Very high triglyceride numbers (what does it mean, what can be done)?



On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 3:44:33 -0500, Bob Pastorio wrote
(in message <[email protected]>):

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


<snip... y'all should have it pretty much memorized by now...>
<like a dog that keeps barking when you are trying to sleep>

>
> I'd say this is about as weak a show as Chung has ever put on. And
> that's going some. Trailerpark-level wit and insults that ring as
> flaccid as the 2PD.


Now, Bob, I have met some rather interesting women who live in Trailer
Parks... no need to disparge them.

The problem is probably that Mu is off on another "secret agent" visit
to Iran or Iraq or one of those "I" places and isn't around to play
Good Chung - Bad Chung. This forces God's Humble Bond Servant to play
both roles and sometimes he gets confused and overloaded. As far as
his wit is concerned, give him some credit... he's managed to keep half
of it.

I think until Mu returns or some other "white knight" rises up out of
the ethereal vastness of the net to support him, we should cut Humble
Andrew some slack if for no other reason than to be sporting. I mean
he's only trying to Glorify God after all... it's not like he is trying
to Glorify Mammon by attracting patients or anything.

Here is what I suggest: you respond to his outright lies and complete
fabrications and I'll respond to his non-sequiturs and absurdities. If
both appear in the same post, as is usually the case, then the
responsibility for response will devolve based on the first statement
he makes. For example, if it is a lie, as is common, you will respond
to the whole post; if it is a non-sequitur, I will.

In this way we can be more Christian and bond-servanty and cut down the
cross-post volume.

What do you say?


--
God's Other Humble Servant

Steve
 
On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 16:18:33 -0500, Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote
(in message <[email protected]>):

<snip>

> If someone is overweight from eating too much (whether broccoli or
> chocolate), a reduction to 2 lbs of food per day will achieve weight
> loss.


Sounds good to me, Brother Chung! And wouldn't you agree that a
reduction to 2 Feet per Day will work even better! When can we get
http://heartmdphdbondsevant updated to reflect this obviously superior
protocol? I am only interested in ___THE TRUTH___, same as you.

Thorsten, I have developed the Two Foot Diet approach (2FD) as a
replacement for Dr. Chung's Amazing Logic Defying Two Pound Diet to
avoid having to carry a scale around.

Following Dr. Chung's scientific approach, as described on his website,
in 2003, my wife and I watched an IMAX film about climbing the Bavarian
Alps and learned that despite their exhausting regimen, the climbers
consumed only 10 packages of wieners per week. That's less than 2 feet
of wieners per day! Since none of the climbers died from starvation, I
think it is safe to assume that 2 feet of food per day should be more
than adequate for us non-climbing folks.

So I started a little experiment with the agreeable obese friends in my
neighborhood. I gave them ordinary 6 inch rulers with instructions to
measure the length of everything substantial that passed into their
mouths. The only things exempted were water and sugar-free drinks. What
I learned was that my obese friends were consuming between 8 to 12 feet
of food per day! At the time, I was about 10 lbs. over my ideal body
weight so I decided to find out how much I was eating per day... 3
feet. I cut back to less than 2 feet and was at my proper weight in one
month.

My friends have responded similarly except they have taken longer
because of having to lose more weight. Admittedly, some of my obese
friends were especially slow to respond. They also happen to be the
ones with an unfortunate propensity for accidentally loosing their 6
inch rulers and taking weeks to buy replacements.

So here's the deal: measure all the food you eat, using it's longest
dimension, and keep the total length to less than two feet per day.
That's all there is. No scales, no counting calories or carbohydrates.
Heck, if you loose your ruler, you can even use the first joint of your
thumb to measure.

I am making this diet available as a public service and without
compensation.

If you have any questions, just see Dr. Chung's helpful FAQ and
substitute "Two Feet" for "Two Pounds" everywhere... what could be
simpler?

Sincerely,

God's Other Humble Servant

Steve
 
Sarah Fox Jahn wrote:

> [removed rec.food.cooking, misc.writing, alt.writing from distribution
> list]
>
> On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 03:49:32 GMT, "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> [snip]
> >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.
> >It will remain my pleasure to participate here on Usenet above the din of
> >hissing from the peanut gallery.

>
> Oh get over yourself.
>


This is not about me.

>
> BTW, the Mt. Everest expedition wouldn't "starve to death" in a week
> no matter how little food they were eating. They could have been
> eating 1 M&M in the morning and still made it.
>


It is doubtful that you speak from experience. The untruthful think it's all
about them.

>
> Sarah Jahn


Thank you for your comments.

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 Sarah Fox
(2) Report Sarah Fox to her ISP
(3) Killfile this thread.
(4) Killfile me.
(5) Read about free speech.

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

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

Though Dr. Chung invented this approach, he did not initiate this 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 and other
discussion threads.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It will remain my pleasure to participate here on Usenet 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 wrote:

> Sarah Fox Jahn wrote:
>
>
>>[removed rec.food.cooking, misc.writing, alt.writing from distribution
>>list]
>>
>>On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 03:49:32 GMT, "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD"
>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>[snip]
>>
>>>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.
>>>It will remain my pleasure to participate here on Usenet above the din of
>>>hissing from the peanut gallery.

>>
>>Oh get over yourself.
>>

> This is not about me.


Funny how Chung's long macro talks about how cool he is and how bad
all his critics are. Sounds like it's all about him.

>>BTW, the Mt. Everest expedition wouldn't "starve to death" in a week
>>no matter how little food they were eating. They could have been
>>eating 1 M&M in the morning and still made it.
>>

> It is doubtful that you speak from experience.


Chung who has no experience with climbing or the food they eat is
castigating someone for not having experience.

> The untruthful think it's all
> about them.


Chung *makes* it all about him.

There goes another hypocrisy meter.

Pastorio
 
On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 09:33:46 -0500, "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>> Untruthful that the
>> Everest team could hike on 1 M&M a day?

>Yes.


I think a study should be funded. Maybe Mars would be up for it ;-)

>> Or was it my thinking the
>> human body's capacity for labor on few calories is all about me?

>Your thoughts betray you.


Please explain what this really means... what thoughts betray me how?

>> In an
>> untruthful way?

>Yes.


Huh?

>The truth is a riddle for the untruthful.


And what is the sound of one hand clapping? ;-)

>You just need wisdom. Would suggest you ask God for it. Maybe you can
>get back to us when/if He does give you wisdom.


My my, such mockery. I don't think I'd really bother God about this. I
think He has more important things to hear.

