven't said one way or another here on Usenet :)
>
Based on your usenet behavior that's equivalent to admitting that you don't have hospital
privileges. But why you cannot be truthful and tell it directly and honestly? Is telling the truth
and nothing but the truth a problem for you?

--
Matti Narkia
 
Matti Narkia wrote:

> Thu, 05 Feb 2004 15:03:08 -0500 in article <[email protected]> "Dr. Andrew B.
> Chung, MD/PhD" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Matti Narkia wrote:
> >
> >> Now, should we really believe you, when you say that you have hospital privileges?
> >
> >In truth, I haven't said one way or another here on Usenet :)
> >
> Based on your usenet behavior that's equivalent to admitting that you don't have hospital
> privileges.

Hardly.

> But why you cannot be truthful

I have been truthful.

> and tell it directly and honestly?

It would not be wise at this time :)

> Is telling the truth and nothing but the truth a problem for you?
>

No.

Truth is simple.

Servant to the humblest person in the universe,

Andrew

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

--
Who is the humblest person in the universe?

http://makeashorterlink.com/?L21532147
 
Matti Narkia wrote:

> Thu, 05 Feb 2004 16:53:54 -0500 in article <[email protected]> "Dr. Andrew B.
> Chung, MD/PhD" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Matti Narkia wrote:
> >
> >> Thu, 05 Feb 2004 13:50:16 -0500 in article <[email protected]> "Dr. Andrew B.
> >> Chung, MD/PhD" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >Why are you interested in only elderly japanese men, Matti?
> >> >
> >> Is that rhetoric question? The referred study serves as an example that BMI probably should not
> >> be used as predictor of mortality in all subpopulations.
> >
> >Sounds like you are back-pedalling here.
> >
> Interesting. How did you get that impression? You must be _a lot_ more specific, if you want to be
> taken seriously.

You had set out to refute Nigel's assertion that:

"But BMI is still a quick and easy risk assessment for _all_cause_ mortality"

Now you are claiming that you had set out to refute that:

"BMI should be used as predictor of mortality in all subpopulations."

And, yet only you seem to be making this assertion.

>
> >>
> >> >Here are some better studies, including one looking at women.
> >> >
> >> Better? Different, but in what way better?
> >
> >(1) More people: 900,000 (1st study), 1,046,153 (2nd study), 115,195 (3rd study) versus 3741
> > (your citation).
> >
> As in food, more is not equivalent to better, especially if the purpose is to study a
> subpopulation, which may be smaller than the number cited above.
>

We are not discussing food here (yet :). Studies with more people have greater statistical power.
Some would see this as "better."

>
> >(2) More women.
> >
> So you like women?

Yes.

> Nothing wrong with that, so do I :).

Good recovery ;-)

(Mu was probably rearing up to comment about where Matt Bernstein had gone to :)

> But if the purpose is to research a specific male subpopulation more women in the study is hardly
> an advantage :)
>

However, for the purpose of generalizability of study results, more women (compared to no women)
is "better."

>
> >(3) Broader age range.
> >
> If the purpose is to study a subpopulation of elderly men, broader age range is hardly an
> advantage :).

Again, generalizability is an advantage.

> Your comments are getting somewhat hilarious :)

You seem to be the only one laughing :)

>
> >
> >> >http://makeashorterlink.com/?X54D23F47
> >> >
> >> >http://makeashorterlink.com/?I27D12F47
> >> >
> >> >http://makeashorterlink.com/?U2AD42F47
> >> >
> >> These are large studies of general population, where deviating subpopulations largely cancel
> >> each others' effects.
> >
> >If that were true, there should be *zero* net effect.
> >
> Now here you have to be much more specific.

zero = 0 = null

> Please elaborate in detail, what you mean to expel my impression that you don't have a clue what
> you are writing about.
>

1-1=0

>
> >> They don't tell anything about validity of BMI in certain subpopulations.
> >
> >See the third study. Last I checked, women (or men) are a subpopulation.
> >
> Ah, so if the BMI seems to reasonably valid assessment of obesity and mortality in some
> subpopulations, the same must be true for all subpopulations? Chungish logic? Please elaborate.

