This group is so boring now



"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?"
>
> ..............
>
> 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. 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.

As far as Drs. being reluctant to admit they are wrong, I have noted many in the profession with a
certain amount of 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, 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."

Bill
 
[email protected] (Jerome R. Long) wrote in part:

>In article <[email protected]>,

>>
>>This used to be a really good group - lots of news, questions, and helpful answers. Now it is
>>filled with all this garbage about Dr,Chung -
>>
>>He seems so helpful here so why don't the critics leave him alone and get a life. Or ask some
>>relevent questions, or something
>>
>>David
>
>You are absolutely correct. I have followed this group for perhaps eight years and it has
>degenerated terribly. A moderator is needed.
>Dr. Chung should not allow himself to be baited so easily by all the trolls. Rule #1 for any good
> usenet group is DO NOT FEED THE TROLLS. As far as I can tell Dr. Chung's responses to serious
> questions are serious responses out of mainstream cardiology. That is all that should matter.
> If you don't care for the non-medical aspects of his posts just ignore them.

This is a sci.med group. It is not a support group for those with heart problems and it most
certainly is not a place where one cardiologist should be dispensing medical advice to those with
problems. It should be a place primarily for discussion of medical science issues that relate to
cardiology, and should include a number of professionals of various ilks who can keep a good
discussion going. It's a public group, so it obviously is not restricted to med.sci.cardiology
experts and does not exclude patients, but it doesn't serve its intended purpose as it is presently
constituted.

There have been professionals here in the past. They seem to be mostly gone now.
--
Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA
 
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?"
> >
> > ..............
> >
> > 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. 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.
>
> As far as Drs. being reluctant to admit they are wrong, I have noted many in the profession with a
> certain amount of 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, 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."
>
> Bill

Sounds like you also have the gift of truth discernment, Bill :)

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
 
Jim Chinnis wrote:

> [email protected] (Jerome R. Long) wrote in part:
>
> >In article <[email protected]>,

> >>
> >>This used to be a really good group - lots of news, questions, and helpful answers. Now it is
> >>filled with all this garbage about Dr,Chung -
> >>
> >>He seems so helpful here so why don't the critics leave him alone and get a life. Or ask some
> >>relevent questions, or something
> >>
> >>David
> >
> >You are absolutely correct. I have followed this group for perhaps eight years and it has
> >degenerated terribly. A moderator is needed.
> >Dr. Chung should not allow himself to be baited so easily by all the trolls. Rule #1 for any good
> > usenet group is DO NOT FEED THE TROLLS. As far as I can tell Dr. Chung's responses to serious
> > questions are serious responses out of mainstream cardiology. That is all that should matter.
> > If you don't care for the non-medical aspects of his posts just ignore them.
>
> This is a sci.med group. It is not a support group for those with heart problems and it most
> certainly is not a place where one cardiologist should be dispensing medical advice to those with
> problems. It should be a place primarily for discussion of medical science issues that relate to
> cardiology, and should include a number of professionals of various ilks who can keep a good
> discussion going. It's a public group, so it obviously is not restricted to med.sci.cardiology
> experts and does not exclude patients, but it doesn't serve its intended purpose as it is
> presently constituted.
>

Have you visited sci.med recently?

>
> There have been professionals here in the past.

And here in the present.

> They seem to be mostly gone now.
>

Hardly.

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
 
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? 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.

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
 
>You made a fairly serious accusation.

.................

Sure I did. I feel that what Dr. Chung has done here is very serious.

..................

> I'm asking you to support that. You really have not. 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.
>
>As far as Drs. being reluctant to admit they are wrong, I have noted many in the profession with a
>certain amount of 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, 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."

.................

I just did - with the lidocaine case.

