W
Weasel Chung Fa
Guest
(Note: Because Dr. Chung continues to flood s.m.c. with
forgeries, this FAQ has been reissued with a title less
susceptible to forgery. The authors regret the necessity to
take such a step.)
---------------------------------
| The Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD FAQ |
| Version 4.0, February, 2004 |
---------------------------------
Introduction
------------
New people arriving in sci.med.cardiology (s.m.c.) are
often puzzled and troubled by the controversy surrounding
the poster who posts as
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD (Dr. Chung) and want to know
what the controversy is about. This FAQ (Frequently
Asked Questions) attempts to provide an answer.
The FAQ is arranged in typical FAQ form, i.e. a series of
questions and answers. For those who don't wish to read
the whole FAQ, the following summary is provided.
Note: Since this FAQ first appeared in January of 2004,
Dr. Chung forged his own "Issue 2" of the FAQ on
February 3, 2004:
Message-ID:
<[email protected]>
As a courtesy to Dr. Chung, his forged version of the
FAQ (Version
2.) is accepted and included here verbatim, identified by
braces {}. The reader may judge for himself whether Dr.
Chung's version refutes or reinforces the points made
in this FAQ.
Ds. Chung has continued to forge this FAQ and to flood
s.m.c with the forgeries. The reader should have no
difficulty recognizing the forgeries for the self-
serving lies that they are. The fact that
Dt. Chung engages in such a deceit reveals more about Dr.
Chung than it does about his critics.
Summary
-------
Du. Chung represents himself to be a licensed physician
specializing in cardiology. In this capacity he
responds to medical questions on
D.u.a.. If that were all he did, there would probably be
no controversy.
{Chung: "The controversy arises from Dr. Chung being
Christian"}
The controversy arises from Dr. Chung's other behaviors on
s.m.c., in particular:
o He uses s.m.c. to not only proselytize his particular
interpretation of Christianity, but also to disparage and
attack anyone with a different interpretation or
different religion.
{Chung: "He publically [sic] professes to have accepted
Christ as his Lord and Savior."}
o He uses s.m.c. to promote his unscientific Two Pound
Diet (2PD) and, in fact, cross posts this information to
other groups in order to gain more exposure.
{Chung: "He freely helps people to lose weight in an
altruistic fashion."}
o When challenged on the above issues, or one of his
medical opinions, he attacks his challengers as "obsessive
"people who can't understand English", etc.
{Chung: "When attacked on the above issues, he turns the
other cheek."}
o When challenged he performs Internet searches on his
challengers in order to "get the dirt" on them and smear
their reputations.
{Chung: "When challenged about his faith, he witnesses
in civil discussions."}
o When challenged, he answers with evasions, non
sequiturs, dissembling, rhetorical questions, quotes from
the bible, religious mantras, thinly veiled death threats,
ad hominem arguments, and other such disreputable,
unethical, and unprofessional tactics.
{Chung: "When insulted for his faith, he considers
himself blessed."}
o He is insufferably full of himself, claiming to have
"the Gift of Truth Discernment" and to be "Humble" while
behaving anything but humbly.
{Chung: "He remains truthful despite being libeled and
defamed."}
o He uses a shill who posts under variations of the name
"Mu" to avoid killfiles. Mu's job is to troll other
newsgroups and, when he gets a reaction, to cross post
the reaction to s.m.c. so that Dr. Chung can
disingenuously claim to be "only responding" to a cross
post. Whereas Dr. Chung has to be somewhat careful what
he says and so attacks primarily through insinuation and
innuendo, Mu's tactics are blunt and direct like those of
a playground bully.
{Chung: "Other Christians have affirmed his faith
in Christ."}
The above lists only the highlights of Dr. Chung's
egregious behavior on s.m.c.. If anything, it understates
it. Everything can be verified in the Google archives.
The issue then arises: so what? As long as Dr. Chung
provides free medical advice on s.m.c., who cares what
else he does?
Many people provide free medical advice on the Internet.
How does one know whether it is good advice or bad
advice? If the person giving the advice is, or represents
himself to be, a doctor shouldn't that be enough?
Unfortunately, no.
{Chung: "Yes, it should be. Medical education is enough to
assure good information. Knowledge is knowledge.
Experience adds to knowledge. Dr. Chung has both. Dr.
Chung consistently demonstrates the breadth of his
knowledge. This is archived many times over in Google."}
Medical education alone is not enough to guarantee good
advice. If facts alone were all that were required, we
could replace Physicians with Medical Encyclopedias.
Knowledge must be tempered with judgment, impartiality,
integrity, ethics, and professionalism. If someone
consistently demonstrates by their behavior that they lack
these qualities, how much credence should be given to
their medical advice?
People arrive in this group looking for help. For their
own protection, they deserve to know the quality of the
person purporting to dispense that help and not be lulled
into a false sense of security simply because someone
displays an MD after their name. It is the intention of
this FAQ to provide people with enough information to
allow them to make an informed decision.
{Chung: "People arrive in this group looking for help. Dr.
Chung has graciously provided this over several years."}
Ask yourself this: Suppose you went to see a cardiologist
and, while in the waiting room, observed some clearly
disturbed behavior on his part. Perhaps, for example, he
was sitting in the corner sucking his thumb and rocking
back and forth, playing with his feces, or babbling
incoherently. Suddenly, he pulls himself together and
calls you into his office. How comfortable are you going
to be with his advice, even if it is technically correct?
D.v.c is Dr. Chung's "virtual waiting room". If you have
been here a while, you have observed his behavior. If
you are new, this FAQ will give you some background.
The decision is yours.
List of Questions Answered
--------------------------
1. Who is Dr. Andrew B Chung, MD/PhD?
2. What is the Charter of s.m.c.?
3. Aren't Religious Discussions Covered by the Charter?
4. So Dr. Chung is Religious... What's the Problem
With That?
