Re: Frilegh Starts The TPD!!!!!



On Fri, 8 Aug 2003 4:10:09 -0400, Chris Malcolm wrote
(in message <[email protected]>):

> Many people seem to prefer to assess the worth of an idea by the
> personal qualities of the proposer. I prefer to assess ideas on their
> own worth.

I agree with you on that.

However, it also seems to me that the worth of an idea is directly
proportional to how robust it is in the face of challenges, how many aspects
of a problem it explains, whether or not it is falsifyable, how it ties in to
the fabric of other proven ideas, an understanding of it's limitations, etc.

There is a well accepted protocol, known to all scientifically trained and
literate people, including those trained as physicians, called the Scientific
Method, which can be used to establish the worth of an idea. "Plausibility"
is merely the first hurdle that must be surmounted, not the only one.

The power of this method has been demonstrated over the last two centuries
and anyone who purports to be a scientist but does not adhere to it is in my
opinion and in common usage, a charlatan.

> The 2lb diet idea seems a good one to me, for reasons I
> have mentioned. I support the idea regardless of the personal
> qualities of its proposer or other supporters.

The problem I see is that the burden of proof is on the proposer or, at
least, on the proponents. While such an idea should not be simply dismissed
out of hand, it certainly needs to be much more rigorously developed before
being held up as a credible alternative to more established ideas.

> It wouldn't matter to
> my support of the 2lb diet idea whether or not Chung was a charlatan.
>
> In fact, I don't think he is, and I suspect that some of those who are
> accusing him of various things, such as being Mu, or not really being
> a qualified cardiologist, know perfectly well their accusations are
> untrue, but enjoy rousing the unintelligent and insincere passions of
> a usenet lynching mob. It's a pretty disgusting spectacle, and while I
> think Chung might be unwise in feeding the flames by responding to
> them, that doesn't constitute charlatanry.

I recognize that in the real world people put forward unsubstantiated ideas
and claims all the time and other people follow them. That's just the way the
world works and to lament it is to tilt at windmills. In that crucible, the
loudest voice or the most emotionally appealing prevails... and the lynch mob
swings both ways.

In this case, we have someone who is playing on his scientific credentials to
put forward an idea in a most unscientific fashion in a most unscientific
forum. Either he doesn't know better, in which case the accusations of
incompetence ring true, or he does know better, in which case the accusation
of charlatan rings true.

Chung debases himself, his profession, and the reputation of Scientists in
general by performing in the gutter and I support the lynching he is getting.
He has brought it on himself. He chose to come here... the mob didn't go out
and find him.

If a serious Scientist picks up the "Two Pound Diet" idea and develops it, I
would be open to listening to the arguments. Until then, as far as I can
tell, it's just another "Grapefruit Diet".

Steve
 
Dr Chaos <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> On Thu, 7 Aug 2003 16:26:40 -0400, Steve <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Thu, 7 Aug 2003 15:46:06 -0400, Dr Chaos wrote
> > (in message <[email protected]>):
> >
> >> On Thu, 7 Aug 2003 5:01:03 -0400, Steve <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I would be remiss If I didn't point out that our friend Chung brought this
> >>> up
> >>> as a red herring rather than as a critique to be taken seriously. It is
> >>> ironic and ludicrous (but perhaps typical and to be expected) that the
> >>> father
> >>> of such an arbitrary, unscientific, and unsubstantiated diet idea as "The
> >>> Two
> >>> Pound Diet" would fault counting calories as not precise :) You seem to
> >>> be
> >>> an intelligent fellow... why you come to the defense of this charlatan is
> >>> beyond me.
> >>
> >> I think it's perfectly well scientifically substantiated, based on a
> >> reasonable hypothesis about human nature. That is, specifically, that
> >> the average extractable caloric density of food that people will
> >> actually eat in the long run will be fairly constant. That is, say
> >> over the month to year long timescales in question, not in any one
> >> meal or two.
> >
> > Caloric Density = calories / mass
> >
> >> This implies that the likely source of obesity is the consumption of
> >> excess mass.
> >
> > delta(Caloric Density) = delta(calories) + delta(mass)
> > ---------------------- --------------- -----------
> > Caloric Density calories mass
>
> D = C/M
>
> the total derivative of D is
>
> dD = 1/M dC + -C/M^2 dM
>
> >
> > if Caloric Density is a constant, delta(Caloric Density) = 0
> >
> > => delta(calories) = - calories * delta(mass)
> > ----------------------
> > mass
>
> setting dD = 0,
> dC/M = C/M^2 dM and with M not equal to zero
>
> dC = (C/M) dM
> = D dM
> >
> > Which says if people reduce the mass they are eating, by your "Constant
> > Caloric Density" hypothesis, they will increase the calories they are eating
> > to compensate. Whoops.
>
> your math is not correct.
>
> calories consumed = caloric density * mass
>
> C = D M
>
> with D constant,
>
> dC = D dM
>
> as before.

