Account Options

  1. Sign in
Google Groups Home
« Groups Home
Message from discussion major weight problem
The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post was successful
 
From:
To:
Cc:
Followup To:
Add Cc | Add Followup-to | Edit Subject
Subject:
Validation:
For verification purposes please type the characters you see in the picture below or the numbers you hear by clicking the accessibility icon. Listen and type the numbers you hear
 
Bob (this one)  
View profile  
 More options Jun 28 2005, 11:59 pm
Newsgroups: alt.support.diabetes, sci.med.cardiology, sci.med, misc.health.diabetes
From: "Bob (this one)" <B...@nospam.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2005 23:59:48 -0400
Local: Tues, Jun 28 2005 11:59 pm
Subject: Re: major weight problem

John wrote:
> Jeff, is it your claim that the peer reviewed literature is in
> complete agreement in your medical specialty?  Do you not sometimes
> find wide divergence of opinion in such literature?  If you are
> treating a patient and the peers disagree, what do you do?  If the
> peers are silent, what do you do?  Do you then rely on you own ideas
> or just give up?  If the former, after you've had success on a number
> of patients using your own ideas, what do you do?  

> Sorry for all the question marks.  ;-)

Oh, look. It's "John" come to deflect the justifiable skepticism from
the 2 pound diet. And asking all sorts of irrelevant "questions."

Let me help you here, Slow-boy. It's not that there aren't reviewed
papers and articles that have divergent opinions in any specialty that's
of consequence. Forget the gleaming generalities. With me so far...?

It's that there are *none* regarding the 2 pound diet. *Nothing
published.* And, *no endorsements from any professional group.* And *not
one article in any medical publication.* And *not one other doctor
endorsing it.* And *not one article in any magazine anywhere.* And *not
one adherent who's been on it for 5 years being held up as a good
example* And *not one of these 625,500 people (the number hasn't changed
for months) has come forward in any newsgroup, online forum or open
mailing list to endorse it* And *not one TV program about this miracle*

Chung keeps weaseling about this by saying it has been peer-reviewed
when he really means he spoke about it to a clubladies luncheon. And
wrote one of the great phony press which he, in his obsessive-compulsive
state, cites as proof of something. And offers his normal bullshit about
who discerns truth and who doesn't, all the while flat-out lying by
distorting what the words mean.

Bottom line, Fake-boy. There's *nothing* to support Chung's delusions of
grandeur about his 2 pound diet besides an ever-decreasing number of
sockpuppets like you. Every one of those 625,500 people who have had
success according to Chung are staying silent about it. Not one
professional writer in that bunch. Not one nutritionist. Not one
registered dietitian. Not one magazine editor. Not one doctor. Not one
TV news person. Not one public figure who could command an audience. Not
one crusader. Not one...

Peer-reviewed publication is the way of dissemination of new information
in the worlds of science. Chung claims he's a scientist and then behaves
like some carny barker trying to get people in to look at the fake
gorilla in the cage. You help not a bit, perhaps because there's no
salvaging this parody of a diet. You're too eager to attribute all the
(unproven) miracles of your newly improved health to one idea. That's
lousy science and lousy engineering. And still offers nothing. A
universe of n=1 is no useful setting.

Pastorio


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.