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

From: Steve Marcus (smarcus_spamout__at_cox.net)
Date: 08/14/04 

Date: Sat, 14 Aug 2004 10:00:30 -0400

"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 

-- 
The above posting is neither a legal opinion nor legal advice,
because we do not have an attorney-client relationship, and
should not be construed as either.  This posting does not
represent the opinion of my employer, but is merely my personal
view.  To reply, delete _spamout_ and replace with the numeral 3
Quantcast