Andrew Chung FAQ

Discussion in 'Health and medical' started by Harold McNamara, Aug 30, 2003.

  1. Bill

    Bill Guest

    "Ted Rosenberg" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    >
    > Bill, You aren't very computer savvy are you?


    On what basis do you conclude this? Does my MS in Computer Science count?

    >
    >
    > They don't need to prove anything
    > YOU need to prove otherwise


    Not true. I did not make the original claim. They claimed Dr. Chung's medical
    advice was faulty. I challenged the basis for their calim. In particular, I
    requested examples of medically inaccurate advice that Dr. Chung has
    provided - outside of 2 lb diet issues which are too emotional to discuss -
    from the many thousands he has posted. No one has come up with a single
    example. I had previously posted examples of correct information he has
    dispensed. Would you find it helpful if I do more of those?
    >
    > > You guys can argue back and forth. I am still waiting for the orignal

    poster
    > > to provide the evidence outlined above to support his claim.
    > >
    > > Bill
    > >
    > >

    >
     


  2. Bill wrote:

    > "Ted Rosenberg" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]
    >
    >>Bill, You aren't very computer savvy are you?

    >
    >
    > On what basis do you conclude this? Does my MS in Computer Science count?
    >
    >

    Nope
    You obviously don't know how to look anything up
    There is nothing "emotional" about the 2 lb diet - it is pure 100%
    bullshit - and should clearly be so to anyone who passed 9th grade
    science.- 2 lbs of water is the same as 2 lbs of concentrated fat - come
    on - even a CS major should get enough science to see through THAT.

    He has falsified his credentials - easily checkable

    He has misrepresented his qualifications - easily checkable

    he goes through manic bursts of wild crossposting, followed by periods
    of quiet - easily checkable

    I don't read his cardio quack stuff, but his unwelcome advice on ASD is
    surely improper ANY diabetic will tell you so.

    His problem history with being fired from a clinic in Florida, and
    dropped from Emory is not QUITE as easily checkable - but it is checkable

    His habit of talking through a number of false names, and either
    supporting or arguing with himself ala Betty Martini is fairly easily
    checkable, though he does do a good job falsifying his headers. - BUT,
    not perfect.

    His threats and bluster are easily checkable.


    >>
    >>They don't need to prove anything
    >>YOU need to prove otherwise

    >
    >
    > Not true. I did not make the original claim. They claimed Dr. Chung's medical
    > advice was faulty. I challenged the basis for their calim. In particular, I
    > requested examples of medically inaccurate advice that Dr. Chung has
    > provided - outside of 2 lb diet issues which are too emotional to discuss -
    > from the many thousands he has posted. No one has come up with a single
    > example. I had previously posted examples of correct information he has
    > dispensed. Would you find it helpful if I do more of those?
    >
    >>>You guys can argue back and forth. I am still waiting for the orignal

    >
    > poster
    >
    >>>to provide the evidence outlined above to support his claim.
    >>>
    >>>Bill
    >>>
    >>>

    >>

    >
    >
     
  3. Bill

    Bill Guest

    "Ted Rosenberg" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > Bill wrote:
    >
    > > "Ted Rosenberg" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > > news:[email protected]
    > >
    > >>Bill, You aren't very computer savvy are you?

    > >
    > >
    > > On what basis do you conclude this? Does my MS in Computer Science count?
    > >
    > >

    > Nope
    > You obviously don't know how to look anything up


    Here is something I looked up from Webster's.

    Main Entry: burden of proof
    Date: 1593
    : the duty of proving a disputed assertion or charge

    Do you now accept the fact that you were wrong in the above assertion? If not,
    why not?

    > There is nothing "emotional" about the 2 lb diet


    I did not say there is. Only that the discussions about it are very
    emotional, as your following statement demonstrates.

    >- it is pure 100%
    > bullshit - and should clearly be so to anyone who passed 9th grade
    > science.- 2 lbs of water is the same as 2 lbs of concentrated fat - come
    > on - even a CS major should get enough science to see through THAT.
    >


    Curiously, I asked precisely that question of the proponents of the 2 lb diet
    several months ago and they said they were not making that cliam. But that has
    nothing to do with the challenge I orignally presented.

    > He has falsified his credentials - easily checkable
    >
    > He has misrepresented his qualifications - easily checkable


    But you have indicated that you do not believe that I have the capability of
    doing this - checking on things. So it would be helpful to me and others if
    you would say what evidence you have for these claims. If you have it, it
    should be easy to state, and you would be helping a lot of people.