Correct.

--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com/
 
Steve <[email protected]> writes:

>On Fri, 8 Aug 2003 4:10:09 -0400, Chris Malcolm wrote
>(in message <[email protected]>):

>> Many people seem to prefer to assess the worth of an idea by the
>> personal qualities of the proposer. I prefer to assess ideas on their
>> own worth.

>I agree with you on that.

>However, it also seems to me that the worth of an idea is directly
>proportional to how robust it is in the face of challenges, how many aspects
>of a problem it explains, whether or not it is falsifyable, how it ties in to
>the fabric of other proven ideas, an understanding of it's limitations, etc.

>There is a well accepted protocol, known to all scientifically trained and
>literate people, including those trained as physicians, called the Scientific
>Method, which can be used to establish the worth of an idea. "Plausibility"
>is merely the first hurdle that must be surmounted, not the only one.

>The power of this method has been demonstrated over the last two centuries
>and anyone who purports to be a scientist but does not adhere to it is in my
>opinion and in common usage, a charlatan.

You exaggerate the applicability of the scientific method. It starts
when a scientist decides he has a good enough idea for which he has
gathered enough supportive data that he can try to convince other
scientists by describing replicable experiments and the chains of
reasoning derived from the results. For many of the general public
that's where a scientist starts, and whatever he does before that must
be aimed firmly at that target or it's not properly scientific. But
behind the scenes, before first formal publication, there's a great
variety of work goes on in entertaining and exploring ideas in a way
that bears no relation to the scientific method as generally
understood, and as publicised by philosophers and historians of
science such as Popper.

Typically formal publication comes after a funded study. This
typically takes years, and in order to win the funding to begin with
the scientist will have had to put forward a case for support to the
funding agency. This involves arguing a plausible but not
scientifically verified case, usually with the support of a small
preliminary study which is suggestive of support, but not up to
scientific publication standards. This is usually funded out of local
spare resources, and unless the scientist is pretty senior, he probably
had to get permission to devote some resources to this. In turn that
would probably involve at least arguing a plausible case verbally to
his superior who controls the resources. And so on,

Of course you're quite right the the 2lb diet idea is far from the
status of anyone being able to make a formal paper for peer review in
its support. If you don't want to listen to any ideas which haven't
reached that status, fine, but you're wrong to argue that it is
charlatanry for a scientist to propose an interesting idea which as
yet has no scientific support, and for which he may have no plans to
take it to that status. It's not unusual for an idea to take 12 years
from being a new controversial idea to having scientific status.

>The problem I see is that the burden of proof is on the proposer or, at
>least, on the proponents. While such an idea should not be simply dismissed
>out of hand, it certainly needs to be much more rigorously developed before
>being held up as a credible alternative to more established ideas.