Sarah Jahn
 
Thorsten Schier <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
<snip>
> My doctor isn't very interested in my nutrition.


Would suggest you change doctors.


> > > And it wouldn't stop me from eating things like chocolate that contain a
> > > lot of calories even though they don't weigh much and will fit even into
> > > the shrunken stomach.

> >
> > Your doctor should either counsel you on the additional dietary
> > changes needed for your medical condition (reactive hypoglycemia) or
> > put you on medications to address it.

>
> What medications would you suggest?


Dietary changes should happen before adding medications.


> > >
> > > > > or I could opt for more caloriedense foods like chocolate or
> > > > > nuts instead of fruit or vegetables, thereby defeating the purpose of
> > > > > the diet.
> > > >
> > > > You will eventually get tired of "rich" foods thereby fulfilling the
> > > > long-term purpose of the 2PD approach.
> > >
> > > I see no reason why this should happen. I always liked "rich" foods like
> > > chocolate.

> >
> > Most folks can't handle eating the same kinds of foods without variety
> > for protracted periods of time.

>
> It's not as if I only ate chocolate prior to low-carbing, even if I used
> it as an example several times now. I also consumed other sweets and
> also "normal" food like bread, pasta, rice, sausages, meat, fruit,
> vegetables and other things. However, even 100 g of chocolate per day or
> an equivalent amount of other sweets in addition to a normal diet are
> enough to gain weight over time, even if no excessive amounts of food in
> general are consumed.


If you are gaining weight, that alone should tell you that your intake
is excessive.

> > > > > > >

> [...]
> > > > According to Mr. Pastorio, I don't have a medical license
> > >
> > > He stated that he said no such thing,

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

>
> Well, judging from what others wrote about this, it does not seems to be
> clear whether saying that someone is a "quack" necessarily means that he
> has no medical license.


They are being argumentative rather than truthful.

> As Englisch is not not my mothertongue, I won't participate in this
> discussion.


That is fine.

> > > although I agree that some of what
> > > he wrote about you wasn't very nice.

> >
> > Doesn't bother me (the niceties or lack thereof). I am concerned
> > about the truth, however.
> >
> > > On the other hand, not everything you said or did to him was entirely
> > > nice, for example the cross-posting rec.food.cooking

> >
> > It did make things more convenient for him. Are you suggesting that
> > he is ashamed of his behavior?

>
> You know quite well that he is a subscriber to SMC as well, or else he
> wouldn't have been able to write the post to which you reponded by
> crossposting.


It is clear from his Google history that he reads SMC primarily
because he is obsessed with me. He reads the food/cooking newsgroups
as an active and frequent participant there (ie subscriber).

> So it is a rather feeble excuse to say that you did it for
> his convenience.


You are entitled to your opinion.

> Whether he is ashamed of his behavior is beside the point in this case.


You can still answer the question freely if you choose.

> By crossposting, you created a new thread in another newsgroup in which
> you accused Mr. Pastorio of a certain behavior.


Was not an accusation but a revelation.

> A reader in that
> newsgroup who has not read _this_ thread in SMC and who is not
> interested in reading this thread might form his opinion on Mr. Pastorio
> solely on your post, so that Mr. Pastorios reputation in that group
> might be negatively influenced by your post independently of his
> behavior.


You describe it as my post, however, the information and content was
largely Mr. Pastorio's.

> Only thing is, this kind of backfired on you, since at least
> the answers we could read on SMC seemed to support Mr. Pastorio.


Does not matter to me. My intention was for Mr. Pastorio's
convenience.

> Please note that I'm not judging you on this. This is not kindergarten
> (or at least, it shouldn't be), nor am I the gardener to decide who his
> right and who is wrong.


Gardener?

> > > and then suggesting
> > > to those upset about the crosspost to report Mr. Pastorio to his ISP.

> >
> > among other suggestions.
> >
> > > > and there is no God.
> > >
> > > I fail to see why Mr. Pastorios religious beliefs should be of any
> > > importance in a discussion about what those climbers ate.

> >
> > It helps folks understand Mr. Pastorio's perspective of worshipping
> > food instead of God.

>
> I wasn't aware that Mr. Pastorio worships food. Could you point me to
> post where he states anything like this?


There is not one specific post. It is inferred from his posting
history. He implies it when he describes his life pursuits.

> > > > Also, according to Mr. Pastorio, his love of food did not contribute
> > > > to his developing coronary disease.
> > >
> > > Be that as it may, what he said about what he learned concerning the
> > > food of those climbers makes a lot of sense to me.

> >
> > Does his claims that POWs in prison camps eat more than 2 pounds of
> > food daily make sense to you?

>
> Fortunatly I never was a POW, so I have no experience about this. I
> would say this depends on the circumstances. As we learned from Mu, the
> US prefers to starve their prisoners.


Perhaps you should read this:

http://stewthornley.net/hthornley_pow.html

> > > > If the food is dehydrated, we are talking about carbs. If the food is
> > > > calorie dense, we are talking about foods (nuts and butter cubes) that are
> > > > *not* dehydrated. Can't have it both ways. Not only would Mr. Pastorio
> > > > have you believe that I don't have a medical license... he would have you
> > > > believe that 10 pounds of butter cubes will rehydrate to 40 pounds of butter
> > >
> > > Of course there would be no need dehydrate butter,

> >
> > You would think a chef would know that.
> >
> > > but butter contains
> > > more than 3000 calories per pound which would make more than 6000
> > > calories for the daily allowance of 2 pounds.

> >
> > Only in the presence of carbs. Without carbs, the fats are
> > incompletely catabolised to ketones and wasted in the urine.

>
> This is _not_ true.


Sorry, but when it is in the urine and the breath, it is a waste.

> Ketones are not a waste product.


See above.

> They are produced
> by the liver to provide the brain, muscles and other tissues with fuel.


Biochemically, it remains incomplete catabolism.

> In those tissues they _are_ completely catabolised.


In the breath and urine, they are not.

> Usually only a very
> minor part of them get excreted in the urine or the breath.


Minor remains wastage.

> If your
> biochemistry textbook states otherwise, you should consider buying a new
> one.


My biochemistry text says that ketones happen when the Kreb cycle
shuts down making reduced NADH rate limiting for lipid catabolism.
Perhaps, you should reread your biochemistry text.

> Besides that, noone suggested that the climbers only ate butter.


You are missing the point.

> > > So if they dehydrated food
> > > with a high water content like meat and carried food with little water
> > > in it as it is, they could have consumed a large number of calories
> > > every day.

