Bill wrote:
> "Bob (this one)" <
[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> > Bill wrote:
> > > "Stephen Nagler" <
[email protected]> wrote in message
> > >
news:[email protected]...
> > >
> > >>
> > >>>Do you have examples of responses regarding cardiology - i.e. not diet
> and
> > >>>not religion - that are "just plain wrong?"
> >
> > Bill, why exclude them?
>
> I don't want to discuss diet issues because there is so much emotion and almost hatered going back
> and forth on the 2 lb diet that it is just impossible to have a rational discussion about it. I
> will say that I agree with you that I think what you eat is important. However, his position is
> not irrational either. I think what he is really talking about is portion control - to the extent
> of 2 lbs/day. I have no idea if that will work for some people or not. In the end, that is what
> would really count - what works for losing weight.
>
> >Chung is an MD who has the charge of being compelled by medical ethics to offer the best care and
> >the best supported information available. His diet points to an unfortunate willingness to
> >discard modern nutritional information about composition of healthful diets and secondary
> >nutrients. To be sure, there's no unanimity about how the macro nutrients should be proportioned.
> >But every other knowledgeable scientist factors them into any dietary regimen; considers them.
> >Chung discards any and all such information and leaves it with, "eat the same things you do now,
> >just less" and that's for everyone, no matter any personal differences beyond diabetes. It
> >started with "just use common sense" and has progressed to "check with your doctor" in recent
> >weeks. It's a superficial view of human nutrition based on a misunderstanding from a movie. Chung
> >has been given more authoritative sources and many quotations that say the information that
> >triggered his "diet" from an IMAX movie was wrong. It hasn't mattered, and, if anything, has
> >merely hardened his position.
> >
> > There's no real argument about religion unless, as Chung does, it's used as a weapon and a means
> > to humiliate, denigrate and generally demean others. Then the contents of a belief system aren't
> > so much the issue as its use between participants here. Chung's fundamentalist, exclusionary
> > approach indicates a position that's begins with his thinking he has absolute knowledge and
> > understanding of religious matters. That absoluteness flies in the face of the scientific
> > method. It's one thing to believe; it's another to have the hubris to imagine having a full and
> > complete understanding dismissing any others.
> >
> > >>Well, Bill, both diet and religion impact the heart greatly - but that aside ...
> > >>
> > >>Just off-hand I recall a recent incident where an individual was concerned about sensitivity
> > >>to lidocaine in terms of her cardiac status - and Dr. Chung's doses were off five-fold. It is
> > >>highly likely that there are other incidents of incorrect doses and incorrect meds, but I am
> > >>not a cardiologist - so I wouldn't know for certain. And Dr. Chung has chased off all the
> > >>cardiological types who *would* know. What's he afraid of? Being wrong? There's no shame in
> > >>being wrong. There's only shame in not acknowledging it and trying to correct the error.
> > >>
> > >>smn
> > >
> > > You made a fairly serious accusation. I'm asking you to support that. You really have not.
> >
> > You asked for examples and you got one that was very specific.
> >
> > > What you are really saying is all those who could have left. I personally don't know of any
> > > who have, but, if so, it is probably due to
> the
> > > overall tone of the board - which Dr. Chung may play a role in but is not totally responsible
> > > for.
> >
> > Several have left or otherwise seriously curtailed their participation. To be sure, Chung isn't
> > the whole reason for the tone. But note how quiet it's been for the past couple days when Chung
> > and Mu haven't posted any of their fighting words and trolls. They don't do all the posts, but
> > they set the stage for them by their vile behaviors. When no one lies, no one posts anything
> > about deceit. When no one denigrates others, no one needs to defend or explain the malice. When
> > no one acts the fool, no one has to point it out.
> >
> > Chung has more than merely "a role" in the tone of this NG. Between him and Mu, the presence of
> > only one cardiologist is pretty much assured. Their recent spate of anti-gay and anti-semitic
> > posts should talk about their integrity. I lump them as one, not because I think they're one
> > person, but because they both have such parallel scurrilous tendencies.
> >
> > > As far as Drs. being reluctant to admit they are wrong, I have noted many
> in
> > > the profession with a certain amount of arrogance.
> >
> > It's a stereotype. But I've seen few that carry it to the extremes that Chung does. He's still
> > insisting that 2 pounds of potatoes contain 3600 calories even after being given authoritative,
> > definitive sources that say he's off by a factor of 4 or more, depending on preparation. There's
> > no need for that and no one benefits from that sort of sheer intransigence. It's a sociopathic
> > inability to even consider error. Goes beyond mere arrogance.