Here, read through the thread yourself ...

http://tinyurl.com/2n2kt

Now I don't know who you are - but I believe that I have addressed the issues you raised - and I
will not get sucked into some kind of argument about Dr. Chung's value to this board. Newbies check
this place out daily. They see a doctor dispensing information that they likely believe is accurate
in view of his omnipresent sig line:

>Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD Board-Certified Cardiologist

They do not know that some information he has given out previously was inaccurate. They do not know
how he deals with medical doctors who challenge him or his credentials. (In my case he filed a false
police report.) This would be so easy to rectify if he would but agree to put a small disclaimer at
the bottom of his posts reminding all (especially newbies) not to institute any medication,
exercise, or dietary recommendations they might pick up on this or any Internet site without first
discussing the situation with their own physicians. And this he has refused to do.

smn
 
"Stephen Nagler" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

>
>
> >
> >You made a fairly serious accusation.
>
> .................
>
> Sure I did. I feel that what Dr. Chung has done here is very serious.
>
> ..................
>
> > I'm asking you to support that. You really have not. 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.
> >
> >As far as Drs. being reluctant to admit they are wrong, I have noted many
in
> >the profession with a certain amount of 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, 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."
>
> .................
>
> I just did - with the lidocaine case.
>
> Here, read through the thread yourself ...
>
> http://tinyurl.com/2n2kt
>
> Now I don't know who you are - but I believe that I have addressed the issues you raised - and I
> will not get sucked into some kind of argument about Dr. Chung's value to this board.

That seems to me to be a pretty trival example and is only 1. You have made a serious charge against
a person and then say you do not wish to discuss the basis for it. That is really what you are
saying here.

>Newbies check this place out daily. They see a doctor dispensing information that they likely
>believe is accurate in view of his omnipresent sig line:
>
> >Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD Board-Certified Cardiologist
>
> They do not know that some information he has given out previously was inaccurate. They do not
> know how he deals with medical doctors who challenge him or his credentials. (In my case he filed
> a false police report.) This would be so easy to rectify if he would but agree to put a small
> disclaimer at the bottom of his posts reminding all (especially newbies) not to institute any
> medication, exercise, or dietary recommendations they might pick up on this or any Internet site
> without first discussing the situation with their own physicians. And this he has refused to do.
>
> smn

All of this may or may not be true. But it seems to have nothing to do with the charge you
have leveled.

Bill
 
is it just me or does everyone else notice how Bill comes out of the background to defend Dr Chung
on a regular basis..... requesting "proof" of his "lack of quality care"

now where did i hear that expression before?? was it in Florida by any chance??

Bill....... good luck with the "medical advice" you get from your pet friend

news:[email protected]...
>
> "Stephen Nagler" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...

> >
> >
> > >
> > >You made a fairly serious accusation.
> >
> > .................
> >
> > Sure I did. I feel that what Dr. Chung has done here is very serious.
> >
> > ..................
> >
> > > I'm asking you to support that. You really have not. 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.
> > >
> > >As far as Drs. being reluctant to admit they are wrong, I have noted
many
> in
> > >the profession with a certain amount of 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, 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."
> >
> > .................
> >
> > I just did - with the lidocaine case.
> >
> > Here, read through the thread yourself ...
> >
> > http://tinyurl.com/2n2kt
> >
> > Now I don't know who you are - but I believe that I have addressed the issues you raised - and I
> > will not get sucked into some kind of argument about Dr. Chung's value to this board.
>
> That seems to me to be a pretty trival example and is only 1. You have
made a
> serious charge against a person and then say you do not wish to discuss
the
> basis for it. That is really what you are saying here.
>
>
> >Newbies check this
> > place out daily. They see a doctor dispensing information that they likely believe is accurate
> > in view of his omnipresent sig line:
> >
> > >Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD Board-Certified Cardiologist
> >
> > They do not know that some information he has given out previously was inaccurate. They do not
> > know how he deals with medical doctors who challenge him or his credentials. (In my case he
> > filed a false police report.) This would be so easy to rectify if he would but agree to put a
> > small disclaimer at the bottom of his posts reminding all (especially newbies) not to institute
> > any medication, exercise, or dietary recommendations they might pick up on this or any Internet
> > site without first discussing the situation with their own physicians. And this he has refused
> > to do.
> >
> > smn
>
> All of this may or may not be true. But it seems to have nothing to do
with
> the charge you have leveled.
>
> Bill
 
>That seems to me to be a pretty trival example and is only 1.