    >
    > he goes through manic bursts of wild crossposting, followed by periods
    > of quiet - easily checkable
    >
    > I don't read his cardio quack stuff, but his unwelcome advice on ASD is
    > surely improper ANY diabetic will tell you so.
    >
    > His problem history with being fired from a clinic in Florida, and
    > dropped from Emory is not QUITE as easily checkable - but it is checkable


    What do you mean by "dropped" and how is it "checkable"

    >
    > His habit of talking through a number of false names, and either
    > supporting or arguing with himself ala Betty Martini is fairly easily
    > checkable, though he does do a good job falsifying his headers. - BUT,
    > not perfect.
    >
    > His threats and bluster are easily checkable.
    >
    >
    > >>
    > >>They don't need to prove anything
    > >>YOU need to prove otherwise

    > >
    > >
    > > Not true. I did not make the original claim. They claimed Dr. Chung's

    medical
    > > advice was faulty. I challenged the basis for their calim. In particular,

    I
    > > requested examples of medically inaccurate advice that Dr. Chung has
    > > provided - outside of 2 lb diet issues which are too emotional to

    discuss -
    > > from the many thousands he has posted. No one has come up with a single
    > > example. I had previously posted examples of correct information he has
    > > dispensed. Would you find it helpful if I do more of those?
    > >
    > >>>You guys can argue back and forth. I am still waiting for the orignal

    > >
    > > poster
    > >
    > >>>to provide the evidence outlined above to support his claim.
    > >>>
    > >>>Bill
    > >>>
    > >>>
    > >>

    > >
    > >

    >


    You have not addressed any of the above. If I say Ted Rosenberg is a
    Communist, the burden is on me to prove it, not on you to disprove it. It
    really does not matter if you make emotional claims on Usenet, wear your hat
    backwards, or have both a hammer and a sickle. The original claim was that Dr.
    Chung dispensed poor medical advice in general - i.e. beyond the 2lb diet -
    and I requested evidence to support this in the form of an example from his
    many thousands of posts. None has been forthcoming.

    Bill
     
  4. Bill wrote:

    > "Ted Rosenberg" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]
    > > Bill wrote:
    > >
    > > > "Ted Rosenberg" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > > > news:[email protected]
    > > >
    > > >>Bill, You aren't very computer savvy are you?
    > > >
    > > >
    > > > On what basis do you conclude this? Does my MS in Computer Science count?
    > > >
    > > >

    > > Nope
    > > You obviously don't know how to look anything up

    >
    > Here is something I looked up from Webster's.
    >
    > Main Entry: burden of proof
    > Date: 1593
    > : the duty of proving a disputed assertion or charge
    >
    > Do you now accept the fact that you were wrong in the above assertion? If not,
    > why not?
    >
    > > There is nothing "emotional" about the 2 lb diet

    >
    > I did not say there is. Only that the discussions about it are very
    > emotional, as your following statement demonstrates.
    >
    > >- it is pure 100%
    > > bullshit - and should clearly be so to anyone who passed 9th grade
    > > science.- 2 lbs of water is the same as 2 lbs of concentrated fat - come
    > > on - even a CS major should get enough science to see through THAT.
    > >

    >
    > Curiously, I asked precisely that question of the proponents of the 2 lb diet
    > several months ago and they said they were not making that cliam. But that has
    > nothing to do with the challenge I orignally presented.
    >
    > > He has falsified his credentials - easily checkable
    > >
    > > He has misrepresented his qualifications - easily checkable

    >
    > But you have indicated that you do not believe that I have the capability of
    > doing this - checking on things. So it would be helpful to me and others if
    > you would say what evidence you have for these claims. If you have it, it
    > should be easy to state, and you would be helping a lot of people.
    >
    > >
    > > he goes through manic bursts of wild crossposting, followed by periods
    > > of quiet - easily checkable
    > >
    > > I don't read his cardio quack stuff, but his unwelcome advice on ASD is
    > > surely improper ANY diabetic will tell you so.
    > >
    > > His problem history with being fired from a clinic in Florida, and
    > > dropped from Emory is not QUITE as easily checkable - but it is checkable

    >
    > What do you mean by "dropped" and how is it "checkable"
    >
    > >
    > > His habit of talking through a number of false names, and either
    > > supporting or arguing with himself ala Betty Martini is fairly easily
    > > checkable, though he does do a good job falsifying his headers. - BUT,
    > > not perfect.
    > >
    > > His threats and bluster are easily checkable.
    > >
    > >
    > > >>
    > > >>They don't need to prove anything
    > > >>YOU need to prove otherwise
    > > >
    > > >
    > > > Not true. I did not make the original claim. They claimed Dr. Chung's

    > medical
    > > > advice was faulty. I challenged the basis for their calim. In particular,