> >
> > > In any case you made the following claim and it is up to you to support
> it. If
> > > no one can support it, because they left or whatever, than it is not fair
> to
> > > make the claim.
> >
> > Unfortunately, fairness is in short supply here now, as you should have noticed by the mention
> > of pedophilia here as a smarmy inference. It's difficult to turn the other cheek knowing that
> > that fact will merely provide further ammunition. And if there is no ammunition, Chung and Mu
> > will invent some.
> >
> > These patterns of behavior signal a serious issue of partiality and prejudice. They imply a less-than-
> > professional vision. They point to a sense of morality that is rather less than optimal or what
> > they claim to profess.
> >
> > > "Unfortunately, some of Dr. Chung's responses to serious questions are
> serious
> > > responses that are very far from mainstream cardiology, and some are just plain wrong."
> >
> > This isn't an easy thing to do. There have been many citations of research papers and
> > presentations that contradict what Chung has offered or that Chung has contradicted with only
> > his "experience" to support him. Look up the information that Matti Narkia has supplied -
> > citations by the scores - and look at the responses from Chung that were ad hominem attacks
> > rather than for him to deal with the science offered.
> >
> > One post I offered cited research that said 325 mg aspirin didn't do any more than 81 mg aspirin
> > except in acute circumstances. Chung dismissed it with no support for his position.
> >
>
> I think we went around this before and I presented you some information that said that, though
> there may be some controversy, the current opinion is at least 160 mg/day.
>
> > Chung had untrue information on the AMA web site about his credentials. It's down now, but as
> > recently as January this year, it was up that he had privileges in three hospitals. He didn't
> > and never did.
> >
> > How does one separate a modus operandi from the contents of a viewpoint. Chung's education -
> > from bachelor degrees up through terminal degrees - is extraordinary and his academic
> > accomplishments are nothing short of amazing. How he chooses to present himself and how he
> > treats others are also measures of the person dispensing medical advice. If he could be counted
> > upon to deal fairly, honestly, fully, there would be no questions. But he doesn't. It's my
> > position that one cannot separate people into little discrete compartments that have no bearing
> > on each other. Ugliness and pettiness in one personality area has to pollute other areas, to the
> > detriment of all of them.
> >
> > Bob
> >
>
> I think sums up our disagreement. One can be the most bothersome person in the world and still
> dispense good advice. In this case, the proof is in the pudding - so to speak
He dispenses
> advice on a daily basis and has done so for years but the examples of incorrectness seem pretty
> trivial.
>
> Bill
I appreciate the support Bill (though I cringe at the phrase "dispense good advice")
I do *inform* people here in this newsgroup on a daily basis and have being doing this for several
years per God's will.
I make every effort to steer clear of specific drug and dosage information to avoid folks
misinterpreting what I write here on Usenet to be medical advice. For this reason, in the thousands
of posts that I have authored here on Usenet, there has not been a need to "disclaimer" specific
medical advice because no specific medical advice will ever be given.
In the recently cited example of the amount of epinephrine typically mixed with lidocaine for
plastic/cosmetic surgery, my recollection was/is a 1:1,000,000 mix (1 mg of epinephrine per 1000 ccs
of lidocaine solution). Giving this kind of information is unlikely to be construed as medical
advice because there will be a surgeon administering it (zero chance of self-administration).
Subsequently, I have looked this up and found my recollection to be accurate. Here's a link
describing the 1:1,000,000 mix used in cosmetic surgery where the patient will be conscious:
http://www.uic.edu/pharmacy/services/di/tumescent.htm
Fyi, though smn will likely continue to deny the allegations of "cyber-stalking" as is his right,
know that as far as I know, the charges have *not* been dismissed as "false." Indeed, his continued
presence here in SMC only affirms the truthfulness of the allegations. The same logic applies to the
others who would follow smn's lead (TL, Bob, et al).
Imho, Bob's fanatical obsession with my assertion that 2 lbs of potatoes has *about* 3600 kcal
serves to underscore the problems with calorie counting and why it does not work. A person who needs
to lose weight has no business rounding calories down.
Servant to the humblest person in the universe,
Andrew
--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com/
**
Who is the humblest person in the universe?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?W1F522557
What is all this about?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?G1BB12C67
Is this spam?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?N69721867