> >
> > Not as large as some folks like Pastorio would have you believe.

>
> Now let's see. The dehydrated chives I usually buy weigh 12,5 g per
> glass. On the label it says that this is equivalent to 185 g of fresh
> chives. So the dehydrated product weighs less then one tenth of the
> fresh one. Of course this won't be the case for every kind of food,
> however, the less calories a food has, the water it usually contains and
> the more weight can be lost by dehydrating.


The most calorie-dense foods tend to have less water content from the
outset.

> > >
> > > > and that there is no God much less a risen Christ.
> > >
> > > Again, I fail to see why Mr. Pastorios religious beliefs should be of
> > > any importance in this discussion.

> >
> > Helps to understand Mr. Pastorio's perspective. His motivation to
> > libel and defame.

>
> Are you suggesting that atheists are more prone libeling or defaming
> then those who believe in a God?


An atheist who hates God is more likely to act hatefully toward those
who love God.

> > > > >
> > > > > (<[email protected]>)
> > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 2. They might well have lost a part of their body weight, even if
> > > > > > > they
> > > > > > > were not overweight to begin with.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So what if they did?
> > > > >
> > > > > See below.
> > > > >
> > > > > > > People can usually live without any
> > > > > > > food at all for a limited period of time.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Who said anything about fasting?
> > > > >
> > > > > See below.
> > > > >
> > > > > > > That is no proof that it is
> > > > > > > healthy to eat next to nothing all of the time (of course I'm not
> > > > > > > claiming that 2 lbs is next to nothing,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Then wy write it?
> > > > >
> > > > > Because extrem examples are often better suited to detect logical
> > > > > errors.
> > > >
> > > > Not when the extreme example is a logical error.
> > >
> > > Which isn't the case in this example, ime.

> >
> > Is it your claim that it is logical to claim something and yet reject
> > something in the same sentence?

>
> I did no such thing.


Perhaps you should reread that sentence.

> > > > > If people can survive without any food at all for a limited
> > > > > time, than their survival for the same time on any given amount of food
> > > > > doesn't proof that this amount is enough to keep them alive indefinitly.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > The same could be said of any diet or non-diet.
> > >
> > > Right.
> > >
> > > That is why most diets aren't designed after the experiences of climbers
> > > on Mt. Everest.

> >
> > Including the 2PD approach.
> >
> > > That is also why most diets distiguish at least two phases, one for
> > > weight loss and one for maintainance, with different allowances of
> > > calories, fat, carbohydrates or whatever the focus of the diet might be.

> >
> > Weight watchers would be a counterexample.
> >
> > > > >
> > > > > > > my point is that the short term
> > > > > > > survival of these climbers does not proof that an average person
> > > > > > > could
> > > > > > > survive on the same amount or a somewhat larger one indefinitly).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The climbers were a source of inspiration for the 2PD approach rather
> > > > > > than a proof of either safety or efficacy.
> > > > >
> > > > > Ok. That raises the question how you know that 2 lbs are the right
> > > > > amount and not 1 1/2 lbs or 3 pounds or whatever.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Empirically determined. Works for me, my patients, friends and family.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Have you ever considered that it might not work quite as well for people
> > > who are not supervised by you as a friend or doctor and only have your
> > > homepage to go by?

> >
> > The instructions on the HeartMDPhD.com web site is very clear about
> > doctor supervision. Is english also your *fifth* language?

>
> It's my second. Doctor supervision is recommended by most diet books.
> However, you surely realise that it is not quite the same to be
> supervised by the inventor of a diet or by some doctor whose knowledge
> and/or interest in nutrition in general and the diet in particular might
> be limited.


The instructions remain clear.


> > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 3. Even people who don't die from starvation might be malnourished.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Not in my experience as a physician who has been recommending the 2PD
> > > > > > approach to his patients since 1998. I have seen no cases of
> > > > > > beriberi, scurvy, etc in any of my patients.
> > > > >
> > > > > Beriberi and scurvy are extrem variants of avitaminoses. People might
> > > > > get enough vitamin C to prevent scurvey and yet not enough for optimal
> > > > > health.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > This could be said of any diet or non-diet.
> > >
> > > Right again. This is why many phyicians recommend the intake of a
> > > multi-vitamin each day or even the intake of several vitamins at
> > > considerably higher doses.

> >
> > By all means, allow your doctor to make that recommendation for you.

>
> I decide for myself which vitamins or other nutrients I take.


Hopefully, with your doctor's guidance.

> > > > > > > "What I learned was that my obese patients was consuming between 8
> > > > > > > to 12
> > > > > > > lbs. of food per day! "
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I have a hard time believing that the average obese person could eat
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > that much food.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > My guess is that you are not obese.
> > > > >
> > > > > Well, I *do* wish you were right on this. Unfortunatly you're not. I'm
> > > > > working on changing that.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Well, how much food/drink are you consuming each day?
> > >
> > > Depends. Usually between 2 and 3 pounds, I would say.

> >
> > How about weighing it to be more certain?

>
> I think there would be little point in knowing exactly the weight of
> what I eat because it would probably more reflect the water content of
> what I eat than anything else. For example, if I eat a soup, it will of
> course weigh more than when I eat something without that much water. In
> fact, I suspect that my nutrition might even be healthier on those days
> where I eat more in weight, because it will likely contain more
> vegetables.


See:

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

> > > This will have
> > > been a bit higher before I started my diet, but not by very much. I
> > > usually drink only water. My focus is on what I eat and how much
> > > calories it has rather how much it weighs. 100 g of chocolate, which I
> > > can eat without problems in one sitting, does not contribute much to the
> > > weight of food but has about 500 kcal.

> >
> > 100 grams being a fifth of a pound is more than 3 ounces.
> >
> > Being that you have reactive hypoglycemia, your doctor should probably
> > advise you against consuming it.

>
> Yes, she should. However, she even advised me to begin the day with
> eating or drinking something with sugar, like orange juice or some
> sweets, because she was concerned about my low fasting blood sugar.


Sounds like you need to change doctors.

> > > > > > > Unless perhaps if a considerable part of it are juices
> > > > > > > or sodas or the like.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > They do count.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Regarding to your testimonials:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > There does not seem not be much in the way of people who have
> > > > > > > actually
> > > > > > > tried the diet and lost weight with it. Most people seem to argue
> > > > > > > from a
> > > > > > > theoretical point of view, not from personal experience.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Does there need to be?
> > > > >
> > > > > Many things sound reasonable but don't really work in the real world. It
> > > > > would be more convincing, if you could cite people who actually tried
> > > > > the diet.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > I have. How many people do you need?
> > >
> > > The more, the better.