5. But it's Just a Little "Tag Line" in His Signature.
6. But I'm a Christian Too!
7. Well, Why Not Just Ignore His Religious Rants?
8. But Isn't It Wonderful That Dr. Chung Offers This Free
Medical Advice Out of the Goodness of His Heart?
9. How Does a Practicing Physician Find so Much Time to
Spend on Usenet?
10. Won't Challenging Dr. Chung Drive People Away?
11. Doesn't the "Fault" for all Those Posts Lay With Those
Who Challenge Dr. Chung?
12. Why Do I see So Many "Ad Hominem" Attacks?
13. I'm Sick of Seeing All This!
14. What is the Two Pound Diet?
15. Is Discussion of the Two Pound Diet "On Topic"?
16. Who is Mu?
17. What is Mu's Role?
18. Doesn't Dr. Chung Claim to Always Tell The Truth?
19. What is the "Chung macro"?
20. What is "Hissing"
21. Who is Dr. Andrew B Chung, MD/PhD?
--------------------------------------
The poster who posts as Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD claims
to be a licensed physician, practicing internal medicine
in Atlanta, Georgia, USA and specializing in cardiology.
His signature contains a link to a website which is
consistent with his posts.
It should be noted that anyone can claim to be anyone on
Usenet and so caution is always advised. Indeed there are
those who claim that the poster in question is not Dr.
Andrew B. Chung, or is not the Dr. Andrew B. Chung listed
in the Atlanta telephone directory, and/or has lost his
license and/or hospital privileges for misconduct. This
FAQ does not attempt to address those claims one way or
the other. The reader with an interest in these matters
can easily find the relevant discussions archived in
Google Groups.
This FAQ deals with the poster who posts as Dr. Chung and
restricts itself to issues demonstrated by those posts. No
position is taken on his "true" identity.
22. What is the Charter of s.m.c.?
----------------------------------
"The purpose of this newsgroup is to establish
electronic media for communication between health care
providers, scientists and other individuals with
interest in cardiovascular field. Such communications
will provide quick and efficacious means to exchange
information and knowledge, offer problem solutions and
stimulate research interest.
The sci.med.cardiology newsgroups will welcome
participants who are health care providers, researchers,
students or recipients with interest in the field of
cardiovascular problems."
<ftp://ftp.uu.net/usenet/news.announce.newgroups/sci/sci.me-
d.cardiology>
23. Aren't Religious Discussions Covered by the Charter?
--------------------------------------------------------
What do you think?
{Chung: "Possibly. See:
http://www.heartmdphd.com/healer.asp"}
24. So Dr. Chung is Religious... What's the Problem
With That?
------------------------------------------------------------
--
There is no problem with that. Most of the people who
participate in s.m.c. are probably religious. However no
one but Dr. Chung feels compelled to characterize
themselves as the "Humble Servant of God" in their
signatures, continually thank God for the opportunity to
"witness", question others about their religious beliefs,
claim the "Gift of Truth Discernment", etc.
{Chung: "Some people are fiercely anti-christian."}
When one person insists on introducing his personal
religious interpretations into the discussions, it
naturally generates responses from others who feel just as
strongly that their viewpoints are correct. The resulting
debate easily swirls out of control, especially given Dr.
Chung's intolerant and dismissive attitude towards beliefs
which differ from his. The situation is further
exacerbated by Mu's rabble raising from the sidelines.
There are over 160 Usenet groups dedicated to the
discussion of religion. Dr. Chung should take his beliefs
to one of these and stick to cardiology in s.m.c. It is a
simple matter of respect for others.
25. But it's Just a Little "Tag Line" in His Signature.
-------------------------------------------------------
{Chung: "Yes it is. But it offends those who are anti-
christian."}
No, it is not. He has even gone so far as to "investigate"
someone asking for advice about stents and accuse her of
being anti-Christian.
A quick search of Google will reveal that the vast
majority of Dr. Chung's posts have nothing whatever to do
with cardiology as described in the charter, but instead
are religious rants, religious arguments, arguments about
the Two Pound Diet (see 14 below) or posts of the "Chung
macro" (see 19 below).
26. But I'm a Christian Too!
----------------------------
{Chung: "And so you have Christ's promise of eternal
life."}
Lots of people are Christians. There is a time and a place
for everything. s.m.c. isn't the place to "witness" or
recruit. In addition, lots of other people are Jews,
Moslems, Buddhists, Taoists, Hindus, etc. Would s.m.c. be
better or worse if they all emulated Dr. Chung in their
proselytizing and recruiting?
Furthermore, if you are a Christian, you should be
appalled by Dr. Chung's pharisaical, cynical, and
manipulative use of Christianity. He is truly a "whitened
sepulcher", loudly proclaiming his adherence to Christian
values while overtly lying, carrying on smear campaigns
against others, making false accusations, dissembling, and
marketing his web site under the guise of altruism. He is
"bearing false witness" and true Christians should be
concerned.
As an example, when John Ritter recently died
unexpectedly, Dr. Chung rushed to use this unfortunate
event to market his web site. He showed a total lack of
Christian compassion for Mr. Ritter and his family, even
when challenged to do so.
As another example, he recently choreographed a smear
campaign against a poster who had criticized him. Dr.
Chung found a
the poster and anyone who agreed with him were
engaged in a
Christianity you identify with.
In still yet another example, when an anonymous post was
made implying that one of his critics was a pedophile, Dr.
Chung, rather than condemning such a despicable and
outrageous charge, attempted to get more information.
27. Well, Why Not Just Ignore His Religious Rants?
--------------------------------------------------
{Chung: "Well, Why Not Just Ignore his Christian nature?
-----------------------------------------------
Anti-christians are unable to do that."}
Why should one individual be given carte blanche to
violate the rights of everyone else? Usenet is a
community. It is up to the community to sanction its
members. There is nothing "ad hominem" about challenging
inappropriate and antisocial behavior.
