Dr. Chung and the 2 Pound Diet
Jerome R. Long
Dr.Chung. I hate it. His 2 pound diet is a service to people who
have trouble with the complexity of many diets. It is foolish to
argue much of what is argued when it has been known for centuries that
the principle cause of obesity is eating too much. If one takes some
care to include reasonable balance in a diet that is measured by
weight one should not become malnourished and one should weight control.
To make it more than that is absurd and rude. All this stuff about peer
reviewed studies, etc. is just a polemic smoke screen There is no claim
that the two pound measure is a profound nutritional discovery. It is
just a simplification that is safe and will work where more complex systems
fail due to their complexity.
My wife recently joined weight watchers and I have learned that their
approach is darn near equivalent to the two pound diet except that they
replace weight by points.Then you purchase their food products in regular
stores and keep track of the point values on each product. The products
are reasonably balanced nutritionally so the dieting process is greatly
simplified. I think the essence of both weight watchers and Dr. Chung
is to keep it simple and keep some balance. Dr. Chung's advice has been
free of charge and his weight intake prescription is darn near free, certainly
more so than a diet of Weight Watcher's Smart Ones. Dr. Chung also makes
the point that weight loss is possible on almost any diet if one restricts the
total food intake enough. One just has to take care a.) Don't go too close
to zero. b.) Keep the total below a limit such as two pounds. c.) Have some
nutritional variety with sensitivity for fats and sugars being less than
desirable parts of the "two pounds". Dr. Chung did make one strategic mistake
in basing his two pounds on the food weight rations of mountain climbers. The
two pounds there is concentrated and dehydrated. When properly hydrated before
consumption it ends up to be more like 5 or 6 pounds. When I spent two weeks of
25 mile per day rocky mountain hiking I dropped from 185 to 175 on such a diet,
but could probably gain on that same diet at today's activity level.
My apologies to Dr.Chung if I have badly screwed up any of his ideas. I think
we both have it basically correct.
Paul Lehmann
using this newsgroup and possibly others to promote himself and his
business. It matters not that he claims he is giving certain information
away "free". All advertisers use this gimmick at some time or other. This
coupled with the fact that he is using his title and position makes his
"diet" SOUND as if it were a lot more researched than what it is. You can
choose to do as you wish regarding any and all information you find on this
newsgroup from anyone but please don't try to silence criticism where
criticism is due. You may note that Andrew is very abrasive and abusive to
ANYONE who disagrees with him or even slightly questions him. This has the
characteristics of someone who is very insecure and afraid of something -
maybe that something is the TRUTH.
Steve Marcus
>
> I think a LOT of the criticism of Andrew stems from the fact that he is
> using this newsgroup and possibly others to promote himself and his
> business.
Nonsense. This newsgroup is a worldwide proposition. What
aspect of his business is Dr. Chung "promoting" with respect to
people who live in New York, or Maine, or Alaska, or the UK?
Nor is Dr. Chung "promoting himself". Intelligent readers of
this newsgroup (and that does not equal 100% of readers of this
or any newsgroup; who can claim to be suffering from irregular
heartbeats, or to have a bloodpressure of 195/170 and request a
personal course of action on Usenet and claim to be
"intelligent"?) use the information provided by Dr. Chung as a
starting point to educate themselves on topics of interest. In
fact, by taking positions, Dr. Chung risks "hurting himself" (by
being wrong) to the same extent that he "promotes himself".
It matters not that he claims he is giving certain information
> away "free". All advertisers use this gimmick at some time or other. This
> coupled with the fact that he is using his title and position makes his
> "diet" SOUND as if it were a lot more researched than what it is.
No, that's just your rather anal take on things. Dr. Chung has
stated, quite simply, that restricting food intake to a given
amount daily will assist one in safely losing weight (provided
one is otherwise healthy, and doesn't do something obviously
stupid such as eat the limit by ingesting mostly sugar and lard).
You can
> choose to do as you wish regarding any and all information you find on this
> newsgroup from anyone but please don't try to silence criticism where
> criticism is due. You may note that Andrew is very abrasive and abusive to
> ANYONE who disagrees with him or even slightly questions him.
ANYONE who actually has some expertise in a given field would be
entitled to feel when attacked (which is a wholly different thing
than questioned or disagreed with, and which is an apt
description of how Dr. Chung is most often treated by dissenters)
by people who have no expertise or qualifications in a given
field. Please also note that should someone also possessing
expertise or qualifications in the field take issue with the Dr.
Chung, when Dr. Chung asks for references in support of that
someone's position that is precisely how someone working in the
sciences should respond.
This has the
> characteristics of someone who is very insecure and afraid of something -
> maybe that something is the TRUTH.