    > I
    > > > requested examples of medically inaccurate advice that Dr. Chung has
    > > > provided - outside of 2 lb diet issues which are too emotional to

    > discuss -
    > > > from the many thousands he has posted. No one has come up with a single
    > > > example. I had previously posted examples of correct information he has
    > > > dispensed. Would you find it helpful if I do more of those?
    > > >
    > > >>>You guys can argue back and forth. I am still waiting for the orignal
    > > >
    > > > poster
    > > >
    > > >>>to provide the evidence outlined above to support his claim.
    > > >>>
    > > >>>Bill
    > > >>>
    > > >>>
    > > >>
    > > >
    > > >

    > >

    >
    > You have not addressed any of the above. If I say Ted Rosenberg is a
    > Communist, the burden is on me to prove it, not on you to disprove it. It
    > really does not matter if you make emotional claims on Usenet, wear your hat
    > backwards, or have both a hammer and a sickle. The original claim was that Dr.
    > Chung dispensed poor medical advice in general - i.e. beyond the 2lb diet -
    > and I requested evidence to support this in the form of an example from his
    > many thousands of posts. None has been forthcoming.
    >
    > Bill


    Bill,

    Mr. Rosenberg is a known cyberstalker. His email with the headers can be viewed
    at:

    http://www.heartmdphd.com/stalking.asp


    --
    Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
    Board-Certified Cardiologist
    http://www.heartmdphd.com/
     
  5. Wes Groleau

    Wes Groleau Guest

    Ted Rosenberg wrote:
    > There is nothing "emotional" about the 2 lb diet - it is pure 100%
    > bullshit - and should clearly be so to anyone who passed 9th grade
    > science.- 2 lbs of water is the same as 2 lbs of concentrated fat - come
    > on - even a CS major should get enough science to see through THAT.


    Welcome back, Ted! I agree that the two pound plan
    would fail miserably if the user significantly altered
    the TYPE of food instead of just the AMOUNTS of the same
    stuff.

    My ONLY problems with Chung are

    1. His suggestion that two-pounders recompute the amounts
    of their medications without consulting their doctor

    2. His love for cross-posting the same canned message
    over and over.

    3. His social skills.

    As you know, I take a grain of salt with your pronouncements
    about doctors' credentials.

    However, the above list is sufficient reason for me to
    adjust the killfile every time he changes his address.

    If you must answer this, do it here. My auto-bouncer is
    already too busy.

    --
    Wes Groleau
    "Grant me the serenity to accept those I cannot change;
    the courage to change the one I can;
    and the wisdom to know it's me."
    -- unknown
     
  6. Steve

    Steve Guest

    On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 19:45:57 -0400, Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote
    (in message <[email protected]>):

    > Bill wrote:
    >
    >> "Ted Rosenberg" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >> news:[email protected]
    >>> Bill wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> "Ted Rosenberg" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >>>> news:[email protected]
    >>>>
    >>>>> Bill, You aren't very computer savvy are you?
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> On what basis do you conclude this? Does my MS in Computer Science count?
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>> Nope
    >>> You obviously don't know how to look anything up

    >>
    >> Here is something I looked up from Webster's.
    >>
    >> Main Entry: burden of proof
    >> Date: 1593
    >>> the duty of proving a disputed assertion or charge

    >>
    >> Do you now accept the fact that you were wrong in the above assertion? If
    >> not,
    >> why not?
    >>
    >>> There is nothing "emotional" about the 2 lb diet

    >>
    >> I did not say there is. Only that the discussions about it are very
    >> emotional, as your following statement demonstrates.
    >>
    >>> - it is pure 100%
    >>> bullshit - and should clearly be so to anyone who passed 9th grade
    >>> science.- 2 lbs of water is the same as 2 lbs of concentrated fat - come
    >>> on - even a CS major should get enough science to see through THAT.
    >>>

    >>
    >> Curiously, I asked precisely that question of the proponents of the 2 lb
    >> diet
    >> several months ago and they said they were not making that cliam. But that
    >> has
    >> nothing to do with the challenge I orignally presented.
    >>
    >>> He has falsified his credentials - easily checkable
    >>>
    >>> He has misrepresented his qualifications - easily checkable

    >>
    >> But you have indicated that you do not believe that I have the capability
    >> of
    >> doing this - checking on things. So it would be helpful to me and others if
    >> you would say what evidence you have for these claims. If you have it, it
    >> should be easy to state, and you would be helping a lot of people.
    >>
    >>>
    >>> he goes through manic bursts of wild crossposting, followed by periods
    >>> of quiet - easily checkable
    >>>
    >>> I don't read his cardio quack stuff, but his unwelcome advice on ASD is
    >>> surely improper ANY diabetic will tell you so.
    >>>
    >>> His problem history with being fired from a clinic in Florida, and
    >>> dropped from Emory is not QUITE as easily checkable - but it is checkable