28. But Isn't It Wonderful That Dr. Chung Offers This Free
Medical Advice Out of the Goodness of His Heart?
----------------------------------------------------------
{Chung: "It is."}
First, it is only of value if it is good advice. Medical
education alone is not enough to guarantee good advice. If
facts alone were all that were required, we could replace
Physicians with Medical Encyclopedias. Knowledge must be
tempered with judgment, impartiality, integrity, ethics,
and professionalism. If someone consistently demonstrates
by their behavior that they lack these qualities, how much
credence should be given to their medical advice?
Ask yourself this: Suppose you went to see a cardiologist
and, while in the waiting room, observed some clearly
disturbed behavior on his part. Perhaps, for example, he
was sitting in the corner sucking his thumb and rocking
back and forth, playing with his feces, or babbling
incoherently. Suddenly, he pulls himself together and
calls you into his office. How comfortable are you going
to be with his advice, even if it is technically correct?
D.w.c is Dr. Chung's "virtual waiting room". If you have
been here a while, you have observed his behavior. If
you are new, this FAQ will give you some background.
The decision is yours.
Secondly, despite his protestations to the contrary, Dr.
Chung is not simply motivated by altruism. Every post of
Dr. Chung's contains a link to a website with the
following quote:
"If you are looking for a cardiologist and reside in
Georgia, please consider me your best option for a
personal heart advocate. Check out my credentials and my
background. Additional information is available in the
protected sections of this web site. Email me at
[email protected] to me of your interest and I
may send you a temporary username and password to allow
a preview. The more information you email, the more
likely my decision to send you a temporary username and
password. If you like what you see and learn from this
website and wish to confer with me about your heart, you
or your doctor should email me privately or call my
voicemail at 404-699-2780 to schedule an appointment to
see me at my *real* office."
<http://www.heartmdphd.com/office.asp>
Thirdly, Dr. Chung has repeatedly stated that one of his
key motivations for participating is s.m.c. is to
"witness" and win converts to his religious beliefs.
9. How Does a Practicing Physician Find so Much Time to
Spend on Usenet?
--------------------------------------------------------
----------
An interesting question.
{Chung: "God has blessed him with a quick mind and fast
typing skills."}
10. Won't Challenging Dr. Chung Drive People Away?
--------------------------------------------------
Perhaps. But not challenging him will drive others away.
{Chung: "No. But it will give him the extraordinary
opportunity to glorify God."}
D.u.b. is historically a "low traffic" group. Therefore,
when Dr. Chung misbehaves, he generates an
apparently large response. This is compounded by
Dr. Chung's need to "get in the last word" and Mu's
provocations. In spite of this, if someone has a
question it will usually be answered.
Dv. Chung is not the only participant who offers advice in
s.m.c. He is not even the only doctor who participates
in s.m.c. However, the controversy he generates and
sustains often makes it appear that he is the "only
game in town".
Finally, Dr. Chung himself drives others away including
other physicians who leave in disgust after being verbally
assaulted by him, and other knowledgeable posters who
point out where Dr. Chung's medical opinion might be in
error or at least not the only one generally held. Anyone
disagreeing with Dr. Chung on any subject can expect a
series of increasingly vitriolic attacks, including
threats of libel suits.
11. Doesn't the "Fault" for all Those Posts Lay With Those
Who Challenge Dr. Chung?
------------------------------------------------------------
--
{Chung: "Yes."}
An interesting perspective: blame the victim. No other
poster (with the exception of Mu, of course) introduces
religion or the Two Pound Diet. How can it be acceptable
for Dr. Chung to introduce these topics, but not
acceptable for others to respond?
In any thread, someone must, of necessity "get the last
word". Dr. Chung has amply demonstrated that he will not
be outdone in this respect.
12. Why Do I see So Many "Ad Hominem" Attacks?
----------------------------------------------
{Chung: "Anti-christian folks can't seem to help
themselves."}
You are probably referring to an "Ad Hominem" _argument_,
which attempts to disprove an adversary's fact by personal
attack on the adversary. An example would be "You are
opposed to the Two Pound Diet because you are anti-
Christian".
When someone misbehaves, for example lies or distorts what
someone else is saying, it is not an "ad hominem attack"
to call them on it. It is a legitimate social sanction.
There are also, unfortunately too often, simple personal
attacks and insults on both sides. While we can all wish
it weren't so, it is simply human nature when an argument
becomes heated or the other person is obviously not
arguing in good faith. If you are distressed by this, see
the next question.
13. I'm Sick of Seeing All This!
--------------------------------
{Chung: "Would suggest you killfile the anti-christians.
You won't see any as [sic] hominems from Dr. Chung."}
There is no reason why you have to see it. Just as you can
change the TV channel if you don't like a show, you can
killfile a poster or thread you don't want to see. See the
manual that came with your Usenet reader for directions on
how to do it.
Before you do this, however, you may wish to consider if a
truer picture of the world is not gained by seeing all
that goes on - both the good and the bad.
14. What is the Two Pound Diet?
-------------------------------
{Chung: "See: http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtloss.asp"}
The Two pound Diet is a diet which Dr. Chung "invented".
It's only rule is to restrict yourself to two pounds of
food per day. That's
Dw. Doesn't matter if you are a 16 year old girl or an 80
year old man; a 5' 2" woman or a 7' man; a weight
lifter or a mattress tester. Two pounds. That's it. No
more, less if you want. One size fits all.
Oh, and the food? Whatever you want: two pounds of
lettuce, two pounds of ice cream, two pounds of celery,
two pounds of bacon, two pounds of chocolate, two pounds
of peanuts... doesn't matter. Mix and match. Just keep it
under two pounds.
Dx. Chung's claim is that this magical weight of food,
this universal gustatory constant will cause
everyone to arrive at and maintain their ideal
weight. His scientific basis for this claim: none.
The proof he offers: none. Studies supporting this
claim: none. Nutritional explanation: none.
