Steve,
That really was not fair. You say in your note that Dr. Chung responds to medical questions on smc.
(In my experience he responds very well to these.) And if that is all he did there would be no
controversy.
That is exactly what he was doing in this case. By stepping in you may preclude someone from getting
the medical help they need.
Bill
"Steve" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]... On Sat, 7 Feb 2004 14:23:01 -0500, Dr.
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote (in message <[email hidden]>😉:
Quoted message said:Annia said:Hi, I'm a 20 y.o., female. I don't smoke or drink, weigh 110 lb and have a height of about 5'5.
<snip>
_ _ __/ ) ( \__ ( _ `. ,' _ ) ************ WARNING ************** ~ `. `. _-==-_ ,' ,' ~ * *
`. `x' `x' ,' * The Original Poster should be *
`.Y Y,' * very cautious in crediting any *
|`._ _,'| * medical advice posted in a *
( (_) (_) ) * newsgroup. In exercising this * ,' \` 00 '/ `. * caution, they would be well
* ,' ,'|"wwww"|`. `. * advised to carefully consider * __,' ,' `"mmmm"' `. `.__ * the
source. * ( _ ,' `----' `. _ ) * * ~ \_) (_/ ~ ***********************************
On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 5:17:30 -0500, A. B. Chung FAQ wrote (in message <chungfaq-
[email hidden]>😉:
Quoted message said:
---------------------------------
| The Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD FAQ |
| Version 1.0, January, 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
don¹t wish to read the whole FAQ, the following summary is provided.
Summary
-------
Dr. Chung represents himself to be a licensed physician specializing in cardiology. In this
capacity he responds to medical questions on
s.m.c.. If that were all he did, there would probably be no controversy.
The controversy arises from Dr. Chung¹s 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.
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.
o When challenged on the above issues, or one of his medical opinions, he attacks his challengers
as "obsessive anti-Christians",
Quoted message said:etc.
o When challenged he performs Internet searches on his challengers in order to "get the dirt" on
them and smear their reputations.
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.
o He is insufferably full of himself, claiming to have "the gift of Truth Discernment" and to be
"Humble" while behaving anything but humbly.
o He uses a foil who posts under variations of the name "Mu" to avoid killfiles. Mu¹s 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,
Mu¹s tactics are blunt and direct like those of a playground bully.
The above lists only the highlights of Dr. Chung¹s 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
shouldn¹t that be enough? Unfortunately, no.
Medical education alone is not enough to guarantee good advice. 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.
List of Questions Answered
--------------------------
1. Who is Dr. Andrew B Chung, MD/PhD?
2. What is the Charter of s.m.c.?
3. Aren¹t Religious Discussions Covered by the Charter?
4. So Dr. Chung is Religious... What¹s the Problem With That?
5. But it¹s Just a Little "Tag Line" in His Signature.
6. But I¹m a Christian Too!
7. Well, Why Not Just Ignore His Religious Rants?
8. But Isn¹t 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. Won¹t 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 Mu¹s Role?
1. 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.
2. 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 the cardiovascular field. Such
communications will provide quick and efficacious means to exchange information and knowledge, and
offer problems to solutions.
The sci.med.cardiology newsgroup will welcome participants who are health care providers,
trainees, researchers, students or recipients with interest in the field of cardiovascular
problems."
(ftp://ftp.uu.net/usenet/news.announce.newgroups/sci/sci.med.cardiology)
3. Aren¹t Religious Discussions Covered by the Charter?
--------------------------------------------------------
What do you think?
4. So Dr. Chung is Religious... What¹s 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.
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.
Chung¹s intolerant and dismissive attitude towards beliefs which differ from his. The situation is
further exacerbated by Mu¹s 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.
5. But it¹s Just a Little "Tag Line" in His Signature.
-------------------------------------------------------
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.
6. But I¹m a Christian Too!
----------------------------
Lots of people are Christians. There is a time and a place for everything. s.m.c. isn¹t 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. Chung¹s 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
Quoted message said:with the same first name and then insinuated that the poster and anyone
Quoted message said:yourself if this the brand of Christianity you identify with.
7. Well, Why Not Just Ignore His Religious Rants?
--------------------------------------------------
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.
8. But Isn¹t It Wonderful That Dr. Chung Offers This Free
Medical Advice Out of the Goodness of His Heart?
----------------------------------------------------------
First, it is only of value if it is good advice. Medical education alone is not enough to
guarantee good advice. 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?
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 hidden] 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."
(heartmdphd.comoffice.aspOpen ↗)
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.
10. Won¹t Challenging Dr. Chung Drive People Away?
--------------------------------------------------
Perhaps. But not challenging him will drive others away.
s.m.c. is historically a "low traffic" group. Therefore, when Dr. Chung misbehaves, he generates
an apparently large response. This is compounded by Dr. Chung¹s need to "get in the last
word" and Mu¹s provocations. In spite of this, if someone has a question it will usually be
answered.
Dr. 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.
Chung¹s 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?
--------------------------------------------------------------
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?
----------------------------------------------
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!
--------------------------------
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?
-------------------------------
The Two pound Diet is a diet which Dr. Chung "invented". It¹s only rule is to restrict yourself to
two pounds of food per day. That¹s it. Doesn¹t matter if you are a 16 year old girl or an 80 year
old man; a 5¹ 2" woman or a 7¹ man; a weight lifter or a mattress tester. Two pounds. That¹s 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... doesn¹t matter. Mix
and match. Just keep it under two pounds.
Dr. Chung¹s 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"?
---------------------------------------------------
Dr. 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 againS and, because of Mu¹s cross-posting, all their anger spills back into s.m.c.
Another reason for ongoing 2PD discussions is Dr. Chung¹s 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?
--------------
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. Chung¹s "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 Mu¹s Role?
----------------------
Mu¹s 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, Mu¹s role is to tirelessly wear down unsuspecting Dr. Chung critics, deflecting the blows
that would otherwise be aimed at Dr. Chung. He is Dr. Chung¹s 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.