    >>
    >> What do you mean by "dropped" and how is it "checkable"
    >>
    >>>
    >>> His habit of talking through a number of false names, and either
    >>> supporting or arguing with himself ala Betty Martini is fairly easily
    >>> checkable, though he does do a good job falsifying his headers. - BUT,
    >>> not perfect.
    >>>
    >>> His threats and bluster are easily checkable.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> They don't need to prove anything
    >>>>> YOU need to prove otherwise
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Not true. I did not make the original claim. They claimed Dr. Chung's

    >> medical
    >>>> advice was faulty. I challenged the basis for their calim. In particular,

    >> I
    >>>> requested examples of medically inaccurate advice that Dr. Chung has
    >>>> provided - outside of 2 lb diet issues which are too emotional to

    >> discuss -
    >>>> from the many thousands he has posted. No one has come up with a single
    >>>> example. I had previously posted examples of correct information he has
    >>>> dispensed. Would you find it helpful if I do more of those?
    >>>>
    >>>>>> You guys can argue back and forth. I am still waiting for the orignal
    >>>>
    >>>> poster
    >>>>
    >>>>>> to provide the evidence outlined above to support his claim.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Bill
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>

    >>
    >> You have not addressed any of the above. If I say Ted Rosenberg is a
    >> Communist, the burden is on me to prove it, not on you to disprove it. It
    >> really does not matter if you make emotional claims on Usenet, wear your
    >> hat
    >> backwards, or have both a hammer and a sickle. The original claim was that
    >> Dr.
    >> Chung dispensed poor medical advice in general - i.e. beyond the 2lb diet -
    >> and I requested evidence to support this in the form of an example from his
    >> many thousands of posts. None has been forthcoming.
    >>
    >> Bill

    >
    > Bill,
    >
    > Mr. Rosenberg is a known cyberstalker. His email with the headers can be
    > viewed
    > at:
    >
    > http://www.heartmdphd.com/stalking.asp
    >
    >


    Bill

    Dr. Chung is a known cyberparanoid. His paranoia can be viewed at:

    http://www.heartmdphd.com/stalking.asp

    Steve
     
  7. Wes Groleau wrote:

    > Ted Rosenberg wrote:
    > > There is nothing "emotional" about the 2 lb diet - it is pure 100%
    > > bullshit - and should clearly be so to anyone who passed 9th grade
    > > science.- 2 lbs of water is the same as 2 lbs of concentrated fat - come
    > > on - even a CS major should get enough science to see through THAT.

    >
    > Welcome back, Ted! I agree that the two pound plan
    > would fail miserably if the user significantly altered
    > the TYPE of food instead of just the AMOUNTS of the same
    > stuff.
    >


    Good thing the 2PD approach is not about the changing the TYPE of food.

    >
    > My ONLY problems with Chung are
    >
    > 1. His suggestion that two-pounders recompute the amounts
    > of their medications without consulting their doctor
    >


    Actually, it is clear in the instructions that ones doctor is supervising.

    "Bring the notepad with you to clinic visits so that your doctor can review
    your progress and go over any problems."

    >
    > 2. His love for cross-posting the same canned message
    > over and over.
    >


    Like the one below?

    Fwiw, a macro makes it effortless.

    >
    > 3. His social skills.
    >


    I save it for the chatroom.

    http://www.heartmdphd.com/chat.asp

    >
    > As you know, I take a grain of salt with your pronouncements
    > about doctors' credentials.


    Make it a big grain.

    http://www.heartmdphd.com/stalking.asp

    >
    >
    > However, the above list is sufficient reason for me to
    > adjust the killfile every time he changes his address.
    >


    Suit yourself.

    >
    > If you must answer this, do it here. My auto-bouncer is
    > already too busy.
    >


    Ok.

    FYI Note: I am aware that I am responding to a cross-posted message. Because
    the author of the message to which I am responding did not request that the
    header be trimmed, I have not trimmed it. If you are upset about reading this
    message, a few suggestions:

    (1) Yell at Wes Groleau
    (2) Report Wes Groleau to his ISP
    (3) Killfile this thread.
    (4) Killfile me.
    (5) Read about free speech.