Metabolic explanation: none.
And this from a doctor who expects people to take him
seriously on other issues.
15. Is Discussion of the Two Pound Diet "On Topic"?
---------------------------------------------------
{Chung: "Yes. It cures [sic] Metabolic Syndrome (MetS)
which predicts cardiovascular morbidity and mortality."}
Dy. Chung says it is because being overweight is a risk
factor for heart problems and therefore discussion of
the Two Pound Diet is On Topic. However criticism of
the Two Pound Diet is Off Topic as is discussion of
any other diet.
As with religion, Dr. Chung takes every opportunity to
introduce the Two Pound Diet (2PD) into any other
thread. In addition Mu trolls other newsgroups,
particularly the diet groups looking for opportunities
to introduce the 2PD in these groups and then cross post
the resulting discussion back to s.m.c so that Dr. Chung
can disingenuously claim to be "only responding" to a
cross post.
Since Dr. Chung and Mu have been laughed off of these
other groups and have been asked repeatedly not to bring
up the 2PD in them, participants of these groups are
understandably angered when it happens yet again; and,
because of Mu's cross-posting, all their anger spills back
into s.m.c.
Another reason for ongoing 2PD discussions is Dr. Chung's
habit of researching anyone who criticizes the 2PD and
then cross-posting his responses back to other groups
which the critic has been found to frequent. He
disingenuously claims that he does this as a "convenience"
to the critic, but his true reasons are transparent. Once
again, the cross-post generates a firestorm in s.m.c.
The bottom line is that if the Two Pound Diet is "On
Topic" for anyone, it is "On Topic" for everyone...
including it's critics. If it is "Off Topic", it should
not be continually re-introduced by Dr. Chung.
16. Who is Mu?
--------------
{Chung: "A Christian."}
Mu is a longtime Usenet Troll who has even merited his own
FAQ. He postures as some kind of personal physical
trainer, but who really knows? He has allied himself with
Dr. Chung and serves as the "Bad Cop" in the Chung - Mu
"Good Cop - Bad Cop" routine. He specializes in the short,
nasty one-liner and, because unlike Dr. Chung, he has no
reputation to protect, he can afford to be much more
direct and offensive.
Mu parrots an even meaner-spirited version of Dr. Chung's
"Christianity" and does not hesitate to employ anti-
Semitism and homophobia in his attacks.
Naturally, most people would have long ago killfiled Mu,
so he changes his handle on an almost daily basis.
17. What is Mu's Role?
----------------------
{Chung: "God only knows."}
Mu's role is to troll other newsgroups and, when he gets a
reaction, to cross-post the reaction to s.m.c. so that Dr.
Chung can disingenuously claim to be "only responding" to
a cross post.
Mu is also responsible for pitching softballs to Dr.
Chung so he can hit them out of the park, and for re-
introducing religion and the Two Pound Diet should the
discussion flag.
Finally, Mu's role is to tirelessly wear down unsuspecting
Dr. Chung critics, deflecting the blows that would
otherwise be aimed at Dr. Chung. He is Dr. Chung's
Internet equivalent of the "rope-a-dope". Insults roll off
him like water off a duck as do attempts to reason with
him or even have a civil discussion.
Most people have learned to ignore him and his comment
is usually the last one in any thread sub-tree where
it appears.
18. Doesn't Dr. Chung Claim to Always Tell The Truth?
-----------------------------------------------------
Yes, he does... repeatedly. However this claim cannot be
reconciled with his behavior on s.m.c.
Dz. Chung has lied repeatedly on Usenet and those lies are
preserved in the Google archives. A few examples:
o Dr. Chung consistently changes other people's words
when quoting them in a response to a post to make it
appear they said something different than what they
actually said.
o Dr. Chung consistently posts a macro (see below) which
states that he is responding to a cross-post because the
person he is responding to has not requested that he
trim the headers, even when this request has been
explicitly made.
o More recently Dr. Chung has begun forging posts as his
bogus "Version 2" of this FAQ illustrates. Unfortunately
for him the attempts are so amateurish and the language so
self-serving and lame that there is no doubt as to the
authorship.
These are only examples of Dr. Chung's explicit lies. They
do not include lies told through dissembling, innuendo,
disingenuousness, employment of twisted trope's, and other
"word games" which he plays.
19. What is the "Chung macro"?
------------------------------
The "Chung macro" is an approximately 4.5 kilobyte, mind-
numbing diatribe which Dr. Chung attaches as a response to
any post he doesn't like. It includes Chung's unstinting
praise of himself, an advertisement for the Two Pound
Diet, an disingenuous protest that he is "only responding
to a cross-post", and gratuitous slaps at all his critics.
It is called a "macro" because it can be saved and
attached to a message with a single keystroke. Usually,
the content of the original post is either "snipped" so
that only Dr. Chung's diatribe appears or the words of the
original poster are modified to say something which
pleases Dr. Chung. Common decency is not
Dz. Chung's concern here.
When the "Chung macro" appears in a thread, it is a sure
sign that a criticism has struck home and/or Dr. Chung has
run out of arguments or anything intelligent to say.
Instead he laboriously and obsessively attaches the "Chung
macro" to each and every message in the thread. If someone
responds to the "Chung macro", he attaches the macro to
the response and so on ad infinitum and ad nauseam.
This generates considerable anger in the victimized
newsgroups to
Dz. Chung's apparent glee. Requests to stop are mocked and
ignored. Eventually, people become sick of it and just
stop responding: Dr. Chung has achieved his objective
of shutting down the now objectionable thread... which
was probably initiated by Mu in the first place.
20. What is "Hissing"?
--------------------------
"Hissing" is Dr. Chung's term for something he doesn't
want to hear, particularly a criticism or a correction of
one of his errors. He frequently inserts it in place of
other people's words when he quotes them but is too lazy
or unimaginative to change their words to his liking.