It's not being held up as a credible alternative. It's no secret that
it lacks the experimental support necessary for that. It's being held
up as an idea that for which a case can be argued, and which is easy
enough to try. That's how a lot of ideas which eventually end up being
tested scientifically start. Look how long it has taken for the Atkins
diet to acquire some still controversial scientific support. It's not
a criticism of either Atkins or of science -- it's how these things
work.

>I recognize that in the real world people put forward unsubstantiated ideas
>and claims all the time and other people follow them. That's just the way the
>world works and to lament it is to tilt at windmills. In that crucible, the
>loudest voice or the most emotionally appealing prevails... and the lynch mob
>swings both ways.

The lynch mobs are an irrelevant sideshow. In the long run all that
matters are the people who put forward good arguments for and against,
and the people who collect evidence and report it. If there is any
merit in the idea, then one day those arguments and that evidence will
interest someone with the resources to put together a preliminary
study with a view to acquiring funding to get as far as a
peer-reviewed study.

>In this case, we have someone who is playing on his scientific credentials to
>put forward an idea in a most unscientific fashion in a most unscientific
>forum.

Speaking as someone who earns a living as a research scientist a
plausible argument (not conclusive, just arguable) can be made in
support of the 2lb diet, and has been made. Most of the arguments
against the idea come from people with dubious understandings of
science in general, and of the particular science involved, and a
great deal of the arguments are stupidly and irrelevantly
personal. That Chung gets involved in some of these unscientific and
silly arguments hasn't got anything to do with the quality of the
idea, any more than whether or not he plays golf, practices martial
arts, or smokes cigarettes.

>Either he doesn't know better, in which case the accusations of
>incompetence ring true, or he does know better, in which case the accusation
>of charlatan rings true.

It's simply got nothing to do with it. In science all that matters are
the ideas. Science is not politics, where the public has formed the
strange idea that having certain sexual proclivities is somehow
connected with skill in governing a nation.

>Chung debases himself, his profession, and the reputation of Scientists in
>general by performing in the gutter and I support the lynching he is getting.

You can argue that he is performing in the gutter and has debased
himself. But this has no effect at all on the reputation of scientists
or the quality of his ideas, and if you think it has, you haven't a
clue about science.

>If a serious Scientist picks up the "Two Pound Diet" idea and develops it, I
>would be open to listening to the arguments. Until then, as far as I can
>tell, it's just another "Grapefruit Diet".

You're quite right. It's simply one among many scientifically
unsubstantiated diets. It's put forward for you to judge whether you
find it plausible and interesting enough to try and verify it in your
individual case. Your whole argument about it not having proper
scientific support is simply a misunderstanding of the status of the
idea. You're criticising an acorn for not being a tree.
--
Chris Malcolm [email protected] +44 (0)131 650 3085 DoD #205
School of Informatics, Edinburgh University, 5 Forrest Hill,
Edinburgh, EH1 2QL, UK. [http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/ ]
 
On Fri, 8 Aug 2003 20:10:54 -0400, Chris Malcolm wrote
(in message <[email protected]>):

> (snipped)

Chris,

My guess is that you and I are the only two people reading this at this
point, so if you have any interest in pursuing it, we should probably take it
to email.

Two quick points:

I believe you are unnecessarily restricting the "Scientific Method" to the
methods of "Big Science" as practiced in the universities, with funding,
publishing, and by the way, politics. To me it is much broader, encompassing
a commitment to an intellectual method and discipline of investigating ideas
in general as characterized by the philosophers of the Enlightenment.

> You can argue that he is performing in the gutter and has debased
> himself. But this has no effect at all on the reputation of scientists
> or the quality of his ideas, and if you think it has, you haven't a
> clue about science.

Well, in fact, I have a clue about science and don't appreciate the ad
hominem. I didn't say it affected the quality of his ideas and in fact agreed
with you that an idea doesn't care who had it :) However, in this, the "real
world", it is unfortunate but true that the behavior of one scientist (or
member of any other class in general) affects the public's perception of
scientists in general (or the class in general). And the public's perception
has real world consequences for the whole class.