    This discussion(s) is related to the 2 pound diet approach (2PD) which is
    described completely at:

    http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtloss.asp

    Though Dr. Chung invented this approach, he did not initiate the Usenet
    discussion(s). His participation in this discussion(s) has been voluntary and
    has been conducted in the spirit of community service. His motivation has
    been entirely altruistic and has arisen from his religious beliefs as a
    Christian. Jesus freely gave of Himself to better the health of folks He
    touched:

    http://www.heartmdphd.com/healer.asp

    From the outset, it has been clear that there are those who are vehemently
    opposed to the 2 pound diet approach. They have debated Dr. Chung on every
    perceived weakness of the 2 pound diet approach and have lost the argument
    soundly at every point:

    http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtlossfaqs.asp

    These debates are archived on Google in their entirety within this discussion
    thread(s).

    However, instead of conceding gracefully that they've lost the argument(s),
    certain parties have redirected their hatred of the 2 pound diet approach
    toward its author. The rationale appears to be "if you can not discredit the
    message then try to discredit the messenger."

    Initially, these folks accused the messenger of "trolling." A "troll" is
    someone who posts under the cloak of anonymity messages with no redeeming
    discussion value and with the sole purpose of starting "flame" wars.

    These hateful folks lost credibility with this accusation when the following
    observations were made:

    (1) Dr. Chung has not been posting anonymously.
    (2) The 2PD has been on-topic for the Usenet discussion groups hosting the
    discussion(s).
    (a) Those who are failing low-carbing can dovetail LC with the 2PD to
    achieve near-ideal weight.
    (b) Obese diabetics improve their blood glucose control when their weight
    becomes near-ideal.
    (c) For (b) see: http://tinyurl.com/levc
    (3) Dr. Chung did not start the discussion(s).
    (4) The 2 pound diet approach is 100% free (no profit motive).
    (5) Dr. Chung's credentials are real and easily verified on-line (including
    jpegs of the actual diplomas).

    Full of hatred, frustration, and desperation, certain individuals have tried
    to attack Dr. Chung's credentials knowing full well that they were attempting
    to libel him. One notable example is Mr. Pastorio:

    http://www.heartmdphd.com/libel.asp

    When the full light was cast on Mr. Pastorio's libelous statements, the
    hateful folks hiding in the darkness of anonymity only hissed louder in
    support of their fallen hero.

    Fortunately, those who have been following this discussion(s) either actively
    or as lurkers can easily dismiss the hisses, for what they are, using the
    on-line third-party resources at:

    http://www.heartmdphd.com/profile.asp

    where Dr. Chung's credentials can be verified many times over and libelous
    claims that credentials were bought are easily and summarily debunked.

    Moreover, readers need only make the following observations concerning the
    anon posters who continue to hiss (ie JC Der Koenig and Mack):

    (1) They are anonymous and thus they expect to have no credibility (or
    accountability).
    (2) They are by their Usenet history courtesy of Google, unsavory characters.
    (3) They have not added anything to the discussion(s) except to deliver
    one-sided insults.
    (4) They complain about alleged cross-posts from Dr. Chung by cross-posting.
    (5) They do not complain about cross-posts from folks who attack the 2PD or
    its author.

    and conclude that these anon posters deserve only their kill file.

    It is my hope that the above brings new readers of this thread up to speed.

    It will remain my pleasure to continue the discussion(s) about the 2PD above
    the din of hissing from the peanut gallery.


    Sincerely,

    Andrew

    --
    Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
    Board-Certified Cardiologist
    http://www.heartmdphd.com
     
  8. Steve wrote:

    > On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 19:45:57 -0400, Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote
    > (in message <[email protected]>):
    >
    > > Bill,
    > >
    > > Mr. Rosenberg is a known cyberstalker. His email with the headers can be
    > > viewed
    > > at:
    > >
    > > http://www.heartmdphd.com/stalking.asp
    > >
    > >

    >
    > Bill
    >
    > Dr. Chung is a known cyberparanoid. His paranoia can be viewed at:
    >
    > http://www.heartmdphd.com/stalking.asp
    >
    > Steve


    What happened to "I rest my case." ?

    You just can't seem to keep away.

    This is called "obsession."

    FYI Note: I am aware that I am responding to a cross-posted message. Because the
    author of the message to which I am responding did not request that the header be
    trimmed, I have not trimmed it. If you are upset about reading this message, a
    few suggestions:

    (1) Yell at Steve
    (2) Report Steve to his ISP
    (3) Killfile this thread.
    (4) Killfile me.
    (5) Read about free speech.