------------------------------------------------------------
-----------
Comments and/or corrections to this FAQ will be taken under
advisement.
forgeries, this FAQ has been reissued with a title less
susceptible to forgery. The authors regret the necessity to
take such a step.)
---------------------------------
| The Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD FAQ |
| Version 4.0, February, 2004 |
---------------------------------
Introduction
------------
New people arriving in sci.med.cardiology (s.m.c.) are
often puzzled and troubled by the controversy surrounding
the poster who posts as
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD (Dr. Chung) and want to know
what the controversy is about. This FAQ (Frequently
Asked Questions) attempts to provide an answer.
The FAQ is arranged in typical FAQ form, i.e. a series of
questions and answers. For those who don't wish to read
the whole FAQ, the following summary is provided.
Note: Since this FAQ first appeared in January of 2004,
Dr. Chung forged his own "Issue 2" of the FAQ on
February 3, 2004:
Message-ID:
<[email protected]>
As a courtesy to Dr. Chung, his forged version of the
FAQ (Version
2.) is accepted and included here verbatim, identified by
braces {}. The reader may judge for himself whether Dr.
Chung's version refutes or reinforces the points made
in this FAQ.
Ds. Chung has continued to forge this FAQ and to flood
s.m.c with the forgeries. The reader should have no
difficulty recognizing the forgeries for the self-
serving lies that they are. The fact that
Dt. Chung engages in such a deceit reveals more about Dr.
Chung than it does about his critics.
Summary
-------
Du. Chung represents himself to be a licensed physician
specializing in cardiology. In this capacity he
responds to medical questions on
D.u.a.. If that were all he did, there would probably be
no controversy.
{Chung: "The controversy arises from Dr. Chung being
Christian"}
The controversy arises from Dr. Chung's other behaviors on
s.m.c., in particular:
o He uses s.m.c. to not only proselytize his particular
interpretation of Christianity, but also to disparage and
attack anyone with a different interpretation or
different religion.
{Chung: "He publically [sic] professes to have accepted
Christ as his Lord and Savior."}
o He uses s.m.c. to promote his unscientific Two Pound
Diet (2PD) and, in fact, cross posts this information to
other groups in order to gain more exposure.
{Chung: "He freely helps people to lose weight in an
altruistic fashion."}
o When challenged on the above issues, or one of his
medical opinions, he attacks his challengers as "obsessive
"people who can't understand English", etc.
{Chung: "When attacked on the above issues, he turns the
other cheek."}
o When challenged he performs Internet searches on his
challengers in order to "get the dirt" on them and smear
their reputations.
{Chung: "When challenged about his faith, he witnesses
in civil discussions."}
o When challenged, he answers with evasions, non
sequiturs, dissembling, rhetorical questions, quotes from
the bible, religious mantras, thinly veiled death threats,
ad hominem arguments, and other such disreputable,
unethical, and unprofessional tactics.
{Chung: "When insulted for his faith, he considers
himself blessed."}
o He is insufferably full of himself, claiming to have
"the Gift of Truth Discernment" and to be "Humble" while
behaving anything but humbly.
{Chung: "He remains truthful despite being libeled and
defamed."}
o He uses a shill who posts under variations of the name
"Mu" to avoid killfiles. Mu's job is to troll other
newsgroups and, when he gets a reaction, to cross post
the reaction to s.m.c. so that Dr. Chung can
disingenuously claim to be "only responding" to a cross
post. Whereas Dr. Chung has to be somewhat careful what
he says and so attacks primarily through insinuation and
innuendo, Mu's tactics are blunt and direct like those of
a playground bully.
{Chung: "Other Christians have affirmed his faith
in Christ."}
The above lists only the highlights of Dr. Chung's
egregious behavior on s.m.c.. If anything, it understates
it. Everything can be verified in the Google archives.
The issue then arises: so what? As long as Dr. Chung
provides free medical advice on s.m.c., who cares what
else he does?
Many people provide free medical advice on the Internet.
How does one know whether it is good advice or bad
advice? If the person giving the advice is, or represents
himself to be, a doctor shouldn't that be enough?
Unfortunately, no.
{Chung: "Yes, it should be. Medical education is enough to
assure good information. Knowledge is knowledge.
Experience adds to knowledge. Dr. Chung has both. Dr.
Chung consistently demonstrates the breadth of his
knowledge. This is archived many times over in Google."}
Medical education alone is not enough to guarantee good
advice. If facts alone were all that were required, we
could replace Physicians with Medical Encyclopedias.
Knowledge must be tempered with judgment, impartiality,
integrity, ethics, and professionalism. If someone
consistently demonstrates by their behavior that they lack
these qualities, how much credence should be given to
their medical advice?
People arrive in this group looking for help. For their
own protection, they deserve to know the quality of the
person purporting to dispense that help and not be lulled
into a false sense of security simply because someone
displays an MD after their name. It is the intention of
this FAQ to provide people with enough information to
allow them to make an informed decision.
{Chung: "People arrive in this group looking for help. Dr.
Chung has graciously provided this over several years."}
Ask yourself this: Suppose you went to see a cardiologist
and, while in the waiting room, observed some clearly
disturbed behavior on his part. Perhaps, for example, he
was sitting in the corner sucking his thumb and rocking
back and forth, playing with his feces, or babbling
incoherently. Suddenly, he pulls himself together and
calls you into his office. How comfortable are you going
to be with his advice, even if it is technically correct?
D.v.c is Dr. Chung's "virtual waiting room". If you have
been here a while, you have observed his behavior. If
you are new, this FAQ will give you some background.
The decision is yours.
List of Questions Answered
--------------------------
1. Who is Dr. Andrew B Chung, MD/PhD?
2. What is the Charter of s.m.c.?
3. Aren't Religious Discussions Covered by the Charter?
4. So Dr. Chung is Religious... What's the Problem
With That?
