Re: Dialysis, anyone?


"Bob (this one)" <Bob@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:11ba2pj9at9faa7@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Bill wrote:
>> "Bob (this one)" <Bob@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> news:11b7fclb5pji69b@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>
>>>Bill wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Ma¢k" <youknow@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>>>news:e1i6b19vm7gul2r6ch24h7b894em62mphs@xxxxxxxxxx
>>>>
>>>>>On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 18:08:45 GMT, "Bill" <xxx@xxxxx> Huffed and Puffed
>>>>>the following into the madness of usenet:
>>>>>
>>>>>>There is no doubt that Dr. Chung is a Dr. You can find him on the
>>>>>>AMA site.
>>>
>>>The AMA is careful to say that they don't vouch for anything on the
>>>site. That the physicians provide the information and the AMA doesn't
>>>verify it. It's like saying he must be the real thing because his
>>>letterhead says so.
>>
>> False. This is from their site:
>>
>> AMA Physician Select
>> AMA Physician Select provides primary source-verified information on all US
>> licensed physicians from which consumers can select a physician or verify
>> the credentials of a known physician. This means that all data have been
>> verified for accuracy and authenticated by accrediting agencies, medical
>> schools, residency training programs, licensing and certifying boards, and
>> other data sources.
>> AMA Physician Select listings are based on data maintained in the AMA
>> Physician Masterfile, the largest and most reliable and unbiased collection
>> of physician information available anywhere. Data on individual physicians,
>> spanning the continuum from undergraduate medical education through
>> physician practice, are continuously updated. Unlike other physician
>> locator services, physicians do not pay a fee to be included in AMA
>> Physician Select or in the AMA Physician Masterfile.
>>
>> Each physician listed in AMA Physician Select is a doctor of medicine (MD)
>> or a doctor of osteopathy or osteopathic medicine (DO), and is licensed to
>> practice in one or more of the 54 US licensing jurisdictions, including the
>> District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands.
>
> Funny thing about that. I didn't see the above copy on the site, but I did
> have to agree to these conditions (below) before they let me see any
> physician's page.
>

You can click on it on the "Welcome to AMA Physican Select" page. It is not
important, however, since you have agreed he is a Dr.
> "AMA Physician Select is compiled and published by the American Medical
> Association ("AMA") as a reference source of demographic and professional
> information on individual licensed physicians in the United States. The
> only permitted uses of AMA Physician Select are for (i) the personal
> convenience of individual members of the general public to facilitate quick
> access to information about physicians with whom they may be consulting
> regarding medical services and (ii) individual physicians or their staff to
> view their personal listings or those of colleagues for professional
> purposes such as patient referrals.
>
> "AMA reserves the right and hereby notifies you that it will be monitoring
> all use of this website for compliance with the terms and conditions of this
> agreement - including the permitted use described above. AMA shall block
> your use of this product indefinitely should we determine, at our sole
> discretion, that your use is beyond that permitted above. Neither AMA
> Physician Select nor any of its data, listings or other constituent elements
> may be downloaded, republished, resold, duplicated or "scraped", in whole or
> in part, for any purpose other than the personal uses permitted above.
>
> "The use of AMA Physician Select by hospitals, managed care organizations,
> PPOs or other commercial entities or individuals to verify the credentials
> of physicians is prohibited. The database of physician information which
> drives AMA Physician Select does not contain sufficient information with
> which to verify physician credentials under the standards of the Joint
> Commission (JCAHO), National Committee for Quality Assurance (NCQA) or the
> Utilization Review Accreditation Committee (URAC). For further information
> about AMA services available specifically for verifying physician
> credentials, please contact the AMA Credentialing Products Department at
> http://www.ama-assn.org/go/amaprofiles.
>
> "Disclaimer of Warranties and Liabilities
>
> "AMA undertakes reasonable efforts to keep the information contained in AMA
> Physician Select accurate. However, because AMA compiles such information
> from numerous and varied sources and may experience reporting and processing
> errors or delays, the AMA makes no representations or warranties of any
> nature with respect to the information obtained through this Web site
> including, without limitation, the implied warranties of merchantability and
> fitness for any particular purpose. The material included in this Web site
> is for informational purposes only.
>
> "Inclusion of a physician is not and does not imply AMA referral,
> endorsement or recommendation, nor does the omission of any individual
> indicate AMA disapproval.
>
> "AMA shall not be liable to you or others for any decision made or action
> taken by you in reliance on the information obtained from this site. Please
> indicate your agreement with the terms and conditions set forth above by
> clicking below on the button labeled "Accept."
>
> And on the top of every physician's page, it says:
>
> "The information contained in the AMA Physician Select report does NOT meet
> the primary source equivalency requirement as set forth in the credentialing
> standards of accreditation organizations such as the Joint Commission on the
> Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations (JCAHO) or the National Committee
> for Quality Assurance (NCQA)."
>
>>>On the AMA site he says he has admitting privileges with three hospitals
>>>that have denied that he does.
>>>
> >>On the Georgia Composite Board page, it says: "This physician has
> reported
>>>that he/she does not currently hold staff privileges at any hospital."
>>><https://www.gaphysicianprofile.org/profile.ShowProfileAction.action?lic_nbr=040347>
>>>
>> The question was if he is a Dr. - not staff privileges.
>
> That question has been answered. The topic has evolved.
>