    This discussion(s) is related to the 2 pound diet approach (2PD) which is
    described completely at:

    http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtloss.asp

    Though Dr. Chung invented this approach, he did not initiate the Usenet
    discussion(s). His participation in this discussion(s) has been voluntary and has
    been conducted in the spirit of community service. His motivation has been
    entirely altruistic and has arisen from his religious beliefs as a Christian.
    Jesus freely gave of Himself to better the health of folks He touched:

    http://www.heartmdphd.com/healer.asp

    From the outset, it has been clear that there are those who are vehemently opposed
    to the 2 pound diet approach. They have debated Dr. Chung on every perceived
    weakness of the 2 pound diet approach and have lost the argument soundly at every
    point:

    http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtlossfaqs.asp

    These debates are archived on Google in their entirety within this discussion
    thread(s).

    However, instead of conceding gracefully that they've lost the argument(s),
    certain parties have redirected their hatred of the 2 pound diet approach toward
    its author. The rationale appears to be "if you can not discredit the message
    then try to discredit the messenger."

    Initially, these folks accused the messenger of "trolling." A "troll" is someone
    who posts under the cloak of anonymity messages with no redeeming discussion value
    and with the sole purpose of starting "flame" wars.

    These hateful folks lost credibility with this accusation when the following
    observations were made:

    (1) Dr. Chung has not been posting anonymously.
    (2) The 2PD has been on-topic for the Usenet discussion groups hosting the
    discussion(s).
    (a) Those who are failing low-carbing can dovetail LC with the 2PD to achieve
    near-ideal weight.
    (b) Obese diabetics improve their blood glucose control when their weight
    becomes near-ideal.
    (c) For (b) see: http://tinyurl.com/levc
    (3) Dr. Chung did not start the discussion(s).
    (4) The 2 pound diet approach is 100% free (no profit motive).
    (5) Dr. Chung's credentials are real and easily verified on-line (including jpegs
    of the actual diplomas).

    Full of hatred, frustration, and desperation, certain individuals have tried to
    attack Dr. Chung's credentials knowing full well that they were attempting to
    libel him. One notable example is Mr. Pastorio:

    http://www.heartmdphd.com/libel.asp

    When the full light was cast on Mr. Pastorio's libelous statements, the hateful
    folks hiding in the darkness of anonymity only hissed louder in support of their
    fallen hero.

    Fortunately, those who have been following this discussion(s) either actively or
    as lurkers can easily dismiss the hisses, for what they are, using the on-line
    third-party resources at:

    http://www.heartmdphd.com/profile.asp

    where Dr. Chung's credentials can be verified many times over and libelous claims
    that credentials were bought are easily and summarily debunked.

    Moreover, readers need only make the following observations concerning the anon
    posters who continue to hiss (ie JC Der Koenig and Mack):

    (1) They are anonymous and thus they expect to have no credibility (or
    accountability).
    (2) They are by their Usenet history courtesy of Google, unsavory characters.
    (3) They have not added anything to the discussion(s) except to deliver one-sided
    insults.
    (4) They complain about alleged cross-posts from Dr. Chung by cross-posting.
    (5) They do not complain about cross-posts from folks who attack the 2PD or its
    author.

    and conclude that these anon posters deserve only their kill file.

    It is my hope that the above brings new readers of this thread up to speed.

    It will remain my pleasure to continue the discussion(s) about the 2PD above the
    din of hissing from the peanut gallery.


    Sincerely,

    Andrew

    --
    Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
    Board-Certified Cardiologist
    http://www.heartmdphd.com
     
  9. Steve

    Steve Guest

    On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 20:14:13 -0400, Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote
    (in message <[email protected]>):

    > What happened to "I rest my case." ?


    Different thread.

    > You just can't seem to keep away.


    Nor can you.

    > This is called "obsession."


    Yea, ain't it great :) We are locked in death spiral. Just you and me Chung.

    Steve
     
  10. Steve wrote:

    > On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 20:14:13 -0400, Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote
    > (in message <[email protected]>):
    >
    > > What happened to "I rest my case." ?

    >
    > Different thread.
    >
    > > You just can't seem to keep away.

    >
    > Nor can you.
    >
    > > This is called "obsession."

    >
    > Yea, ain't it great :) We are locked in death spiral. Just you and me Chung.
    >
    > Steve


    Then you should hope your name is in the Book of Life.

    FYI Note: I am aware that I am responding to a cross-posted message. Because the
    author of the message to which I am responding did not request that the header be
    trimmed, I have not trimmed it. If you are upset about reading this message, a
    few suggestions:

    (1) Yell at Steve
    (2) Report Steve to his ISP
    (3) Killfile this thread.
    (4) Killfile me.
    (5) Read about free speech.