Do you think the Two Pound Diet would have received any attention at all if
it were Mu who proposed and "owned" it? It is because of Chung's credentials
that it receives any play at all and therefore his credentials and his use or
misuse of them become relevant.

You may have the last word on this if you wish :)

Steve
 
Dr Chaos <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> On Thu, 7 Aug 2003 5:01:03 -0400, Steve <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > I would be remiss If I didn't point out that our friend Chung brought this up
> > as a red herring rather than as a critique to be taken seriously. It is
> > ironic and ludicrous (but perhaps typical and to be expected) that the father
> > of such an arbitrary, unscientific, and unsubstantiated diet idea as "The Two
> > Pound Diet" would fault counting calories as not precise :) You seem to be
> > an intelligent fellow... why you come to the defense of this charlatan is
> > beyond me.
>
> I think it's perfectly well scientifically substantiated, based on a
> reasonable hypothesis about human nature. That is, specifically, that
> the average extractable caloric density of food that people will
> actually eat in the long run will be fairly constant. That is, say
> over the month to year long timescales in question, not in any one
> meal or two.
>
> This implies that the likely source of obesity is the consumption of
> excess mass. A diet that focuses on precise control of what is
> precisely measurable seems like a good idea in the circumstances.
>
> Lots of diet books focus endlessly on "what" to eat but I suspect the
> overweight make consistent errors in the portion sizes.

You are correct.

Thanks for contributing to this discussion in a meaningful way.

--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com
 
"Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Dr Chaos <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> > On Thu, 7 Aug 2003 5:01:03 -0400, Steve <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > I would be remiss If I didn't point out that our friend Chung brought
this up
> > > as a red herring rather than as a critique to be taken seriously. It
is
> > > ironic and ludicrous (but perhaps typical and to be expected) that the
father
> > > of such an arbitrary, unscientific, and unsubstantiated diet idea as
"The Two
> > > Pound Diet" would fault counting calories as not precise :) You seem
to be
> > > an intelligent fellow... why you come to the defense of this charlatan
is
> > > beyond me.
> >
> > I think it's perfectly well scientifically substantiated, based on a
> > reasonable hypothesis about human nature. That is, specifically, that
> > the average extractable caloric density of food that people will
> > actually eat in the long run will be fairly constant. That is, say
> > over the month to year long timescales in question, not in any one
> > meal or two.
> >
> > This implies that the likely source of obesity is the consumption of
> > excess mass. A diet that focuses on precise control of what is
> > precisely measurable seems like a good idea in the circumstances.
> >
> > Lots of diet books focus endlessly on "what" to eat but I suspect the
> > overweight make consistent errors in the portion sizes.
>
> You are correct.
>
> Thanks for contributing to this discussion in a meaningful way.
>

You're an idiot and a quack. There's no way you should be giving any type of
medical advice. That's why you don't have access to a hospital, and why you
were fired in Florida. This is also why you troll usenet for unsuspecting
"patients". I've also heard that you bought your credentials on the
internet. Shame on you.
 
"Bill" <***@yy.zz> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> "JC Der Koenig" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
<libelous statements snipped>
>
> I have looked very carefully at Dr. Chung's Medical advice given in this
> newsgroup and found it always quite well informed - except perhaps on the
> state of air conditioning in Great Britain. :) You have made some claims. What
> is your evidence to support them?
>
> Bill

This discussion(s) started about 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.
(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.asp/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):

(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
 
"JC Der Koenig" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > "JC Der Koenig" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:<[email protected]>...
> > > "Carol Frilegh" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > news:060820031221390039%[email protected]...
> > > > Carol Frilegh ON The TPD
> > >
> > > Correlation does not equal causation. Idiot.
> >
> > A phrase does not make a correlation.
> >
> > Is insulting folks without causation wise?
> >
> > Case in point:
> >
>
<libelous statements snipped>

This discussion(s) started about 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.
(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.asp/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):

(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
 
Montgomery Hounchell <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 15:50:59 -0400, "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD"
> <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> Doctor,
>
> Do you advise any "supplement vitamin intake during this diet?
>
> Monte

No. If your doctor thinks your eating habits are very "skewed," s/he
may recommend a "standard" multi-vitamin but I would leave it up to
him/her.

