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