    This discussion(s) is related to the 2 pound diet approach (2PD) which is
    described completely at:

    http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtloss.asp

    Though Dr. Chung invented this approach, he did not initiate the Usenet
    discussion(s). His participation in this discussion(s) has been voluntary and
    has been conducted in the spirit of community service. His motivation has been
    entirely altruistic and has arisen from his religious beliefs as a Christian.
    Jesus freely gave of Himself to better the health of folks He touched:

    http://www.heartmdphd.com/healer.asp

    From the outset, it has been clear that there are those who are vehemently
    opposed to the 2 pound diet approach. They have debated Dr. Chung on every
    perceived weakness of the 2 pound diet approach and have lost the argument
    soundly at every point:

    http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtlossfaqs.asp

    These debates are archived on Google in their entirety within this discussion
    thread(s).

    However, instead of conceding gracefully that they've lost the argument(s),
    certain parties have redirected their hatred of the 2 pound diet approach toward
    its author. The rationale appears to be "if you can not discredit the message
    then try to discredit the messenger."

    Initially, these folks accused the messenger of "trolling." A "troll" is someone
    who posts under the cloak of anonymity messages with no redeeming discussion
    value and with the sole purpose of starting "flame" wars.

    These hateful folks lost credibility with this accusation when the following
    observations were made:

    (1) Dr. Chung has not been posting anonymously.
    (2) The 2PD has been on-topic for the Usenet discussion groups hosting the
    discussion(s).
    (a) Those who are failing low-carbing can dovetail LC with the 2PD to
    achieve near-ideal weight.
    (b) Obese diabetics improve their blood glucose control when their weight
    becomes near-ideal.
    (c) For (b) see: http://tinyurl.com/levc
    (3) Dr. Chung did not start the discussion(s).
    (4) The 2 pound diet approach is 100% free (no profit motive).
    (5) Dr. Chung's credentials are real and easily verified on-line (including jpegs
    of the actual diplomas).

    Full of hatred, frustration, and desperation, certain individuals have tried to
    attack Dr. Chung's credentials knowing full well that they were attempting to
    libel him. One notable example is Mr. Pastorio:

    http://www.heartmdphd.com/libel.asp

    When the full light was cast on Mr. Pastorio's libelous statements, the hateful
    folks hiding in the darkness of anonymity only hissed louder in support of their
    fallen hero.

    Fortunately, those who have been following this discussion(s) either actively or
    as lurkers can easily dismiss the hisses, for what they are, using the on-line
    third-party resources at:

    http://www.heartmdphd.com/profile.asp

    where Dr. Chung's credentials can be verified many times over and libelous claims
    that credentials were bought are easily and summarily debunked.

    Moreover, readers need only make the following observations concerning the anon
    posters who continue to hiss (ie JC Der Koenig and Mack):

    (1) They are anonymous and thus they expect to have no credibility (or
    accountability).
    (2) They are by their Usenet history courtesy of Google, unsavory characters.
    (3) They have not added anything to the discussion(s) except to deliver one-sided
    insults.
    (4) They complain about alleged cross-posts from Dr. Chung by cross-posting.
    (5) They do not complain about cross-posts from folks who attack the 2PD or its
    author.

    and conclude that these anon posters deserve only their kill file.

    It is my hope that the above brings new readers of this thread up to speed.

    It will remain my pleasure to continue the discussion(s) about the 2PD above the
    din of hissing from the peanut gallery.


    Sincerely,

    Andrew

    --
    Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
    Board-Certified Cardiologist
    http://www.heartmdphd.com
     
  11. Steve

    Steve Guest

    On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 9:50:47 -0400, Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote
    (in message <[email protected]>):

    > Steve wrote:
    >
    >> On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 20:14:13 -0400, Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote
    >> (in message <[email protected]>):
    >>
    >>> What happened to "I rest my case." ?

    >>
    >> Different thread.
    >>
    >>> You just can't seem to keep away.

    >>
    >> Nor can you.
    >>
    >>> This is called "obsession."

    >>
    >> Yea, ain't it great :) We are locked in death spiral. Just you and me
    >> Chung.
    >>
    >> Steve

    >
    > Then you should hope your name is in the Book of Life.


    I wonder, wonder who, who-oo-ooh WHO*

    (Who wrote the Book of Life?)

    Tell me, tell me, tell me
    Chung, who wrote the Book of Life?
    I've got to know the answer
    Was it someone from above?

    (Oh, I wonder, wonder who, mmbadoo-ooh, WHO)

    (Who wrote the Book of Life?)

    I love you darlin'
    Chungy, you know I do
    But I've got to see this Book of Life
    Find out why it's true

    (Oh, I wonder, wonder who, mmbadoo-ooh, WHO)

    (Who wrote the Book of Life?)