5. But it's Just a Little "Tag Line" in His Signature.
6. But I'm a Christian Too!
7. Well, Why Not Just Ignore His Religious Rants?
8. But Isn't It Wonderful That Dr. Chung Offers This Free
Medical Advice Out of the Goodness of His Heart?
9. How Does a Practicing Physician Find so Much Time to
Spend on Usenet?
10. Won't Challenging Dr. Chung Drive People Away?
11. Doesn't the "Fault" for all Those Posts Lay With Those
Who Challenge Dr. Chung?
12. Why Do I see So Many "Ad Hominem" Attacks?
13. I'm Sick of Seeing All This!
14. What is the Two Pound Diet?
15. Is Discussion of the Two Pound Diet "On Topic"?
16. Who is Mu?
17. What is Mu's Role?
18. Doesn't Dr. Chung Claim to Always Tell The Truth?
19. What is the "Chung macro"?
20. What is "Hissing"
21. Who is Dr. Andrew B Chung, MD/PhD?
--------------------------------------
The poster who posts as Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD claims
to be a licensed physician, practicing internal medicine
in Atlanta, Georgia, USA and specializing in cardiology.
His signature contains a link to a website which is
consistent with his posts.
It should be noted that anyone can claim to be anyone on
Usenet and so caution is always advised. Indeed there are
those who claim that the poster in question is not Dr.
Andrew B. Chung, or is not the Dr. Andrew B. Chung listed
in the Atlanta telephone directory, and/or has lost his
license and/or hospital privileges for misconduct. This
FAQ does not attempt to address those claims one way or
the other. The reader with an interest in these matters
can easily find the relevant discussions archived in
Google Groups.
This FAQ deals with the poster who posts as Dr. Chung and
restricts itself to issues demonstrated by those posts. No
position is taken on his "true" identity.
22. What is the Charter of s.m.c.?
----------------------------------
"The purpose of this newsgroup is to establish
electronic media for communication between health care
providers, scientists and other individuals with
interest in cardiovascular field. Such communications
will provide quick and efficacious means to exchange
information and knowledge, offer problem solutions and
stimulate research interest.
The sci.med.cardiology newsgroups will welcome
participants who are health care providers, researchers,
students or recipients with interest in the field of
cardiovascular problems."
<ftp://ftp.uu.net/usenet/news.announce.newgroups/sci/sci.me-
d.cardiology>
23. Aren't Religious Discussions Covered by the Charter?
--------------------------------------------------------
What do you think?
{Chung: "Possibly. See:
http://www.heartmdphd.com/healer.asp"}
24. So Dr. Chung is Religious... What's the Problem
With That?
------------------------------------------------------------
--
There is no problem with that. Most of the people who
participate in s.m.c. are probably religious. However no
one but Dr. Chung feels compelled to characterize
themselves as the "Humble Servant of God" in their
signatures, continually thank God for the opportunity to
"witness", question others about their religious beliefs,
claim the "Gift of Truth Discernment", etc.
{Chung: "Some people are fiercely anti-christian."}
When one person insists on introducing his personal
religious interpretations into the discussions, it
naturally generates responses from others who feel just as
strongly that their viewpoints are correct. The resulting
debate easily swirls out of control, especially given Dr.
Chung's intolerant and dismissive attitude towards beliefs
which differ from his. The situation is further
exacerbated by Mu's rabble raising from the sidelines.
There are over 160 Usenet groups dedicated to the
discussion of religion. Dr. Chung should take his beliefs
to one of these and stick to cardiology in s.m.c. It is a
simple matter of respect for others.
25. But it's Just a Little "Tag Line" in His Signature.
-------------------------------------------------------
{Chung: "Yes it is. But it offends those who are anti-
christian."}
No, it is not. He has even gone so far as to "investigate"
someone asking for advice about stents and accuse her of
being anti-Christian.
A quick search of Google will reveal that the vast
majority of Dr. Chung's posts have nothing whatever to do
with cardiology as described in the charter, but instead
are religious rants, religious arguments, arguments about
the Two Pound Diet (see 14 below) or posts of the "Chung
macro" (see 19 below).
26. But I'm a Christian Too!
----------------------------
{Chung: "And so you have Christ's promise of eternal
life."}
Lots of people are Christians. There is a time and a place
for everything. s.m.c. isn't the place to "witness" or
recruit. In addition, lots of other people are Jews,
Moslems, Buddhists, Taoists, Hindus, etc. Would s.m.c. be
better or worse if they all emulated Dr. Chung in their
proselytizing and recruiting?
Furthermore, if you are a Christian, you should be
appalled by Dr. Chung's pharisaical, cynical, and
manipulative use of Christianity. He is truly a "whitened
sepulcher", loudly proclaiming his adherence to Christian
values while overtly lying, carrying on smear campaigns
against others, making false accusations, dissembling, and
marketing his web site under the guise of altruism. He is
"bearing false witness" and true Christians should be
concerned.
As an example, when John Ritter recently died
unexpectedly, Dr. Chung rushed to use this unfortunate
event to market his web site. He showed a total lack of
Christian compassion for Mr. Ritter and his family, even
when challenged to do so.
As another example, he recently choreographed a smear
campaign against a poster who had criticized him. Dr.
Chung found a
the poster and anyone who agreed with him were
engaged in a
Christianity you identify with.
In still yet another example, when an anonymous post was
made implying that one of his critics was a pedophile, Dr.
Chung, rather than condemning such a despicable and
outrageous charge, attempted to get more information.
27. Well, Why Not Just Ignore His Religious Rants?
--------------------------------------------------
{Chung: "Well, Why Not Just Ignore his Christian nature?
-----------------------------------------------
Anti-christians are unable to do that."}
Why should one individual be given carte blanche to
violate the rights of everyone else? Usenet is a
community. It is up to the community to sanction its
members. There is nothing "ad hominem" about challenging
inappropriate and antisocial behavior.
28. But Isn't It Wonderful That Dr. Chung Offers This Free
Medical Advice Out of the Goodness of His Heart?