--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com
 
DJ Delorie <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Lyle McDonald <[email protected]> writes:
> > water content is a larger contributor to it most energy dense foods
> > (esp processed) have had the water content removed
>
> It sound like we may be on different subjects. The theory I was
> talking about is this: "A given weight of food will fill the stomach
> the same, mostly independent of the type of food". Half a pound of
> butter, Half a pound of jelly beans, half a pound of meat, half a
> pound of water. They all have about the same density, so once you
> reduce it to mush by chewing they should occupy about the same volume
> in your stomach.
>
> > so you think 8 oz of jelly beans and 8 oz of lettuce are going to take
> > up the same volume in your gut?
>
> I think that if you, on an empty stomach, ate either 8 oz (by weight)
> jelly beans, or 8 oz (by weight) lettuce, in a short time period (to
> avoid differences caused by gastric emptying), the volume they occupy
> in your stomach immediately after eating would be similar. I don't
> know the specific density of jelly beans, but various other high-carb
> calorie-dense foods I happen to have are about 1 g/ml. Lettuce is 97%
> water so I assume it has a density about the same as water, or about 1
> g/ml.
>
> This assumes that the air between the lettuce leaves is either not
> ingested, or burped out. And all bets are off once gastric emptying
> comes into play.

Most folks are able to burp the air out.

Thank you for contributing to this discussion in a meaningful way.

--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com
 
"JC Der Koenig" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > "JC Der Koenig" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:<[email protected]>...
> > > "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > news:[email protected]...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > You asked for a hypothetical. You got it.
> > > >
> > >
> > > You're an idiot and a quack. There's no way you should be giving any
> type of
> > > medical advice. That's why you don't have access to a hospital, and why
> you
> > > were fired in Florida. This is also why you troll usenet for
> unsuspecting
> > > "patients". I've also heard that you bought your credentials on the
> > > internet. Shame on you.
> >
> >
> > Do you think the above was wise, Mr. Pastorio?
> >
> > http://www.heartmdphd.com/libel.asp
> >

> Which part of this do you not understand?
>
This discussion(s) started about 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.
(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.asp/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):

(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
 
"Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> No. If your doctor thinks your eating habits are very "skewed," s/he
> may recommend a "standard" multi-vitamin but I would leave it up to
> him/her.
>

You're an idiot and a quack. There's no way you should be giving any type of
medical advice. That's why you don't have access to a hospital, and why you
were fired in Florida. This is also why you troll usenet for unsuspecting
"patients". I've also heard that you bought your credentials on the
internet. Shame on you.
 
"JC Der Koenig" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > No. If your doctor thinks your eating habits are very "skewed," s/he
> > may recommend a "standard" multi-vitamin but I would leave it up to
> > him/her.
> >
>
<libelous statements snipped>

This discussion(s) started about 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.
(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.asp/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):

(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
 
"JC Der Koenig" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > No. If your doctor thinks your eating habits are very "skewed," s/he
> > may recommend a "standard" multi-vitamin but I would leave it up to
> > him/her.
> >
>
<libelous statements snipped>

This discussion(s) started about 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.
(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.asp/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):