    (Chapter One you say to eat right)
    (But only eat two pounds)
    (Chapter Two you cross-post and troll, troll, troll, around)
    (In Chapter Three remember the meaning of hypocrisy)
    (In Chapter Four you give advice about Crist-i-an-i-ty))

    (Oh, I wonder, wonder who, mmbadoo-ooh, WHO)

    (Who wrote the Book of Life?)

    Chungy, Chungy, Chungy
    I love you, yes I do
    Well it says so in this Book of Life
    So we know it must be true

    (Oh, I wonder, wonder who, mmbadoo-ooh, WHO)

    (Who wrote the Book of Life?)

    * with apologies to the Monotones
     
  12. Blue M_un

    Blue M_un Guest

    On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 16:24:04 -0400, Ted Rosenberg
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    >They don't need to prove anything
    >YOU need to prove otherwise
    >
    >The Dung Troll is an internist, not a cardiologist he has NO board
    >certification in cardiology - as anyone who can read should know.


    Hi there, Ted. Wondered when you would join the pack of TROLLS from
    ASD and pitch in with your worthless two cents.

    > He appears still to have an office practice in a suburb
    >of Atlanta. BUT, the listing is out of date, and he may have lost that
    >by now.


    Damn, TR, you are full of piss with no vinegar today, aren't you? I
    guess when Chung and I have lunch AT HIS OFFICE next week, it will be
    all an illusion.

    lol

    >His posting patterns strongly suggest bipolar disease, but, as that is
    >all we see, the pattern could result from other reasons.


    Tell us, Teddy, what do "we" all see, O Mighty Seer Of All?

    >He is a consistently abusive cross-poster..


    Uh, Teddy, your Xposted this right now, TROLL.

    >He does not seem to be making much money at this, just gets his rocks
    >off by how many people he can upset, or is driven to it.


    "Rocks off"?

    Potty mouth Troll are the worst.
     
  13. Blue M_un

    Blue M_un Guest

    On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 20:57:49 GMT, "Bill" <[email protected]> wrote:

    > In particular, I
    >requested examples of medically inaccurate advice that Dr. Chung has
    >provided - outside of 2 lb diet issues which are too emotional to discuss -
    >from the many thousands he has posted. No one has come up with a single
    >example.


    Nor will they.
     
  14. Blue M_un

    Blue M_un Guest

    On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 18:00:57 -0400, Ted Rosenberg
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    >There is nothing "emotional" about the 2 lb diet - it is pure 100%
    >bullshit


    You sound emotional to me.

    Why do you hate the 2PDiet so, Teddy?

    > - and should clearly be so to anyone who passed 9th grade
    >science.- 2 lbs of water is the same as 2 lbs of concentrated fat - come
    >on - even a CS major should get enough science to see through THAT.


    Most everyone except you have figured out that only a fool would
    subvert the 2PDiet like that.

    Grow up; this argument is as old and staid as you are.

    >He has falsified his credentials - easily checkable


    Let's see your proof.

    >He has misrepresented his qualifications - easily checkable


    Let's see your proof.

    >he goes through manic bursts of wild crossposting, followed by periods
    >of quiet - easily checkable


    So what? So do you.

    >I don't read his cardio quack stuff, but his unwelcome advice on ASD is
    >surely improper ANY diabetic will tell you so.


    Many diabetics both Chung and work with would wholeheartedly call you
    a liars, Teddy.

    You speak for no one but your mindless self.

    No more reading of your ramblings of hate.

    <snipped lies, libels and threats>
     
  15. Blue M_un

    Blue M_un Guest

    On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 23:37:15 GMT, "Bill" <[email protected]> wrote:

    >You have not addressed any of the above. If I say Ted Rosenberg is a
    >Communist, the burden is on me to prove it, not on you to disprove it. It
    >really does not matter if you make emotional claims on Usenet, wear your hat
    >backwards, or have both a hammer and a sickle. The original claim was that Dr.
    >Chung dispensed poor medical advice in general - i.e. beyond the 2lb diet -
    >and I requested evidence to support this in the form of an example from his
    >many thousands of posts. None has been forthcoming.


    Teddy has none. Don't hold your breath waiting for that TROLL to say
    something worthwhile.
     
  16. Tiger Lily

    Tiger Lily Guest

    "Blue M_un" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > Damn, TR, you are full of piss with no vinegar today, aren't you? I
    > guess when Chung and I have lunch AT HIS OFFICE next week, it will be
    > all an illusion.


    and thus the "friendship" and continuing support of Chung and his BEST
    FRIEND is shown to the newsgroups for all to see

    sigh......

    go away Mu and stop cross posting
     
Loading...