> >
> > Why?

>
> Most of those you cited, didn't seem to have the diet themselves. This
> is a bit odd, if this diet is really that successfull.


Here in the U.S., doctors protect the privacy of my patients.
Perhaps, they don't do that where you live.

> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On the other hand, for low-carb diets, there are plenty of people
> > > > > > > who
> > > > > > > lost considerable amounts of weight with these diets. Just have a
> > > > > > > look
> > > > > > > at alt.support.diet.low-carb
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If that were true, why the need for "support" then?
> > > > >
> > > > > I don't claim that people don't encounter problems when they low-carb.
> > > > >
> > > > > Some problems are as simple as: What do I eat for breakfast? (Obviously,
> > > > > you can't have bread, what most people normally eat then)
> > > > >
> > > > > Or: How many carbs has this or another food?
> > > > >
> > > > > How many protein should I eat?
> > > > >
> > > > > Some are more serious:
> > > > >
> > > > > Can I go on Atkins when I have condition xyz?
> > > > >
> > > > > What do I do, when I stall?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Sounds like a PC way of saying the diet is failing them.
> > >
> > > Er, no. Almost every one has such stalls one time or another.

> >
> > Not the folks on the 2PD approach.

>
> Perhaps because they are constantly losing muscle?


Not in my experience.

> > > They can
> > > be usually overcome.

> >
> > Yes, by switching to the 2PD approach.

>
> Most people manage without.


Not in my experience.

>
> > > Besides, sometimes they are not really stalls, but
> > > people are losing fat while gaining muscle.

> >
> > That would be an urban legend propagated by personal trainers to keep
> > from being fired.

>
> That people on your diet don't gain muscle does not say that they don't
> do it on other diets, particularly if those diets are relatively high in
> protein and the dieters do some exercise.


Muscles do not hypertrophy from increased protein intake.

> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > There are many questions that arise with low-carbing, many of them due
> > > > > to the fact that this way of eating is a lot different from what most
> > > > > people do.
> > > >
> > > > Different from what people are accustomed to doing.
> > > >
> > > > > For example, if people have problems finding suitable food
> > > > > choices at restaurants, this is not a problem with the diet as such, but
> > > > > more with the fact that our society depends on carbohydrates to such a
> > > > > great degree.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Not to mention, our bodies make and store carbohydrates in the form of "body
> > > > starch" (glycogen).
> > >
> > > Our bodies also store a lot of fat.

> >
> > Which need carbs to be efficiently metabolized.

>
> Er, no. See above.


Er, yes. See your biochemistry textbook.

Humbly,

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

> An atheist who hates God is more likely to act hatefully toward those
> who love God.


That is an extremely STUPID statement. In order to "hate God" the atheist
would first have to admit that there was a god to hate.
 
On Mon, 1 Dec 2003 13:47:59 -0500, Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote
(in message <[email protected]>):

> Does not matter to me. My intention was for Mr. Pastorio's
> convenience.


Is there _anyone_ reading this conversation or the others which
preceded it who believes this? i.e. that Chung originated a crosspost
to all those groups as a "convenience" to Mr. Pastorio as opposed to an
attempt to embarrass him and interject the looney 2PD into these
newsgroups as well?

Here we have the liar and dissembler at his most blatant, demonstrating
his contempt for the truth and for other people's ability to discern
it.

--
God's Other Humble Servant

Steve
 
Mon, 1 Dec 2003 17:39:56 -0500 in article
<[email protected]> Steve
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Mon, 1 Dec 2003 13:47:59 -0500, Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote
>(in message <[email protected]>):
>
>> Does not matter to me. My intention was for Mr. Pastorio's
>> convenience.

>
>Is there _anyone_ reading this conversation or the others which
>preceded it who believes this? i.e. that Chung originated a crosspost
>to all those groups as a "convenience" to Mr. Pastorio as opposed to an
>attempt to embarrass him and interject the looney 2PD into these
>newsgroups as well?
>
>Here we have the liar and dissembler at his most blatant, demonstrating
>his contempt for the truth and for other people's ability to discern
>it.


Steve, a definition here may give some explanation:

<http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entries/61/p0636100.html>

If so, our ranting may be wasted time.
 
"Paul E. Lehmann" wrote:

> "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> > An atheist who hates God is more likely to act hatefully toward those
> > who love God.

>
> That is an extremely STUPID statement. In order to "hate God" the atheist
> would first have to admit that there was a god to hate.


Denying the existence of God is part of the hatred.

Humbly,

Andrew

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

> Mon, 1 Dec 2003 17:39:56 -0500 in article
> <[email protected]> Steve
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >On Mon, 1 Dec 2003 13:47:59 -0500, Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote
> >(in message <[email protected]>):
> >
> >> Does not matter to me. My intention was for Mr. Pastorio's
> >> convenience.

> >
> >Is there _anyone_ reading this conversation or the others which
> >preceded it who believes this? i.e. that Chung originated a crosspost
> >to all those groups as a "convenience" to Mr. Pastorio as opposed to an
> >attempt to embarrass him and interject the looney 2PD into these
> >newsgroups as well?
> >
> >Here we have the liar and dissembler at his most blatant, demonstrating
> >his contempt for the truth and for other people's ability to discern
> >it.

>
> Steve, a definition here may give some explanation:
>
> <http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entries/61/p0636100.html>
>
> If so, our ranting may be wasted time.


Your rantings seem to fit the definition.

Humbly,

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

> Thorsten Schier <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> <snip>


>>>>>According to Mr. Pastorio, I don't have a medical license
>>>>
>>>>He stated that he said no such thing,
>>>
>>>see:
>>>
>>>http://www.heartmdphd.com/libel.asp

>>
>>Well, judging from what others wrote about this, it does not seems to be
>>clear whether saying that someone is a "quack" necessarily means that he
>>has no medical license.

>
> They are being argumentative rather than truthful.


They are using dictionary definitions as all educated people do.
Rather than self-serving definitions like Chung does. I called him a
quack because of his utterly unscientific assertions about the 2 pound
diet. Quack has been repeatedly and clearly defined here. Chung wants
to nurture his grievance and refuses to see that he might not be
correct. It's a failing that appears again and again in his posts. He
marks himself as a self-styled martyr fighting the good fight against
infidels. His crippled reasoning goes like: if they weren't infidels,
they wouldn't be attacking me.