Concept: Generalizability to an individual is more relevant than finding subgroups that are
seemingly exceptional.

>
> >
> >Weren't you trying to refute Nigel's assertion that:
> >
> >"But BMI is still a quick and easy risk assessment for _all_cause_ mortality"
> >
> I demonstrated that this cannot be generalized to all subpopulations, and that there are cases
> where there are better equally simple predictors.
>

Again, you are backpedalling.

Generalizability to the individual is more useful than finding subgroup(s) that are seemingly
exceptional.

Servant to the humblest person in the universe,

Andrew

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

--
Who is the humblest person in the universe?

http://makeashorterlink.com/?L21532147
 
Nigel wrote:

> "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
> > Weren't you trying to refute Nigel's assertion that:
> >
> > "But BMI is still a quick and easy risk assessment for _all_cause_ mortality"
> >
> >
> > Care to do some more backpedalling?
> >
>
> I think you will find that we both agree that the two measures are blunt instruments and a
> wholistic approach is more useful for risk assessment and that both are useful in screening
> amoungst other measures.
>

We do.

>
> This is not refuting, it is simply discussion of the relative utility of measures. Things do not
> have to be black and white.
>

Correct.

>
> Truth is not simple, it is often complex and subject to points of view.

Incorrect.

Servant to the humblest person in the universe,

Andrew

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

--
Who is the humblest person in the universe?

http://makeashorterlink.com/?L21532147
 
Thu, 05 Feb 2004 15:07:04 -0800 in article
<[email protected]> "Al. Lohse" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
>Matti Narkia wrote:
>>
>
>
>
>> >> >
>> >> Funny thing is that Chung's comment "correct" was probably incorrect, because BMI's validity
>> >> as an assesment of all-cause mortality is questionable at least for some fairly large
>> >> subpopulations.
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Matti Narkia
>> >
>> >I sense that Matti's BMI is 55.
>> >
>> In that case you are totally senseless and perhaps also have memory impairment, because you can't
>> remember that I've repeatedly mentioned that unfortunately my BMI is only 20.2. I'd like to raise
>> it a bit, so I guess I have to start eating more and lifting some weights ;-).
>
>
>Getting married could raise it to a cool 27 or more ;-) .
>
I've been married for 23 years, so that doesn't seem to work for me. Well, it did to a certain
extent long ago, but now my BMI is back to a miserly
20.2 :-(

>If you are already married, deal with the tape worm or quit smoking.
>
I quit smoking 29 years ago, that didn't work either. Have to try to kill the worm then :). What do
you recommend? Whisky or brandy? Or vodka? Or perhaps I should try 2PD diet. Two pounds of chocolate
is about 4850 calories, that should do it.

--
Matti Narkia
 
Matti Narkia wrote:

> Thu, 05 Feb 2004 15:07:04 -0800 in article <[email protected]> "Al. Lohse"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >Matti Narkia wrote:
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> Funny thing is that Chung's comment "correct" was probably incorrect, because BMI's validity
> >> >> as an assesment of all-cause mortality is questionable at least for some fairly large
> >> >> subpopulations.
> >> >>
> >> >> --
> >> >> Matti Narkia
> >> >
> >> >I sense that Matti's BMI is 55.
> >> >
> >> In that case you are totally senseless and perhaps also have memory impairment, because you
> >> can't remember that I've repeatedly mentioned that unfortunately my BMI is only 20.2. I'd like
> >> to raise it a bit, so I guess I have to start eating more and lifting some weights ;-).
> >
> >
> >Getting married could raise it to a cool 27 or more ;-) .
> >
> I've been married for 23 years, so that doesn't seem to work for me. Well, it did to a certain
> extent long ago, but now my BMI is back to a miserly
> 20.2 :-(
>
> >If you are already married, deal with the tape worm or quit smoking.
> >
> I quit smoking 29 years ago, that didn't work either. Have to try to kill the worm then :). What
> do you recommend? Whisky or brandy? Or vodka? Or perhaps I should try 2PD diet. Two pounds of
> chocolate is about 4850 calories, that should do it.
>
> --
> Matti Narkia