(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
 
Bob Pastorio <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> "! MU !" wrote:
> >
> > On 21 Jul 2003 10:22:20 -0700, [email protected] (Dr. Andrew B.
> > Chung, MD/PhD) wrote:
> >
> > >The Everest Climbers were not eating freeze-dried survival provisions.
> >
> > Which anyone who had read the website would have surely known.
>
> Here's what I've already said to Andy "quack-quack" Chung:
>
> Perhaps you note I didn't refer to the Everest climbers. You've referred
> to rehydration several times in your amusing attempts to rescue this
> 2PoundStarvationDiet idea. Rewriting history, are you? Evading the real
> issue again?
>
> You gotta keep up, fishbone, or you look like a day late and a dollar
> short. Oh, wait. Your normal shtick.
>
> > So here you go, Cheffie. The website either you never read or one you
> > never comprehended.
> >
> > http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtloss.asp
>
> Yes. Everyone go look at the website. Read the "testimonials" from
> satisfied customers. COunt the holes *they* punch in the
> 2PoundTHE-ANSWERDiet
>
> Pastorio

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 Pastorio
(2) Report Pastorio to his ISP
(3) Killfile this thread.
(4) Killfile me.
(5) Read about free speech.

This discussion(s) started about 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.
(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.asp/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):

(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
 
YAWN

--
Lori
210/149/140 (revised)
LC since 1/17/03
August Challenge 153/148
Back to Curves 6/30/03
http://www.geocities.com/[email protected]/photos.html
http://photos.yahoo.com/[email protected]
"Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "JC Der Koenig" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> > "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > > "JC Der Koenig" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:<[email protected]>...
> > > > "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <[email protected]> wrote in
message
> > > > news:[email protected]...
> >
> > > > >
> > > > > Those "issues" are fabricated out of hatred for the 2PD. There
are no
> > > > > grounds for it. My credentials are irrefutable. My medical
practice
> > > > > history has been sterling. Those who claim otherwise do not have
a
> > > > > leg to stand on.
> > > > >
> > > > > Word to the wise:
> > > > >
> > > > > http://www.heartmdphd.com/libel.asp
> > > > >
> > > >
> <libelous statements snipped>
>
> 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 "JC Der Koenig"
> (2) Report "JC Der Koenig" to his ISP
> (3) Killfile this thread.
> (4) Killfile me.
> (5) Read about free speech.
>
> This discussion(s) started about 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.
> (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.asp/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):
>
> (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
 
! MU ! <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 09:48:50 +0000 (UTC), [email protected] (Chris
> Malcolm) wrote:
>
> >Pastorio...this is also irrelevant to any sensible discussion of the issues. As
> >is quite clear from the context in which Chung mentioned the climbers,
> >they happened to be an inspiration, not the keystone of an argument.
> >
> >If the best you can do to keep this argument going is to pretend to be
> >ignorant and stupid, don't you think it's time you stopped?
>
> Pretend?
>
> Stop?
>
> lol
>
> "Live To Eat? Nyet. Eat To Live!"

Let's bring this back on topic, Mu.

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 completely
(ASD trimmed per Carol's request). If you are upset about reading
this message, a few suggestions:

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

This discussion(s) started about 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.
(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.asp/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):

(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
 
Bob Pastorio <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> "! MU !" wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 06:02:48 +0000 (UTC), [email protected] (Chris
> > Malcolm) wrote:
> >
> > >Most if not all of your contributions to this discussion have been to
> > >make points other folk had already made, or "witty" repartee such as
> > >the above. If you're happy with that public image, please continue, Crannell.
> >
> > It sure beats being an associate choir leader in a God forsaken
> > mimi-school like Austin College in "beautiful" Sherman, Texass.
>
> Right. A real Ph.D. who travels internationally in his field.
>
> Unlike phony Mu who claims credentials he can't document.
>
> Mu's mouth writes checks his ass can't cash.
>
> Pastorio

Was writing that wise, Mr. Pastorio?

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 (except for
ASD per Carol's request). If you are upset about reading this
message, a few suggestions:

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

This discussion(s) started about 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.
(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.asp/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):

(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
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back