>>As Englisch is not not my mothertongue, I won't participate in this
>>discussion.

>
> That is fine.
>
>>>>although I agree that some of what
>>>>he wrote about you wasn't very nice.
>>>
>>>Doesn't bother me (the niceties or lack thereof). I am concerned
>>>about the truth, however.
>>>
>>>>On the other hand, not everything you said or did to him was entirely
>>>>nice, for example the cross-posting rec.food.cooking
>>>
>>>It did make things more convenient for him. Are you suggesting that
>>>he is ashamed of his behavior?

>>
>>You know quite well that he is a subscriber to SMC as well, or else he
>>wouldn't have been able to write the post to which you reponded by
>>crossposting.

>
> It is clear from his Google history that he reads SMC primarily
> because he is obsessed with me.


This is another example of Chung's self-proclaimed "knowledge" derived
from his beliefs. Faith is knowledge, he says. His wanting to believe
makes it into truth for him.

I read SMC because I'm a subscriber. That's why I posted the abstract
of a study a few days ago. I have a history of successfully managed
heart disease. I've picked up a few points here that I've incorporated
into my life. Mostly from studies posted.

And I'm also a subscriber so I can point out his lies, his shabby
behavior, his malice and his questionable competence in matters of
nutrition. As long as he keeps mentioning me, we'll discuss his fakery
and his malice. I long ago said that if he'd leave me alone, I'd leave
him alone. His apparent compulsions to keep after me show very
tellingly here. Perhaps he's still hoping to, once at least, get the
better of an exchange between us.

> He reads the food/cooking newsgroups
> as an active and frequent participant there (ie subscriber).


I also read (you have to subscribe to read) groups that deal with
writing, bonsai, aeronautics, Italian things, art, music and travel. I
don't post very often in them, but I'm sure than Chung with his
mystical information sources knows that. I helped matters along for
him and posted his silly note to other groups so they could see Chung
in all his irrational, sleazy glory. Funny thing that nobody said what
a swell guy he was and that I should stop hurting him like I do.

>>So it is a rather feeble excuse to say that you did it for
>>his convenience.

>
> You are entitled to your opinion.
>
>>Whether he is ashamed of his behavior is beside the point in this case.

>
> You can still answer the question freely if you choose.


Another non-responsive comment from the evasion master. I have no
reason to be ashamed of my actions here or anywhere else.

>>By crossposting, you created a new thread in another newsgroup in which
>>you accused Mr. Pastorio of a certain behavior.

>
> Was not an accusation but a revelation.


<LOL> This is even funnier than it looks. The people in the groups to
which I post know me full well. My constructive side, my combative
side, my frequently exercised side where I puncture hot air balloons
and fakers like Chung.

But how smarmy is Chung to finally admit that he was trying to
"reveal" something to complete strangers about me. His "revelation"
was to be a post that casts me in a bad light. Sadly for Chung, his
crosspost drew scorn and amusement from the readers in other groups.
And a few very funny replies. My favorite was the one that said words
to the effect:
"You are what you eat and Chung must eat 2 pounds of nuts a day."

>>A reader in that
>>newsgroup who has not read _this_ thread in SMC and who is not
>>interested in reading this thread might form his opinion on Mr. Pastorio
>>solely on your post, so that Mr. Pastorios reputation in that group
>>might be negatively influenced by your post independently of his
>>behavior.

>
> You describe it as my post, however, the information and content was
> largely Mr. Pastorio's.
>
>>Only thing is, this kind of backfired on you, since at least
>>the answers we could read on SMC seemed to support Mr. Pastorio.

>
> Does not matter to me. My intention was for Mr. Pastorio's
> convenience.


Funny how Chung hasn't ever before shown any concern for my
convenience or anyone else's. He has crossposted other posts of his to
punish people for calling him all the names he deserves to be called.
And spammed other newsgroups with his absurd macro post.

Based on Chung's prior actions with crossposting, he's once more
trying to pull another of his cons. The truly stunning thing is how
transparent the lie is, yet he sticks with it.

>>Please note that I'm not judging you on this. This is not kindergarten
>>(or at least, it shouldn't be), nor am I the gardener to decide who his
>>right and who is wrong.

>
> Gardener?
>
>>>>and then suggesting
>>>>to those upset about the crosspost to report Mr. Pastorio to his ISP.
>>>
>>>among other suggestions.


So hilariously transparent. He crossposts and I should be reported.
ONly a demented fool would even consider writing that much less
believing that it makes any sense to rational people. But it is Chung
we're talking about, so all bets are off.

>>>>>and there is no God.
>>>>
>>>>I fail to see why Mr. Pastorios religious beliefs should be of any
>>>>importance in a discussion about what those climbers ate.
>>>
>>>It helps folks understand Mr. Pastorio's perspective of worshipping
>>>food instead of God.

>>
>>I wasn't aware that Mr. Pastorio worships food. Could you point me to
>>post where he states anything like this?

>
> There is not one specific post. It is inferred from his posting
> history. He implies it when he describes his life pursuits.


If life pursuits determine "worship" as Chung insists, then he must
"worship" the human body and Mu likewise. Chung has devoted decades of
his life to the body. Organs and tissues. Bones and secretions. Those
natural juices we all produce. Chung is a "body-worshipper," plain and
simple. His "worship" is of the earth. He "worships" the paper and
binding of the bible. It is inferred (heh) from his post wherein he
said it was more than just paper.

Chuck Yeager "worships" airplanes. Evel Kneivel "worships" his own
broken bones. George Bush "worships" government. Mother Theresa
"worshipped" the poor and the sick and the downtrodden.

Or could this assertion of his be plain stupid. Career choice=worship.
What a plainly idiotic thing to say.

I also like Chung's evasive "It is inferred..." Can't even say out
loud that it's his inference. He has to make it distant because he
knows how scurrilous and superficial it is. Makes it sounds like it
has other authority than his crooked ways.

>>>>>Also, according to Mr. Pastorio, his love of food did not contribute
>>>>>to his developing coronary disease.


I work with food. I write about food. I design food. But to talk about
"love" of food is just as insane as so many of Chung's other ravings.
I don't know about Chung, but I can't "love" an inanimate object. The
logical stupidity in Chung's assertion is that somehow my
*association* with food had a causative effect on heart disease.

My whole family on both sides has a horrendous history of heart
problems. And I smoked for a number of years. But I have never been
obese and I have always stayed within moderate ranges of the foods I
do eat. I've been active all my life. He can't "know" any of this from
first-hand experience or third-party reportage.