----------------------------------------------------------
{Chung: "It is."}
First, it is only of value if it is good advice. Medical
education alone is not enough to guarantee good advice. If
facts alone were all that were required, we could replace
Physicians with Medical Encyclopedias. Knowledge must be
tempered with judgment, impartiality, integrity, ethics,
and professionalism. If someone consistently demonstrates
by their behavior that they lack these qualities, how much
credence should be given to their medical advice?
Ask yourself this: Suppose you went to see a cardiologist
and, while in the waiting room, observed some clearly
disturbed behavior on his part. Perhaps, for example, he
was sitting in the corner sucking his thumb and rocking
back and forth, playing with his feces, or babbling
incoherently. Suddenly, he pulls himself together and
calls you into his office. How comfortable are you going
to be with his advice, even if it is technically correct?
D.w.c is Dr. Chung's "virtual waiting room". If you have
been here a while, you have observed his behavior. If
you are new, this FAQ will give you some background.
The decision is yours.
Secondly, despite his protestations to the contrary, Dr.
Chung is not simply motivated by altruism. Every post of
Dr. Chung's contains a link to a website with the
following quote:
"If you are looking for a cardiologist and reside in
Georgia, please consider me your best option for a
personal heart advocate. Check out my credentials and my
background. Additional information is available in the
protected sections of this web site. Email me at
[email protected] to me of your interest and I
may send you a temporary username and password to allow
a preview. The more information you email, the more
likely my decision to send you a temporary username and
password. If you like what you see and learn from this
website and wish to confer with me about your heart, you
or your doctor should email me privately or call my
voicemail at 404-699-2780 to schedule an appointment to
see me at my *real* office."
<http://www.heartmdphd.com/office.asp>
Thirdly, Dr. Chung has repeatedly stated that one of his
key motivations for participating is s.m.c. is to
"witness" and win converts to his religious beliefs.
9. How Does a Practicing Physician Find so Much Time to
Spend on Usenet?
--------------------------------------------------------
----------
An interesting question.
{Chung: "God has blessed him with a quick mind and fast
typing skills."}
10. Won't Challenging Dr. Chung Drive People Away?
--------------------------------------------------
Perhaps. But not challenging him will drive others away.
{Chung: "No. But it will give him the extraordinary
opportunity to glorify God."}
D.u.b. is historically a "low traffic" group. Therefore,
when Dr. Chung misbehaves, he generates an
apparently large response. This is compounded by
Dr. Chung's need to "get in the last word" and Mu's
provocations. In spite of this, if someone has a
question it will usually be answered.
Dv. Chung is not the only participant who offers advice in
s.m.c. He is not even the only doctor who participates
in s.m.c. However, the controversy he generates and
sustains often makes it appear that he is the "only
game in town".
Finally, Dr. Chung himself drives others away including
other physicians who leave in disgust after being verbally
assaulted by him, and other knowledgeable posters who
point out where Dr. Chung's medical opinion might be in
error or at least not the only one generally held. Anyone
disagreeing with Dr. Chung on any subject can expect a
series of increasingly vitriolic attacks, including
threats of libel suits.
11. Doesn't the "Fault" for all Those Posts Lay With Those
Who Challenge Dr. Chung?
------------------------------------------------------------
--
{Chung: "Yes."}
An interesting perspective: blame the victim. No other
poster (with the exception of Mu, of course) introduces
religion or the Two Pound Diet. How can it be acceptable
for Dr. Chung to introduce these topics, but not
acceptable for others to respond?
In any thread, someone must, of necessity "get the last
word". Dr. Chung has amply demonstrated that he will not
be outdone in this respect.
12. Why Do I see So Many "Ad Hominem" Attacks?
----------------------------------------------
{Chung: "Anti-christian folks can't seem to help
themselves."}
You are probably referring to an "Ad Hominem" _argument_,
which attempts to disprove an adversary's fact by personal
attack on the adversary. An example would be "You are
opposed to the Two Pound Diet because you are anti-
Christian".
When someone misbehaves, for example lies or distorts what
someone else is saying, it is not an "ad hominem attack"
to call them on it. It is a legitimate social sanction.
There are also, unfortunately too often, simple personal
attacks and insults on both sides. While we can all wish
it weren't so, it is simply human nature when an argument
becomes heated or the other person is obviously not
arguing in good faith. If you are distressed by this, see
the next question.
13. I'm Sick of Seeing All This!
--------------------------------
{Chung: "Would suggest you killfile the anti-christians.
You won't see any as [sic] hominems from Dr. Chung."}
There is no reason why you have to see it. Just as you can
change the TV channel if you don't like a show, you can
killfile a poster or thread you don't want to see. See the
manual that came with your Usenet reader for directions on
how to do it.
Before you do this, however, you may wish to consider if a
truer picture of the world is not gained by seeing all
that goes on - both the good and the bad.
14. What is the Two Pound Diet?
-------------------------------
{Chung: "See: http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtloss.asp"}
The Two pound Diet is a diet which Dr. Chung "invented".
It's only rule is to restrict yourself to two pounds of
food per day. That's
Dw. Doesn't matter if you are a 16 year old girl or an 80
year old man; a 5' 2" woman or a 7' man; a weight
lifter or a mattress tester. Two pounds. That's it. No
more, less if you want. One size fits all.
Oh, and the food? Whatever you want: two pounds of
lettuce, two pounds of ice cream, two pounds of celery,
two pounds of bacon, two pounds of chocolate, two pounds
of peanuts... doesn't matter. Mix and match. Just keep it
under two pounds.
Dx. Chung's claim is that this magical weight of food,
this universal gustatory constant will cause
everyone to arrive at and maintain their ideal
weight. His scientific basis for this claim: none.
The proof he offers: none. Studies supporting this
claim: none. Nutritional explanation: none.
Metabolic explanation: none.
