Re: Chung has died and returned with proof WAS:Re: The Bull*** Parade

From: Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD (andrew_at_heartmdphd.com)
Date: 08/14/04 

Date: Sat, 14 Aug 2004 12:58:53 -0400

Steve Marcus wrote:

> "Bob (this one)" <Bob@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:10hr04mebja3952@corp.supernews.com...
> > Steve Marcus wrote:
> >
> > > "Bob (this one)" <Bob@nospam.com> wrote in message
> > > news:10hq9s6fq0neg10@corp.supernews.com...
> > >
> > >> Steve Marcus wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> "Bob (this one)" <Bob@nospam.com> wrote in message
> > >>>
> > >>>> I think it's nothing short of hilarious how the Chungish Army
> > >>>> flies out of the woodwork when he does one of his so-frequent
> > >>>> bonehead posts. Welcome back. Can't say as I've missed you,
> > >>>> but I wasn't aiming, so nothing lost.
> > >>>
> > >>> And I think that you are one of the biggest a-holes on Usenet
> > >>> by continuing to attack Dr. Chung simply because you are in the
> > >>> business of selling food,
> > >
> > >> Um, I don't have any restaurants any more. Haven't owned one for
> > >> almost a decade.
> > >>
> > >> If you believe that's the reason (as though there's only one!) I
> > >> dispute Chung, then you are cursed with an inability to see Chung
> > >> in the real light of his actions. Your observation is too
> > >> superficial and trivial for serious discourse.
> > >
> > > Nonsense. I don't read what Dr. Chung writes to venerate Dr.
> > > Chung. I read what he writes because he's discussing cardiology.
> > > What he says is a jumping off point; one can investigate and
> > > determine whether what he's written is write, wrong, or a little of
> > > both.
> >
> > No one is talking about veneration. You impute neutral implications to
> > Chung's posts, and that's simply inaccurate. He has offered "advice"
> > that was categorically wrong.
>
> Proof?? And not just proof of error; proof of intentional error is required.
> Everyone, from doctors to chefs, make mistakes. My point is that any error
> he makes _posting on Usenet_ is irrelevant; he isn't prescribing, his
> discussing and recommending. I've often posted that anyone who takes _any_
> medical information via Usenet and just follows it is an idiot.
>
> > I haven't looked at any numbers of how
> > many of his posts are about cardiology versus what others are, but I
> > daresay that it's not as many as your comment implies.
>
> My impression is just the opposite. Particularly in the days before there
> were more posters of your "quality" posting personal attacks directed
> against Dr. Chung than there were posters just asking medical related
> questions, whether generally or directed to Dr. Chung. Certainly he's
> posted more non-cardiology posts since you and others decided that you had
> nothing better to do than to come on sci.med.cardiology and attack Dr. Chung
> , and I included here attacks on him for the 2 lb diet and attacks directed
> at his proselytizing. I note that the proselytizing did not exist until he
> was being bombarded with attack posts and I suspect it to be a defense
> mechanism that he uses to continue to try helping people by posting rather
> than just spending his free time doing something else.
>
> > A great number
> > of them are merely exercises in his personal brand of hypocrisy and
> > fraud. You seem to simply not notice them.
>
> And you seem to be able to read minds. How the hell do you know what I
> notice? In fact, I observe from reading your posts that you believe his
> proselytizing to be hypocrisy, thereby demonstrating that you don't
> understand the meaning of the word "hypocrisy."
>
> >
> > > On the other hand, what the value of what you post to
> > > sci.archaeology
> >
> > I don't post to sci.archaeology.
>
> My mistake. Of what value are your posts to sci.med.cardiology?
>
> >
> > > is zero, that's zip, nada, ziltch, bupkus, nought,
> > > nil. All you are looking for is a reaction (either from Dr. Chung,
> > > or from others). In short, you are a freakin' troll.
> >
> > In short, you are less that diligent in your reading, friend Steve.
> > Perhaps you missed the whole deal with Chung saying that 2 pounds of
> > bread contains 4000 calories.
>
> Depends on the bread, doesn't it?
>
> > Perhaps you missed his telling everyone
> > that 325 mg of aspirin is the minimum for safety.
>
> In fact my own cardiologist had prescribed exactly the same dosage, for
> exactly the same reason, and I have been following that advice since 1995.
> Recently, my cardiologist reduced the dosage for other reasons. But in the
> intervening time, I specifically asked about new studies that arguably show
> that 81 mg is equally effective, and was told that the issue was indeed
> debatable, but as I was tolerating 325 mg quite nicely, then there was no
> point to cutting the dosage. My cardiologist then stated, "325 mg is an
> adult dosage of aspirin while 81 mg is a child's dosage. You are an adult,
> aren't you?"
>
> > Perhaps you missed
> > his talking about caloric usage for running 5 miles. There are more
> > such egregious blunders. I replied to all those things because they
> > were factually wrong and provably so and might lead people who
> > accepted his words into problems.
>
> I may have missed this last one. But again, so what if Dr. Chung
> "blundered"? His post would have been on topic for the newsgroup to which
> he posted, and would have been nothing more than a starting point for people
> wishing to learn about the point in question, not a prescription. Or do you
> believe that if Dr. Chung were to post that all statin users should stop
> taking their drugs immediately and instead take a mixture of honey and salt
> three times daily, that anyone here would do so because of the "Dr." in
> front of his surname? Only an idiot would do so. For my part, I would do
> some independent research, and if it looked at all like Dr. Chung might have
> a point, I would ask my doctor.
>
> >
> > >>> and Dr. Chung happens to recommend a 2 lb diet approach.
> > >>
> > >> I am critical of Chung for his absurd "diet" as well as his
> > >> fraudulence. His deliberate malice. His quackery. His mistakes
> > >> that he refuses to correct. His sanctimonious use of his
> > >> preposterous "faith" as a weapon and means to heap scorn. His