Chung is a cardiologist. He has training in the subject and
experience. Yet he's willing to make patently absurd statements like
the above that reflect a questionable competence. It is simply
unreasonable for Chung to offer what can only be called a diagnosis
from this setting without knowing anything about my normal life beyond
what appears here. He's making a professional assertion and he's dead
wrong. But more importantly, he's basing his "diagnosis" on words
intended to harm, to hurt, to provoke. He's using his professional
standing as a tactic in a dispute. That's ethically bankrupt.

>>>>Be that as it may, what he said about what he learned concerning the
>>>>food of those climbers makes a lot of sense to me.
>>>
>>>Does his claims that POWs in prison camps eat more than 2 pounds of
>>>food daily make sense to you?


This is simply a lie. I said they likely didn't get more than 2 pounds
of food and they were starved. Nowhere are there words that I said
this except in Chung's distortions.

>>Fortunatly I never was a POW, so I have no experience about this. I
>>would say this depends on the circumstances. As we learned from Mu, the
>>US prefers to starve their prisoners.

>
> Perhaps you should read this:
>
> http://stewthornley.net/hthornley_pow.html


Exactly what this is intended to prove is difficult to ascertain. It's
a POW saying he was starved. Not a bit of news for anyone.

>>>>>If the food is dehydrated, we are talking about carbs. If the food is
>>>>>calorie dense, we are talking about foods (nuts and butter cubes) that are
>>>>>*not* dehydrated. Can't have it both ways. Not only would Mr. Pastorio
>>>>>have you believe that I don't have a medical license... he would have you
>>>>>believe that 10 pounds of butter cubes will rehydrate to 40 pounds of butter
>>>>
>>>>Of course there would be no need dehydrate butter,
>>>
>>>You would think a chef would know that.
>>>
>>>>but butter contains
>>>>more than 3000 calories per pound which would make more than 6000
>>>>calories for the daily allowance of 2 pounds.
>>>
>>>Only in the presence of carbs. Without carbs, the fats are
>>>incompletely catabolised to ketones and wasted in the urine.

>>
>>This is _not_ true.

>
> Sorry, but when it is in the urine and the breath, it is a waste.
>
>>Ketones are not a waste product.

>
> See above.
>
>>They are produced
>>by the liver to provide the brain, muscles and other tissues with fuel.

>
> Biochemically, it remains incomplete catabolism.
>
>>In those tissues they _are_ completely catabolised.

>
> In the breath and urine, they are not.
>
>>Usually only a very
>>minor part of them get excreted in the urine or the breath.

>
> Minor remains wastage.


But minor is still minor. A trivial part. Not much. Too little to
consider seriously.

>>If your
>>biochemistry textbook states otherwise, you should consider buying a new
>>one.

>
> My biochemistry text says that ketones happen when the Kreb cycle
> shuts down making reduced NADH rate limiting for lipid catabolism.
> Perhaps, you should reread your biochemistry text.
>
>>Besides that, noone suggested that the climbers only ate butter.

>
> You are missing the point.
>
>>>>So if they dehydrated food
>>>>with a high water content like meat and carried food with little water
>>>>in it as it is, they could have consumed a large number of calories
>>>>every day.
>>>
>>>Not as large as some folks like Pastorio would have you believe.

>>
>>Now let's see. The dehydrated chives I usually buy weigh 12,5 g per
>>glass. On the label it says that this is equivalent to 185 g of fresh
>>chives. So the dehydrated product weighs less then one tenth of the
>>fresh one. Of course this won't be the case for every kind of food,
>>however, the less calories a food has, the water it usually contains and
>>the more weight can be lost by dehydrating.

>
> The most calorie-dense foods tend to have less water content from the
> outset.


The climbers said they ate between 6000 and 12000 calories per day. It
was freeze-dried for the most part. It had to be reconstituted by the
addition of 3 or 4 parts water to one part dried food.

>>>>>and that there is no God much less a risen Christ.


For the record: I have never said that. Never implied it. Never hinted
at it. Why would I when I don't believe it? It's only Chung's amazing
capacity for dishonest interpretation that permits him to keep
asserting it. The other reality is this question: what do my religious
beliefs have to do with dismantling Chung's house of intellectual
cards? Skewering a phony doesn't require membership in Chung's wacko
church of Scientist/creationist.

Once again for Chung: I attended religious schools up through
university and seriously considered becoming a clergyman.

>>>>Again, I fail to see why Mr. Pastorios religious beliefs should be of
>>>>any importance in this discussion.
>>>
>>>Helps to understand Mr. Pastorio's perspective. His motivation to
>>>libel and defame.

>>
>>Are you suggesting that atheists are more prone libeling or defaming
>>then those who believe in a God?

>
> An atheist who hates God is more likely to act hatefully toward those
> who love God.


And yet, I've repeatedly said I'm not an atheist. Chung's idea of
truth is whatever his fevered mind wants to believe.

I act towards Chung as his actions have merited. I don't care what he
likes, loves, or drives to work. I only care for the truth he seems
incapable of embracing. I harbor hate for no one and no thing. I do
offer scorn and contempt for Chung's hubris and fraudulence. But in
the grand scheme of things, he simply isn't important enough to hate.
No one is.

Pastorio
 
"Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" schrieb:
>
> "Paul E. Lehmann" wrote:
>
> > "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >
> > > An atheist who hates God is more likely to act hatefully toward those
> > > who love God.

> >
> > That is an extremely STUPID statement. In order to "hate God" the atheist
> > would first have to admit that there was a god to hate.

>
> Denying the existence of God is part of the hatred.
>


Hardly.

I'm definitly denying the existence of pink elephants on the moon. I'm
not hating them, though.

Thorsten

--
"Nothing in biology makes sense, except in the light of evolution"

(Theodosius Dobzhansky)
 
On Mon, 1 Dec 2003 17:50:44 -0500, Matti Narkia wrote
(in message <[email protected]>):

> Mon, 1 Dec 2003 17:39:56 -0500 in article
> <[email protected]> Steve
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 1 Dec 2003 13:47:59 -0500, Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote
>> (in message <[email protected]>):
>>
>>> Does not matter to me. My intention was for Mr. Pastorio's
>>> convenience.

>>
>> Is there _anyone_ reading this conversation or the others which
>> preceded it who believes this? i.e.,. that Chung originated a crosspost
>> to all those groups as a "convenience" to Mr. Pastorio as opposed to an
>> attempt to embarrass him and interject the looney 2PD into these
>> newsgroups as well?
>>
>> Here we have the liar and dissembler at his most blatant, demonstrating
>> his contempt for the truth and for other people's ability to discern
>> it.