..............

You asked for an example - and you got it.

................

>You have made a serious charge against a person

.................

I did indeed

.................

>and then say you do not wish to discuss the basis for it. That is really what you are saying here.

.................

I have discussed the basis for my charge is well as my concerns for the well-being of folk who might
come alomng here and get *bad* information. I have also suggested a simple fix. And *that* is what I
am really saying here.

smn
 
"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
 
Tiger Lily wrote:

> is it just me or does everyone else notice how Bill comes out of the background to defend Dr Chung
> on a regular basis.....

Seems to be just you and other members of the peanut gallery.

> requesting "proof" of his "lack of quality care"
>
> now where did i hear that expression before?? was it in Florida by any chance??
>

Is it wise to be cyberstalking again, TL?

Should I report you again as I have the others (including smn)?

>
> Bill....... good luck with the "medical advice" you get from your pet friend
>

With his gift of truth discernment, he doesn't need your luck.

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
 
"Stephen Nagler" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

>
>
> >
> >That seems to me to be a pretty trival example and is only 1.
>
> ..............
>
> You asked for an example - and you got it.
>
> ................
>

I asked you to support your statement:

"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."

First this is just one example. Not the multiple that you imply. Second this does not seem to be a
serious issue regarding mainstream cardiology. If you were being fair with yourself, Stephen, I
think would agree that your example does not come anywhere near making this case.

> >You have made a serious charge against a person
>
> .................
>
> I did indeed
>
> .................
>
> >and then say you do not wish to discuss the basis for it. That is really what you are
> >saying here.
>
> .................
>
> I have discussed the basis for my charge is well as my concerns for the well-being of folk who
> might come alomng here and get *bad* information. I have also suggested a simple fix. And *that*
> is what I am really saying here.
>
> smn

I think I even agree with your fix, but that is different from your claim.

Bill
 
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
 
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:

> Imho, Bob's fanatical obsession

<LOL> Chung *insists* that he's right even in the face of incontrovertible evidence. Wonder who's
the fanatic here...

> 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.

<LOL> Chung makes an egregious blunder which he's still maintaining is true. He says that because
people have pointed out how ridiculous his numbers are, that means that counting calories are bad.

And this is how Chung lies. By changing what he said and spinning it like a dervish. There was no
*about* in his posts. He made the basic blunder of the uninformed and assumed that potatoes were
pure carbohydrate. Bad science and bad advice to be giving patients.

<LOLOL>

> A person who needs to lose weight has no business rounding calories down.

And a person counting calories needs to count calories based on good information sources, not make
wild-assed guesses. One rounds up or down from a *real* number. Chung's is not a real number. It's
not supported by any source but Chung.

Here's how it really goes.

The USDA database offers information about potatoes in a very wide range of preparations and styles.
They offer the info about raw, cooked, dried, fried and all the other ways to do them. The numbers
are consistent. The USDA database is considered the definitive source for such information, not just
in the U.S., but around the world.

Some basic arithmetic for Chung: boiled potatoes are roughly 78% water, about 2% protein, 0.1 % fat,
and 20% carb (by difference, of which about 2% is fiber). On that basis, of 100 grams, slightly over
22 grams are nutritive. That come out to approximately 87 calories per hundred grams. That's less
than a calorie per gram. Period. And if you subtract the fiber since it's non-nutritive, it's
actually lower than that; more like 80 or 81 calories for 100 grams of potato.

