So coronary artery disease was apparently "non existen" before 1920.

[TableFun]

Why don't you just read the one I posted?
Too easy?

your first article is from 1966........

second article supports genetics as a huge factor which undermines reddragon

and your third article isn't even a research article, but the research article it points to was a cohort study and if you knew anything about research credibility you wouldnt have used anything tied to a cohort study.

 

[TableFun]

just realized you're a girl. sorry if I sounded mean. im sure you're really pretty or something...

 

[TableFun]

1) Because it's fun to watch redsamauri slowly be forced into admitting he didn't read any such article in the New England Journal of medicine.

2) You haven't been around long enough for me to pay much attention to anything you post.

3) Your first article was from 1966 and relied on retrospective data which in some cases doesn't even go past 1950. The author conveniently sidesteps the fact that we couldn't detect (or even document) coronary artery disease until well into the 20th century.

Now c'mon RS... post that NEJM link. Chris and I are dying to read it!

lol good times!

 

[smurf2]

The stats are on your side..the majority of people diagnosed under the DSM IV by trained professionals fall under the "undiagnosed other" classification as opposed to a defined condition.

You have made this claim more than once. Where did you get this info? Do you have a link?

 

[jjtt]

I got schooled-thanks for nothing arts degree!
I am pretty though- pretty ugly!

 

[cindylou]

I got schooled-thanks for nothing arts degree!

I just want to give you a huge hug right now for some reason...lol

 

[redsamurai]

can't access the articles from home, only through school...but can't access the net through that system. So not sure if posting the link would matter cause unless you pay for the access it doesn't look you could read anything. Plunky's just gonna have to do the legwork on this to find it. The article is not specifically about the instances of coronary artery disease before the 1900's. I was looking up some stuff for myself and found a few articles that mentioned that statistic in them, yes..a few articles. So this is common knowledge in the medical community that coronary artery disease is 20th century phenomena that while not 100% nonexistent before, compared to what it is now it's not even a debate. One of the other articles i saw was something from I think the franklin institute, i'll have to see if i run across that one.

 

[mrplunkey]

can't access the articles from home, only through school...but can't access the net through that system. So not sure if posting the link would matter cause unless you pay for the access it doesn't look you could read anything. Plunky's just gonna have to do the legwork on this to find it. The article is not specifically about the instances of coronary artery disease before the 1900's. I was looking up some stuff for myself and found a few articles that mentioned that statistic in them, yes..a few articles. So this is common knowledge in the medical community that coronary artery disease is 20th century phenomena that while not 100% nonexistent before, compared to what it is now it's not even a debate. One of the other articles i saw was something from I think the franklin institute, i'll have to see if i run across that one.

No worries. I have full electronic access to NEJM articles, so simply giving me the author's name and volume information will do. I'll dig-up the rest and post pieces of it here.

This thread is bookmarked, so I can periodically remind you from time-to-time to post the NEJM article citation. When will you be back at school?

 

[redsamurai]

No worries. I have full electronic access to NEJM articles, so simply giving me the author's name and volume information will do. I'll dig-up the rest and post pieces of it here.

This thread is bookmarked, so I can periodically remind you from time-to-time to post the NEJM article citation. When will you be back at school?

when i'll have access to that system i don't know when i'll be back in that lab. I kind of wasn't supposed to be looking at it in the first place, i was kind of bored. In any case, you have full access so you can "EASILY" find it yourself. I know you won't because you're counting on that my access is limited. A simple query at the NEJM website will magically conjure up all the information that is required.

 

[TableFun]

can't access the articles from home, only through school...but can't access the net through that system. So not sure if posting the link would matter cause unless you pay for the access it doesn't look you could read anything. Plunky's just gonna have to do the legwork on this to find it. The article is not specifically about the instances of coronary artery disease before the 1900's. I was looking up some stuff for myself and found a few articles that mentioned that statistic in them, yes..a few articles. So this is common knowledge in the medical community that coronary artery disease is 20th century phenomena that while not 100% nonexistent before, compared to what it is now it's not even a debate. One of the other articles i saw was something from I think the franklin institute, i'll have to see if i run across that one.

In other words ur full of shit?