4 of 14 Re: Science or marketing?



A

Al. Lohse

Guest
> > Then the
> > group of skeptics would certainly be quieted,
> > and I would too.
>
> Doubt that.

They are skeptical, not unlearned (certainly
not stupid). You prove them wrong. They will
thank you for that. Or, give me something
with which I can prove them to be wrong. They
thrive because no one challenges them. The
propositions forwarded by the skeptics have
been ignored. In time their viewpoint may
become held as truth. Please challenge them
on our behalf or admit you have nothing with
which to challenge even one of their
assertions. The lack of challenge supports
the increasingly outrageous and unnecessary
cholesterol dichotomy. Do not doubt that.

>
 
"Al. Lohse" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> > > Then the
> > > group of skeptics would certainly be quieted,
> > > and I would too.
> >
> > Doubt that.
>
> They are skeptical, not unlearned (certainly
> not stupid). You prove them wrong. They will
> thank you for that.

Doubt that too. See Chef Pastorio in the 2PD discussions.

> Or, give me something
> with which I can prove them to be wrong. They
> thrive because no one challenges them. The
> propositions forwarded by the skeptics have
> been ignored.

Not really.

> In time their viewpoint may
> become held as truth.

Not based on the preponderance of clinical data.

> Please challenge them
> on our behalf or admit you have nothing with
> which to challenge even one of their
> assertions.

Consider my response(s) to your posts as that challenge.

> The lack of challenge supports
> the increasingly outrageous and unnecessary
> cholesterol dichotomy. Do not doubt that.

What lack of challenge?

--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com
 
"Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" wrote:
>
> "Al. Lohse" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> > > > Then the
> > > > group of skeptics would certainly be quieted,
> > > > and I would too.
> > >
> > > Doubt that.
> >
> > They are skeptical, not unlearned (certainly
> > not stupid). You prove them wrong. They will
> > thank you for that.
>
> Doubt that too. See Chef Pastorio in the 2PD discussions.

Nice try.

>
> > Or, give me something
> > with which I can prove them to be wrong. They
> > thrive because no one challenges them. The
> > propositions forwarded by the skeptics have
> > been ignored.
>
> Not really.

Then hold them to account for their writings,
their teachings. Not just for yourself but
for the benefit of your profession and
mankind.

>
> > In time their viewpoint may
> > become held as truth.
>
> Not based on the preponderance of clinical data.

Only based on the preponderance of clinical
data generated by people indifferent to the
outcome, the results.

>
> > Please challenge them
> > on our behalf or admit you have nothing with
> > which to challenge even one of their
> > assertions.
>
> Consider my response(s) to your posts as that challenge.

Please give me something other than "Dr.
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD said ...."

>
> > The lack of challenge supports
> > the increasingly outrageous and unnecessary
> > cholesterol dichotomy. Do not doubt that.
>
> What lack of challenge?
>

This is your challenge????? Feeble????????

Please give me something I can use.

Regards,

A.L.

> --
> Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> Board-Certified Cardiologist
> http://www.heartmdphd.com
 
"Al. Lohse" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" wrote:

> > Consider my response(s) to your posts as that challenge.
>
> Please give me something other than "Dr.
> Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD said ...."

Been doing that for some time now.

God Bless,

Andrew

--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com/
 
I see you are up to your same old tripe. IF you ACTUALLY want to LEARN
something then you COULD have a discussion where you don't change the
subject and answer the other's points!

You either have an agenda and therefore intentionally ignore data and
retorts or are too ignorant to understand. You have yet to respond
directly to ANYTHING I have said and I suspect you pull the same ****
in all your threads.

Please show me ,of the dozens and dozens of current peer reviewed
literature, one study where there is a drop in total LDL that has
either a negative or no affect on heart mortality or morbidity.

You are always asking for the proof. How about you either putting up
or shutting up?

"Al. Lohse" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> > > Then the
> > > group of skeptics would certainly be quieted,
> > > and I would too.
> >
> > Doubt that.
>
> They are skeptical, not unlearned (certainly
> not stupid). You prove them wrong. They will
> thank you for that. Or, give me something
> with which I can prove them to be wrong. They
> thrive because no one challenges them. The
> propositions forwarded by the skeptics have
> been ignored. In time their viewpoint may
> become held as truth. Please challenge them
> on our behalf or admit you have nothing with
> which to challenge even one of their
> assertions. The lack of challenge supports
> the increasingly outrageous and unnecessary
> cholesterol dichotomy. Do not doubt that.
>
> >
 
If you find it impossible to be polite, at least help Dr.
Chung with some scientific support.

You had been invited to critique the skeptics about a month
ago but have, as yet, failed to indicate one flaw in their
writings.

Why not try to help out with some positive findings to
support your point of view?

A.L.


Patrick Ford wrote:
>
> I see you are up to your same old tripe. IF you ACTUALLY want to LEARN
> something then you COULD have a discussion where you don't change the
> subject and answer the other's points!
>
> You either have an agenda and therefore intentionally ignore data and
> retorts or are too ignorant to understand. You have yet to respond
> directly to ANYTHING I have said and I suspect you pull the same ****
> in all your threads.
>
> Please show me ,of the dozens and dozens of current peer reviewed
> literature, one study where there is a drop in total LDL that has
> either a negative or no affect on heart mortality or morbidity.
>
> You are always asking for the proof. How about you either putting up
> or shutting up?
>
> "Al. Lohse" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> > > > Then the
> > > > group of skeptics would certainly be quieted,
> > > > and I would too.
> > >
> > > Doubt that.
> >
> > They are skeptical, not unlearned (certainly
> > not stupid). You prove them wrong. They will
> > thank you for that. Or, give me something
> > with which I can prove them to be wrong. They
> > thrive because no one challenges them. The
> > propositions forwarded by the skeptics have
> > been ignored. In time their viewpoint may
> > become held as truth. Please challenge them
> > on our behalf or admit you have nothing with
> > which to challenge even one of their
> > assertions. The lack of challenge supports
> > the increasingly outrageous and unnecessary
> > cholesterol dichotomy. Do not doubt that.
> >
> > >
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back