>
> Steve, a definition here may give some explanation:
>
> <http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entries/61/p0636100.html>


Matti, while there are some characteristics there that fit Chung, I
would be surprised if that were the actual diagnosis :) I wouldn't
put him in the same class with, say, the Beltway Killers.

I think a classical "Personality Disorder" is more likely.

> If so, our ranting may be wasted time.


It is certainly a waste of time to think we will ever change Chung.
However, there are new people arriving here and in the groups he
intentionally cross-posts to who could be led into error on the basis
of his "credentials". Warning them of the truth is probably
worthwhile.
There is also the troubling thought that he may have actual patients,
although this seems unlikely given the amount of time he seems to have
to surf the net and build his web site. It seems likely that if his
judgement, professionalism, and character are so poor in the areas
where we see them displayed, that these same shortcomings could easily
translate to his patients. If so, he is indeed dangerous.

On a higher plane, there is the old saying that "the only thing it
takes for evil to prevail is for good men to keep silent" (or something
like that :))

Usenet is a community, albeit one without precedent. What keeps people
in place in other communities is peer pressure and scorn for behavior
which is unacceptable. Because he dispenses medical advice, Chung
seems to feel he has a "free pass" to interject his looney views on the
2PD and religion which are "Off Topic" in this group (and, in fact, in
the other groups to which I have seen him post them). Also,
intentional lying, twisting of words, false attributions, and false
allegations should not be accepted. I think he should be challenged.
If he is not, it becomes the de facto community norm and others will
feel free to do the same. I also think he should be challenged when
his medical views are wrong as you have so ably done.

The beauty of Chung is that he is so predictable... like Pavlov's dogs.
If you challenge him, he will prove the indictment in his response :)
Accuse him of being a liar, and he will respond with a lie; accuse him
of being a religious fanatic, and he will respond with fanaticism;
accuse him of being a dissembler, and he will dissemble; accuse him of
being a hypocrite, and he will respond with hypocrisy.


--
God's Other Humble Servant

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

> "Paul E. Lehmann" wrote:
>
>>"Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>>>An atheist who hates God is more likely to act hatefully toward those
>>>who love God.

>>
>>That is an extremely STUPID statement. In order to "hate God" the atheist
>>would first have to admit that there was a god to hate.

>
> Denying the existence of God is part of the hatred.


Chung doesn't get it. again.

Let's see if this helps...

Atheists believe there is no god.
Chung says they hate god.
Therefore Atheists hate that which they say does not exist

Like saying "There are no ghosts and I hate them."

<LOL> Chung posts another logical howler.

Pastorio
 
Tue, 2 Dec 2003 7:33:50 -0500 in article
<[email protected]> Steve
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Mon, 1 Dec 2003 17:50:44 -0500, Matti Narkia wrote
>(in message <[email protected]>):
>
>> Mon, 1 Dec 2003 17:39:56 -0500 in article
>> <[email protected]> Steve
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 1 Dec 2003 13:47:59 -0500, Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote
>>> (in message <[email protected]>):
>>>
>>>> Does not matter to me. My intention was for Mr. Pastorio's
>>>> convenience.
>>>
>>> Is there _anyone_ reading this conversation or the others which
>>> preceded it who believes this? i.e.,. that Chung originated a crosspost
>>> to all those groups as a "convenience" to Mr. Pastorio as opposed to an
>>> attempt to embarrass him and interject the looney 2PD into these
>>> newsgroups as well?
>>>
>>> Here we have the liar and dissembler at his most blatant, demonstrating
>>> his contempt for the truth and for other people's ability to discern
>>> it.

>>
>> Steve, a definition here may give some explanation:
>>
>> <http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entries/61/p0636100.html>

>
>Matti, while there are some characteristics there that fit Chung, I
>would be surprised if that were the actual diagnosis :) I wouldn't
>put him in the same class with, say, the Beltway Killers.
>

Well, I think that the range is wide and criminals are on the other end of
the range. Still, I also think that I shouldn't leave my day job yet :).

Anyway, here are a couple of other links about this topic, no hint this
time ;-):

<http://www.crisiscounseling.com/Articles/Psychopath.htm>
<http://bob.bob.bofh.org/~robm/misc/psycho.html>

>I think a classical "Personality Disorder" is more likely.
>

Perhaps, pick your choice ;-) :

<http://careconnection.osu.edu/diseasesandconditions/healthtopics/mentalhealth/personality/>

>> If so, our ranting may be wasted time.

>
>It is certainly a waste of time to think we will ever change Chung.
>However, there are new people arriving here and in the groups he
>intentionally cross-posts to who could be led into error on the basis
>of his "credentials". Warning them of the truth is probably
>worthwhile.
>There is also the troubling thought that he may have actual patients,
>although this seems unlikely given the amount of time he seems to have
>to surf the net and build his web site. It seems likely that if his
>judgement, professionalism, and character are so poor in the areas
>where we see them displayed, that these same shortcomings could easily
>translate to his patients. If so, he is indeed dangerous.
>
>On a higher plane, there is the old saying that "the only thing it
>takes for evil to prevail is for good men to keep silent" (or something
>like that :))
>

You're absolutely right about that, although it sometimes feels that it's
making as much good as fighting against windmills like Don Quixote :).

>Usenet is a community, albeit one without precedent. What keeps people
>in place in other communities is peer pressure and scorn for behavior
>which is unacceptable. Because he dispenses medical advice, Chung
>seems to feel he has a "free pass" to interject his looney views on the
>2PD and religion which are "Off Topic" in this group (and, in fact, in
>the other groups to which I have seen him post them). Also,
>intentional lying, twisting of words, false attributions, and false
>allegations should not be accepted. I think he should be challenged.
>If he is not, it becomes the de facto community norm and others will
>feel free to do the same. I also think he should be challenged when
>his medical views are wrong as you have so ably done.
>

Right again.

>The beauty of Chung is that he is so predictable... like Pavlov's dogs.
>If you challenge him, he will prove the indictment in his response :)
>Accuse him of being a liar, and he will respond with a lie; accuse him
>of being a religious fanatic, and he will respond with fanaticism;
>accuse him of being a dissembler, and he will dissemble; accuse him of
>being a hypocrite, and he will respond with hypocrisy.


True.
 