> > >> smug arrogance. His lousy advice about calories and his belief
> > >> that dieters should be lied to about caloric content and usage.
> > >
> > > Dr. Chung's diet isn't absurd. What's absurb is the position that
> > > those who interpret it as recommending that the daily 2 lbs of food
> > > consist of _any_ food (2 lbs of ice cream, or 2 lbs of bread, or 2
> > > lbs of steak, etc.) and do not understand that it is directed
> > > primarily at morbidly obese people who typically consume too many
> > > calories by consuming enormous quantities of food each day.
> >
> > Sorry, Steve. You need to follow along a bit better. EITHER you
> > restrict your diet to 2 pounds of food irrespective of what it is OR
> > you minimize calories taken in. If the diet calls for BOTH as you say
> > Chung's must, then it's the calories that are the index, not the
> > weight. That being the case, his "diet" is using the wrong indices.
> >
>
> Learn how to read, and how to think. Do you seriously believe that there
> are people walking around who do not understand that one needs to diet by
> restricting caloric instake? The point is, as I wrote above, that the 2 lb
> diet is addressed to quantity, and it _is_ true that for a morbidly obese
> person, 2 lbs of ice cream daily is an improvement over 3 lbs a day, and may
> even be a first necessary step to getting that person to restrict calories
> by restricting intake. Once one learns to restrict quantity, and one
> engages one's brain to select healthier foods to make up that quanityt, one
> will lose weight, by reason of measuring the intake, not worrying about
> counting the calories.
>
> If you read Dr. Chung's diet any other way, you either need remedial reading
> classes, or you are being disingenous.
>
> > Chung doesn't restrict it to morbidly obese people or even just obese
> > people. He and MU_cus both say they eat 2 pounds of food a day and
> > both claim not to be obese at all. He has said that 2 pounds of food
> > should be enough for *anyone*.
>
> See above. You are simply being disingenous in how you read and understand
> Dr. Chung's posts, or you are pretty stupid.
>
> >
> > I note you avoid comment on "His deliberate malice.
>
> I detect none.
>
> > His quackery. His
> > mistakes that he refuses to correct.
>
> A mistake does not equal quackery. Nor would several. It/they
> constitute(s) human error. (One of the principal qualifications I demand of
> my physicians is that they be human beings.) I see damned few errors, and
> no quackery in Dr. Chung's posts.
>
> > His sanctimonious use of his
> > preposterous "faith" as a weapon and means to heap scorn.
>
> As noted above, I dislike his proselytizing, but I don't see it as heaping
> scorn, I see it as a defensive reaction to the attacks, and as a
> justification to keep spending time posting and thereby providing people
> with information from which they might at least ask their doctors an
> intelligent question, as opposed to simply doing something else with his
> free time.
>
> > His smug
> > arrogance.
>
> He's got an M.D. degree and practices medicine. He ought to be proud of
> that. I don't confuse his pride with smugness.
>
> > His lousy advice about calories and his belief that dieters
> > should be lied to about caloric content and usage."
>
> I don't regard his advice as lousy. What I regard is lousy is your ability
> to read and to think, or alternatively your honesty is lousy.
>
> > That's all ok with
> > you?
>
> See above.
>
> >
> > >>> People are free to read Dr. Chung's posts, or not.
> > >>
> > >> As they are with yours and mine.
> > >>
> > >> Have you met MU? You might want to have the same talk with him. I
> > >> know he'll listen with all the care and attention your lecture
> > >> deserves.
> > >
> > > What does any other poster have to do with my comments, or with the
> > > fact that your posts are off topic for the newsgroups in the
> > > headers of this thread, and certainly for cardiology and medical
> > > newsgroups?
> >
> > Funny how what you've written so parallels the messages of MU_le. Even
> > sounds a good bit like it, you know?
>
> Really? So I post using my name, and provide an e-mail contact address,
> because in my spare time I post anonymously from an e-mail posting service?
> As I said, learn to think Bob; thinking is an important trait.
>
> >
> > Au contraire. My comments have to do with your forgiveness or ignoring
> > others who perpetrate the original sins and focus on me alone. If the
> > principles and the descriptions you offer are terrible things, then
> > you ought to apply them to *all* who violate your codes of behavior.
> > Otherwise, your motives become a bit suspect.
>
> Now you're telling me when I'm permitted to reach the point of getting fed
> up? I got fed up with _you_ Bob. I called you on it. Don't presume to
> tell me what to do.
>
> >
> > When Chung gives out flawed information, and he has repeatedly, I feel
> > perfectly entitled to correct it. I'm sorry you don't see any benefit
> > to it, but based on your comments above that show a profound lack of
> > understanding of what Chung's "diet" is about, I'm not sure you've
> > followed anything very well.
>
> This sort of strawman crap is getting tiring, Bob. I've posted enough
> specifics to show just who, as between you and Dr. Chung, is the problem
> here. Rest assured that I had no expectation that my post would persuade
> you to quit behaving as you do. But I suspect that it might have the effect
> of persuading some folks to ignore the venomous crap that you spew.
>
> >
> > Learn to use your killfile.
>
> I don't believe in self-censorship. As an adult, I'm capable of reading
> stuff as I choose, and ignoring stuff posted by people whom I know to post
> content-free posts. My purpose in posting was to tell you, and anyone else
> who read the post, what I think of you and why. Which I've done.
> >
> > Have a very lovely day.
> >
> Likewise.
> > Bob
> >
> Steve

Your composure, logic, and eloquence glorifies God.

You are in my prayers, dear neighbor whom I love.

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/?L26062048
What is all this about?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?R20632B48
Is this spam?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?N69721867
Quantcast