Again, I sense a BMI of 55 :)

Servant to the humblest person in the universe,

Andrew

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

--
Who is the humblest person in the universe?

http://makeashorterlink.com/?L21532147
 
Last Shot At The Mu_n wrote:

> On Thu, 05 Feb 2004 17:46:07 -0500, "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>(Mu was probably rearing up to comment about where Matt Bernstein had gone to :)
>
> Ever hear the phrase "he went to take a dump and the pigs ate him"?

No. Something people in your family said about other relatives?

Trailer park humor? And remember, Chung says he never does ad hominems. Remember that. 'K?

Bob
 
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:

> Matti Narkia wrote:
>
>>Thu, 05 Feb 2004 15:07:04 -0800 in article <[email protected]> "Al. Lohse"
>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>Matti Narkia wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>Funny thing is that Chung's comment "correct" was probably incorrect, because BMI's validity
>>>>>>as an assesment of all-cause mortality is questionable at least for some fairly large
>>>>>>subpopulations.
>>>>>>--
>>>>>>Matti Narkia
>>>>>
>>>>>I sense that Matti's BMI is 55.
>>>>
>>>>In that case you are totally senseless and perhaps also have memory impairment, because you
>>>>can't remember that I've repeatedly mentioned that unfortunately my BMI is only 20.2. I'd like
>>>>to raise it a bit, so I guess I have to start eating more and lifting some weights ;-).
>>>
>>>Getting married could raise it to a cool 27 or more ;-) .
>>>
>>I've been married for 23 years, so that doesn't seem to work for me. Well, it did to a certain
>>extent long ago, but now my BMI is back to a miserly
>>20.2 :-(
>>
>>>If you are already married, deal with the tape worm or quit smoking.
>>>
>>I quit smoking 29 years ago, that didn't work either. Have to try to kill the worm then :). What
>>do you recommend? Whisky or brandy? Or vodka? Or perhaps I should try 2PD diet. Two pounds of
>>chocolate is about 4850 calories, that should do it.
>>
>>--
>>Matti Narkia
>
> Again, I sense a BMI of 55 :)

What a fool is Chung. He "senses' a BMI of someone half the world away to demonstrate his miserly
Christian charity. Another blast from his unfortunately defective Truth Discernment Ray.

Poor Chung can't see when he's hopelessly outclassed in what he pretends is his own field. So he
has to play his ad hominem games which he says he never does. How many lies does Chung do in an
average day?

Bob
 
On Thu, 5 Feb 2004 15:03:08 -0500, Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote
(in message <[email protected]>):

>> Now, should we really believe you, when you say that you have hospital privileges?

"The untruthful have a problem answering yes or no questions"
... A. B. Chung, Truth Discerner of the First Rank

> In truth, I haven't said one way or another here on Usenet :)

So now truth is defined by what one says on Usenet, not by, for example, what one enters into the
AMA Database.

What a slimeball, you are Chung.

Correct.

--
Steve

Who is the humblest person in the universe? According to Chung, God :) ROTFL! "I'm Humble!
Worship Me!"

Weeding the Lord's Vineyards Since 2003
 
Steve wrote:

> On Thu, 5 Feb 2004 15:03:08 -0500, Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote (in message
> <[email protected]>):
>
> >> Now, should we really believe you, when you say that you have hospital privileges?
>
> <hiss>
>
> > In truth, I haven't said one way or another here on Usenet :)
>
> <hiss>

You poor guy.

Servant to the humblest person in the universe,

Andrew

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

--
Who is the humblest person in the universe?

http://makeashorterlink.com/?L21532147
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back