Baked potatoes have less water because of evaporation, about 75%, 2.5% protein, 0.13 % fat, and
21.15% carb (by difference, with 2.2% fiber) 25% nutritive for a total of 93 calories. And if
you subtract fiber, it takes off about 9 calories for a total of 84 calories for 100 grams of
baked potato.

The fact: potatoes have less than 1 calorie per gram.

Any other potato preparation that contains more calories has to get them from added ingredients.

Will Chung continue to insist that his invented number is wrong? Not likely. More's the pity.

Bob
 
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> Bill wrote:

>>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.

But, Bill, as a non-cardiologist and as a fairly frequent Chung apologist, your opinion is, shall we
say, tainted. Your willingness to dismiss the legion citations that Chung has dismissed out of hand
doesn't speak well of your posture of seeming neutrality.

>>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.

Looks like Chung's been talking to a lawyer who told him to change his ways. I bet he mentioned that
aspirin dosage business and the guy's eyes bugged out and his face got all red. Probably told Chung
to spin his way out of it and damn quick.

> 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).

So being here in SMC is proof of cyberstalking. <LOL> Poor busy Chung didn't read the definitions of
cyberstalking posted here recently.

What a silly man.

Bob
 
"Bob (this one)" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> > Bill wrote:
>
> >>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.
>
> But, Bill, as a non-cardiologist and as a fairly frequent Chung apologist, your opinion is, shall
> we say, tainted. Your willingness to dismiss the legion citations that Chung has dismissed out of
> hand doesn't speak well of your posture of seeming neutrality.
>

I don't dismiss them. I am unaware of them. I don't know how many are in a legion but I think it's a
lot. I think we have previously discussed the asprin issue. What are the other examples you are
referring to?

Bill
 
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.
>

Most of my colleagues are advising one daily adult aspirin rather than two baby aspirins for
MI/stroke prevention.

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
 
"Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Tiger Lily wrote:
>
> > is it just me or does everyone else notice how Bill comes out of the background to defend Dr
> > Chung on a regular basis.....
>
> Seems to be just you and other members of the peanut gallery.
>
> > requesting "proof" of his "lack of quality care"
> >
> > now where did i hear that expression before?? was it in Florida by any chance??
> >
>
> Is it wise to be cyberstalking again, TL?
>
> Should I report you again as I have the others (including smn)?
>

just to be clear, Andrew Chung, are you threatening me?
 
Tiger Lily wrote:

> "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Tiger Lily wrote:
> >
> > > is it just me or does everyone else notice how Bill comes out of the background to defend Dr
> > > Chung on a regular basis.....
> >
> > Seems to be just you and other members of the peanut gallery.
> >
> > > requesting "proof" of his "lack of quality care"
> > >
> > > now where did i hear that expression before?? was it in Florida by any chance??
> > >
> >
> > Is it wise to be cyberstalking again, TL?
> >
> > Should I report you again as I have the others (including smn)?
> >
>
> just to be clear, Andrew Chung, are you threatening me?

No.

However, it does seem that you feel threatened by the truth.

Would suggest you seek some wise counsel.

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
 
>If you were being fair with yourself, Stephen, I think would agree that your example does not come
>anywhere near making this case.

...................

My case is this, Bill.

Anybody can make a mistake. The problem is in not correcting the mistake when you recognize that you
have made one. In this regard, whether we are talking about a mistake in doses of lidocaine ... a
mistake in the number of calories in two pounds of potatoes ... or a mistake in what you seem to
want to characterize as more in mainstream cardiology - well, it's irrelevant. You see, we *know*
about the lidocaine dosing error and we *know* about the calories error. And we *know* that Dr.
Chung has not recognized and corrected those errors. What we do not know is about the cardiology
errors - because Dr. Chung makes this place uncomfortable for anyone (like myself) who would presume
to challenge him. But whatever those cardiology errors might be, we *know* that Dr. Chung will
neither recognize them nor correct them.

And that, in my opinion, is very dangerous.

.................

>I think I even agree with your fix ...

.................

Too bad Dr. Chung does not!

smn