You may wish to talk about something different. I am only addressing the
original question.

>>>>>>His site has pictures of his diaplomias, and he graduated from
>>>>>>Emory Univ. He has an active practice outside of Atlanta
>>>
>>>You know this for a fact? "Active...?" How active is active? What does
>>>"active" mean?
>>>
>> You can make an appointment, as I said.
>
> "Active" implies certain level of busyness. Open for business simply means
> that.
>

I have not been to Ga. for some time, so I am unable to monitor how many
patients he has. What I meant was you can make an appointment. It seems
reasonable that if you keep an office open you have patients. However, you may
define it as you wish.


>>>>>>and you can make an appointment if you wish.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Bill
>>>>>
>>>>>he also got fired from a cardiac clinic in florida for lack of quality
>>>>>care, mainly diagnosing patients with problems they did not
>>>>>have.
>>>>>
>>>>What I think you mean is that he wanted to provide more treatment than the
>>>>clinic wanted to. In any case, what is your supporting documentation?
>>>
>>>On what basis do you assert that "he wanted to provide more treatment
>>>than the clinic wanted to?" His assertion has recently been that the
>>>clinic wanted him to falsify records and then trumped up charges after the
>>>fact. How does that point to your statement? And, "In any case, what is
>>>your supporting documentation?"
>>>
>> I recall him saying that. I have seen no evidence to the contrary. If you
>> have better evidence please present it.
>
> Did you not read the email from another doctor from Ocala that Chung posted?

I do not recall it.
>
>>>He was a junior member of the staff who refused to accept the ideas and
>>>experience of cardiologists with years and decades more training and
>>>experience than he had.
>>>
>> What evidence do you have for that.
>
> Did you not read the email from another doctor from Ocala that Chung posted?
>

Asked and answered.

>>>Chung's own reply to these words:
>>>
>>>>>Chung was fired for giving substandard medical care.
>>>
>>>>That is what they alleged **after** I filed a complaint with the Florida
>>>>Medical Board about their attempt to coerce me to falsify the medical
>>>>records of my patients.
>>>
>>>Read the whole thread
>>><http://tinyurl.com/apkpk>
>>>
>>>>>and yet less than a week ago who made the claim that he left florida
>>>>>because the attacks on the world trade center of 9-11 showed that the
>>>>>people of ocala florida were godless sinful people.
>>>>>His words. Not mine.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I don't recall that. But you might be right. Do you have a quote?
>>>
>>>I don't read it quite the same way:
>>>
>>>"At the time the NY Twin Towers fell, I was sorely tempted to betray the
>>>truth for the money (at the time, I was the **only** cardiologist among
>>>the 40 or so there in Ocala seeing new patients and the only one in the
>>>large group of 12 other cardiologists, who were also my employers, who
>>>did invasive procedures). After seeing the Twin Towers fall, I was
>>>reminded that the truth is worth more than all the money in the world."
>>><http://tinyurl.com/9m55r>
>>>
>>>But that "truth" that he so casually and vaguely refers to is his version
>>>of it. Then, as now, he admits no error nor even the hint of improper
>>>action on his part, as his former employer noted back in 2001 in the email
>>>Chung quoted.
>>>
>> Please provide what you are talking about.
>
> Did you not read the email from another doctor form Ocala that Chung posted?
>

Why do you keep asking the same question but provide no information?

>>>He also said a while back that the pilot who terrified a whole planeload of
>>>passengers with religious ranting and judgements was behaving properly.
>>>
>>>>>so go ahead and you trust a nut case like chung.
>>>>
>>>>The question was is he a Dr. And the answer is yes. Do you dispute this?
>>>
>>>No. He has the paper credentials.
>>>
>>>But there's an implicit question beyond that and it is, "Is he a
>>>reliable, credible doctor. His lying to the AMA about hospital admitting
>>>privileges should send up a red flag.
>>
>> That I'm not sure of. I don't know where he can admit or whether this was a
>> matter of timing - I'm listed on some professional sites with old data
>> simply because I did not bother to update. But, in any case, that was not
>> the issue here. The question was is he a Dr. and is his advice here good.
>
> The question about whether he's a doctor that you seem to want to keep it to
> had been answered. The thread has drifted, as they're wont to do in Usenet.