And this from a doctor who expects people to take him
seriously on other issues.
15. Is Discussion of the Two Pound Diet "On Topic"?
---------------------------------------------------
{Chung: "Yes. It cures [sic] Metabolic Syndrome (MetS)
which predicts cardiovascular morbidity and mortality."}
Dy. Chung says it is because being overweight is a risk
factor for heart problems and therefore discussion of
the Two Pound Diet is On Topic. However criticism of
the Two Pound Diet is Off Topic as is discussion of
any other diet.
As with religion, Dr. Chung takes every opportunity to
introduce the Two Pound Diet (2PD) into any other
thread. In addition Mu trolls other newsgroups,
particularly the diet groups looking for opportunities
to introduce the 2PD in these groups and then cross post
the resulting discussion back to s.m.c so that Dr. Chung
can disingenuously claim to be "only responding" to a
cross post.
Since Dr. Chung and Mu have been laughed off of these
other groups and have been asked repeatedly not to bring
up the 2PD in them, participants of these groups are
understandably angered when it happens yet again; and,
because of Mu's cross-posting, all their anger spills back
into s.m.c.
Another reason for ongoing 2PD discussions is Dr. Chung's
habit of researching anyone who criticizes the 2PD and
then cross-posting his responses back to other groups
which the critic has been found to frequent. He
disingenuously claims that he does this as a "convenience"
to the critic, but his true reasons are transparent. Once
again, the cross-post generates a firestorm in s.m.c.
The bottom line is that if the Two Pound Diet is "On
Topic" for anyone, it is "On Topic" for everyone...
including it's critics. If it is "Off Topic", it should
not be continually re-introduced by Dr. Chung.
16. Who is Mu?
--------------
{Chung: "A Christian."}
Mu is a longtime Usenet Troll who has even merited his own
FAQ. He postures as some kind of personal physical
trainer, but who really knows? He has allied himself with
Dr. Chung and serves as the "Bad Cop" in the Chung - Mu
"Good Cop - Bad Cop" routine. He specializes in the short,
nasty one-liner and, because unlike Dr. Chung, he has no
reputation to protect, he can afford to be much more
direct and offensive.
Mu parrots an even meaner-spirited version of Dr. Chung's
"Christianity" and does not hesitate to employ anti-
Semitism and homophobia in his attacks.
Naturally, most people would have long ago killfiled Mu,
so he changes his handle on an almost daily basis.
17. What is Mu's Role?
----------------------
{Chung: "God only knows."}
Mu's role is to troll other newsgroups and, when he gets a
reaction, to cross-post the reaction to s.m.c. so that Dr.
Chung can disingenuously claim to be "only responding" to
a cross post.
Mu is also responsible for pitching softballs to Dr.
Chung so he can hit them out of the park, and for re-
introducing religion and the Two Pound Diet should the
discussion flag.
Finally, Mu's role is to tirelessly wear down unsuspecting
Dr. Chung critics, deflecting the blows that would
otherwise be aimed at Dr. Chung. He is Dr. Chung's
Internet equivalent of the "rope-a-dope". Insults roll off
him like water off a duck as do attempts to reason with
him or even have a civil discussion.
Most people have learned to ignore him and his comment
is usually the last one in any thread sub-tree where
it appears.
18. Doesn't Dr. Chung Claim to Always Tell The Truth?
-----------------------------------------------------
Yes, he does... repeatedly. However this claim cannot be
reconciled with his behavior on s.m.c.
Dz. Chung has lied repeatedly on Usenet and those lies are
preserved in the Google archives. A few examples:
o Dr. Chung consistently changes other people's words
when quoting them in a response to a post to make it
appear they said something different than what they
actually said.
o Dr. Chung consistently posts a macro (see below) which
states that he is responding to a cross-post because the
person he is responding to has not requested that he
trim the headers, even when this request has been
explicitly made.
o More recently Dr. Chung has begun forging posts as his
bogus "Version 2" of this FAQ illustrates. Unfortunately
for him the attempts are so amateurish and the language so
self-serving and lame that there is no doubt as to the
authorship.
These are only examples of Dr. Chung's explicit lies. They
do not include lies told through dissembling, innuendo,
disingenuousness, employment of twisted trope's, and other
"word games" which he plays.
19. What is the "Chung macro"?
------------------------------
The "Chung macro" is an approximately 4.5 kilobyte, mind-
numbing diatribe which Dr. Chung attaches as a response to
any post he doesn't like. It includes Chung's unstinting
praise of himself, an advertisement for the Two Pound
Diet, an disingenuous protest that he is "only responding
to a cross-post", and gratuitous slaps at all his critics.
It is called a "macro" because it can be saved and
attached to a message with a single keystroke. Usually,
the content of the original post is either "snipped" so
that only Dr. Chung's diatribe appears or the words of the
original poster are modified to say something which
pleases Dr. Chung. Common decency is not
Dz. Chung's concern here.
When the "Chung macro" appears in a thread, it is a sure
sign that a criticism has struck home and/or Dr. Chung has
run out of arguments or anything intelligent to say.
Instead he laboriously and obsessively attaches the "Chung
macro" to each and every message in the thread. If someone
responds to the "Chung macro", he attaches the macro to
the response and so on ad infinitum and ad nauseam.
This generates considerable anger in the victimized
newsgroups to
Dz. Chung's apparent glee. Requests to stop are mocked and
ignored. Eventually, people become sick of it and just
stop responding: Dr. Chung has achieved his objective
of shutting down the now objectionable thread... which
was probably initiated by Mu in the first place.
20. What is "Hissing"?
--------------------------
"Hissing" is Dr. Chung's term for something he doesn't
want to hear, particularly a criticism or a correction of
one of his errors. He frequently inserts it in place of
other people's words when he quotes them but is too lazy
or unimaginative to change their words to his liking.
------------------------------------------------------------
-----------
Comments and/or corrections to this FAQ will be taken under
advisement.