Thorsten Schier wrote:

> "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" schrieb:
> >
> > "Paul E. Lehmann" wrote:
> >
> > > "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > >
> > > > An atheist who hates God is more likely to act hatefully toward those
> > > > who love God.
> > >
> > > That is an extremely STUPID statement. In order to "hate God" the atheist
> > > would first have to admit that there was a god to hate.

> >
> > Denying the existence of God is part of the hatred.
> >

>
> Hardly.
>
> I'm definitly denying the existence of pink elephants on the moon. I'm
> not hating them, though.


Is there anyone believing that there are pink elephants on the moon?

Humbly,

Andrew

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

> Thorsten Schier wrote:
>
>
>>"Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" schrieb:
>>
>>>"Paul E. Lehmann" wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>
>>>>>An atheist who hates God is more likely to act hatefully toward those
>>>>>who love God.
>>>>
>>>>That is an extremely STUPID statement. In order to "hate God" the atheist
>>>>would first have to admit that there was a god to hate.
>>>
>>>Denying the existence of God is part of the hatred.
>>>

>>Hardly.
>>
>>I'm definitly denying the existence of pink elephants on the moon. I'm
>>not hating them, though.

>
> Is there anyone believing that there are pink elephants on the moon?


Huh? The subject is Chung's patently stupid assertion that atheists
who don't believe god exists - hate this non-existent god. Has nothing
to do with who believes what. Has everything to do with the
self-contradictory, illogical and simply stupid Chung post.

Stupid. Say *anything* to try to gain a point. Stupid.

Pastorio
 
On Tue, 2 Dec 2003 10:15:42 -0500, Matti Narkia wrote
(in message <[email protected]>):

> Well, I think that the range is wide and criminals are on the other end of
> the range. Still, I also think that I shouldn't leave my day job yet :).
>
> Anyway, here are a couple of other links about this topic, no hint this
> time ;-):
>
> <http://www.crisiscounseling.com/Articles/Psychopath.htm>
> <http://bob.bob.bofh.org/~robm/misc/psycho.html>


Interesting links... I can see how they support your diagnosis, Dr.
Narkia :). Although, when I ran Chung through bob.bob's test he only
scored 21... not a psychopath :) I, on the other hand, ... well,
nevermind :)

--
God's Other Humble Servant

Steve
 
Matti Narkia <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
<incoherent discourse with "Steve" snipped>
> Well, I think that the range is wide and criminals are on the other end of
> the range. Still, I also think that I shouldn't leave my day job yet :).


And what is that, pray tell?

> Anyway, here are a couple of other links about this topic, no hint this
> time ;-):
>
> <http://www.crisiscounseling.com/Articles/Psychopath.htm>
> <http://bob.bob.bofh.org/~robm/misc/psycho.html>


Hopefully, you aren't pursuing a web-based education in psychology.

> >I think a classical "Personality Disorder" is more likely.
> >

> Perhaps, pick your choice ;-) :


But keep your day job, per Matti's rare wise suggestions.

> <http://careconnection.osu.edu/diseasesandconditions/healthtopics/mentalhealth/personality/>


Nice link that seems to describe "Steve"'s on-line persona.

> >> If so, our ranting may be wasted time.

> >
> >It is certainly a waste of time to think we will ever change Chung.
> >However, there are new people arriving here and in the groups he
> >intentionally cross-posts to who could be led into error on the basis
> >of his "credentials". Warning them of the truth is probably
> >worthwhile.
> >There is also the troubling thought that he may have actual patients,
> >although this seems unlikely given the amount of time he seems to have
> >to surf the net and build his web site. It seems likely that if his
> >judgement, professionalism, and character are so poor in the areas
> >where we see them displayed, that these same shortcomings could easily
> >translate to his patients. If so, he is indeed dangerous.
> >
> >On a higher plane, there is the old saying that "the only thing it
> >takes for evil to prevail is for good men to keep silent" (or something
> >like that :))


...as the untruthful speak/write..

> You're absolutely right about that,


Thank you for agreeing, Matti.

> although it sometimes feels that it's
> making as much good as fighting against windmills like Don Quixote :).


Truth will prevail, Matti.

"There will come a time when every knee will bend, every head will
bow, and all will acknowledge that Christ is Lord..."

> >Usenet is a community, albeit one without precedent. What keeps people
> >in place in other communities is peer pressure and scorn for behavior
> >which is unacceptable.


.... and on the other extreme... martial law, terrorism, grown men
running around wearing hoods and sheets to lynch those who they feel
are "out of place (ie don't belong in their community)"...

Which side of the spectrum does anonymous folks like "Steve" et al
belong?

See:

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



> >Because he dispenses medical advice, Chung
> >seems to feel he has a "free pass" to interject his looney views on the
> >2PD


The above speaks to "Steve"'s irrational bias.

> >and religion which are "Off Topic" in this group (and, in fact, in
> >the other groups to which I have seen him post them).


Actually, there is an established scientific link between obesity and
medical problems (diabetes and heart disease). There is also an
established link between religion/prayer and medical healing. So the
truth is that both the 2PD approach and religion are "on topic" and
not "off topic" as "Steve" would have folks believe.

> >Also,
> >intentional lying, twisting of words, false attributions, and false
> >allegations should not be accepted.


Correct.

> >I think he should be challenged.


I welcome it.

> >If he is not, it becomes the de facto community norm


Christians becoming the Usenet community norm must be giving "Steve"
et al nightmares.

> >and others will
> >feel free to do the same.


And start writing/postting truthfully and using their real names...

No more pseudonyms or trading of personal insults...

Imagine that.


> >I also think he should be challenged when
> >his medical views are wrong as you have so ably done.
> >

> Right again.


Hardly.

> >The beauty of Chung is that he is so predictable...


Truth is predictable. Truth is beautiful.

> >like Pavlov's dogs.
> >If you challenge him, he will prove the indictment in his response :)
> >Accuse him of being a liar, and he will respond with a lie;


Thieves are the quickest at accusing others of stealing.
Cheaters the quickest at accusing other of cheating.

> >accuse him
> >of being a religious fanatic, and he will respond with fanaticism;


Hmmm, I am in love with God. If that makes me a religious fanatic, so
be it.

> >accuse him of being a dissembler, and he will dissemble;


Hmmm, I know how to write code in assembly language... don't see any
utility in dissembling.

> >accuse him of
> >being a hypocrite, and he will respond with hypocrisy.

>
> True.


"Steve" is the last place you are likely to find anything true.

A word to the wise, that's all.

Humbly,

Andrew

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