Who is drifting? No one other than you is talking here. And I am not
interested in other subjects. You wish to change the subject because you can
not deal with the original.

> And the quality of his medical advice as dispensed here has been questioned
> by lay people and doctors alike. So asked and answered.
>

You have yet to provide a single example that stands up. So asked but yes
answered in the sense you have provided no examples.

> He has no admitting privileges.
>

You claim, but I don't know either way. In any case it is irrelevant.

>>>His insistent assertions about
>>>caloric usage and caloric contents of foods should send up red flags. His
>>>distortions and diversions raise more red flags. His assertions that
>>>Christian doctors do a better job than any others should raise still more
>>>red flags. His insistence that evolution doesn't happen is simply
>>>ridiculous in the face of overwhelming supportive data and raise serious
>>>questions about his assertion that he's a scientist. His insistence that
>>>there was a global flood as described in the bible in the face of clear
>>>evidence to the contrary rather cements his unreliability. That whole
>>>spurious business about "truth discernment" that involves no action on his
>>>part, but just happens, should send people running.
>>>
>>>
>>>>Can you give examples of bad medical opinions he has given (outside of the
>>>>2 lb diet - which seems to be an endless controversy)?
>>>
>>>Google is our friend. Check his recommendations about aspirin dosages.
>>>Started out at 325 for everybody all the time when he argued against 81
>>>mg. Evolved and changed over time. Last I saw, he said 81 mg was ok.
>>>
>> There is debate over that in the medical community. And I do not think
>> there are still clear guidelines. I don't think you can say either is
>> wrong. When I recently had a stent put in the Dr. said to up the dose to
>> 325. Many still argue for 81 because it may be less likely to cause stomach
>> problems. The cardiologist I usually see was OK with 81 - which is what I
>> had been taking. The only study I've seen on this - and I don't recall
>> where - suggests 160 is the best dose.
>
> <LOL> Thank you. And do take the following paragraph into account when
> defending him. The falsity it contains all by itself calls his integrity
> into question, and destroys any claim to impartiality he may have.
>

I shown your example wrong. You thank me for that. And you bring up something
irrelevant.

>>>And don't go outside the 2PD. It's lousy advice that comes from a doctor
>>>*as* doctor. It's de facto medical advice and it's bad. There's really very
>>>little controversy about the 2PD. Chung and his few socks praise it, a
>>>couple others say it coincides with the way they live anyway and everybody
>>>else either pans it or laughs at it. Please note that none of the 625,500
>>>successful -no failure - dieters who have been following it for more than 5
>>>years, he says, (a seemingly unchanging number since it was first foisted
>>>by Chung) have come to praise it. No magazine articles. No TV stories. No
>>>newspaper coverage for this miracle. No radio interviews. No strangers come
>>>to SMC or the nutrition newsgroups. No organizations dealing with health or
>>>nutrition have even mentioned it. No big upturn in sales of food scales. No
>>>credibility.
>>>
>>>So, is he an MD? Yes. Is he a good, objective, impartial one? Sure doesn't
>>>look like it. Conclusion from his behavior, his words and his expressed and
>>>unsupported beliefs.
>>>
>> The question was is he a Dr. and you agree he is. You find him annoying on
>> several issues.
>
> I find him a fraud. I find him a charlatan. I find him malicious. I find him
> a hyperreligious fanatic. I find him mean spirited. I find him duplicitous.
> I've cited examples in every case. That's not annoying. That's a whole
> different story - it's about his character.
>

Whatever you find him is not relevant.

> > I've seen that many people do. But the question is does he
>> dispense bad medical advice here. I have not seen an instance. He acts
>> differently from what you are used to, but I have often seen him dispense
>> medical opinions here and have not found an instance where he was wrong or
>> successfully challenged.
>
> <LOL> Right.

Finally you agree. He is a Dr. and all medical advice he dispensed here is
valid. (I said originally I did not want to get into a long debate on the 2LB
diet) You have not provided one counter example. Those are my only two points.
If I thought he provided bad advice I would point that out - in a non abusive
way - as I'm sure many others would. Anything else you bring up is not
relevant to those points.

>You may go.
>
This is your wish? Why?

Bill

> Pastorio


.

Quantcast