Perhaps you will then demonstrate that. But somehow, I seriously
doubt it. You strike me as a typical Usenet know-it-all, and
that's fine. But don't expect to sell other folks on your
position by posting unsupported "maybe's", particularly with
respect to Dr. Chung. His track record is pretty damned good, as
I have discovered by following up on those posts that he has from
time to time made that relate to my own CAD and associated
arrhythmia. I would wager that the vast majority of readers who
have taken the time to follow up with respect to Dr. Chung's
information feel similarly.
<snip post to which Mr. Lehman had replied>
Steve
--
The above posting is neither a legal opinion nor legal advice,
because we do not have an attorney-client relationship, and
should not be construed as either. This posting does not
represent the opinion of my employer, but is merely my personal
view.
any...@anywhere.anyplace
replied to one of my questions posed to this newsgroup a couple of years
ago..I would be very, very sick now. He steered me to ask the RIGHT
question of my cardio (who was receptive to any suggestions) and got the
proper test and treatment ! I , personally , would like to pin on a big
gold star on Dr Chung :)
Anita in Houston
Michael Roose
wrote:
|I think a LOT of the criticism of Andrew stems from the fact that he is
|using this newsgroup and possibly others to promote himself and his
|business. It matters not that he claims he is giving certain information
|away "free". All advertisers use this gimmick at some time or other.
Yeah, right Paul. All of Atlanta is pouring into his office (which is
in the middle of a typically blue collar neighborhood where Usenet
access is still a relatively unknown animal.) after reading smc since
there are just billions of us, aren't there.
I ran into a lurker the other day in Los Angeles who had sold his
house to visit the Great Chung.
Do you ever stop to think about what you are saying when you attempt
to besmirch someone's reputation?
| This
|coupled with the fact that he is using his title and position makes his
|"diet" SOUND as if it were a lot more researched than what it is.
Only a moron like you would say such an ignorant thing.
"My God, Chung is SOUNDING important and all those years of study and
hard work, well, he should shut up and become a garbage man."
| You can
|choose to do as you wish regarding any and all information you find on this
|newsgroup from anyone but please don't try to silence criticism where
|criticism is due.
I wouldn't think of refusing you the right to make a complete ass of
yourself.
Please continue.
| You may note that Andrew is very abrasive and abusive to
|ANYONE who disagrees with him or even slightly questions him. This has the
|characteristics of someone who is very insecure and afraid of something -
|maybe that something is the TRUTH.
That;s it. Time to go to bed.
Put your ear close to your monitor (that's the thing on top of your
386 computer that you look at, moron) and listen close.
Ready?
*******PLONK******
Richard Cavell
screen
No. Peer reviewed, properly conducted randomised double-blind control
trials are the essence of effective medicine. No other type of evidence is
as convincing.
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> I think a LOT of the criticism of Andrew stems from the fact that he is
> using this newsgroup and possibly others to promote himself and his
> business.
And where is that business exactly ?
Got a physical address to prove this fact ?
> It matters not that he claims he is giving certain information
> away "free".
Not a claim... but a provable fact. Simply poll the folks who frequent these
newsgroups.
> All advertisers use this gimmick at some time or other.
Should be easy for you to name at least one such advertiser then.
>
> This
> coupled with the fact that he is using his title and position makes his
> "diet" SOUND as if it were a lot more researched than what it is.
That would be your *opinion*
> You can
> choose to do as you wish regarding any and all information you find on this
> newsgroup from anyone but please don't try to silence criticism where
> criticism is due.
Mr. Lehmann claims Andrew can't handle criticism but when someone criticizes him
for being critical, he feels he's being silences.
> You may note that Andrew is very abrasive and abusive to
> ANYONE who disagrees with him or even slightly questions him.
You may realize that Andrew deals with folks like Mr. Lehmann in an entirely
appropriate manner.
> This has the
> characteristics of someone who is very insecure and afraid of something -
> maybe that something is the TRUTH.
>
IMO, you are looking at your own reflection.
--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Atlanta Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Thank you for your support (deep bow).
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
However, there are questions out there that do not lend themselves to be
answered by double-blind control trials.
The effectiveness of one diet compared to another in losing weight is one of
those questions unanswerable by a randomized double-blind control trial because
it is not possible to blind folks to what there are or are not eating.
Michael Roose
Please tell me how you would conduct such a study on the 2 Pound diet?
Michael Roose
<and...@heartmdphd.com> wrote:
|However, there are questions out there that do not lend themselves to be
|answered by double-blind control trials.
|
|The effectiveness of one diet compared to another in losing weight is one of
|those questions unanswerable by a randomized double-blind control trial because
|it is not possible to blind folks to what there are or are not eating.
Can't you tell them? Put braille on their hotdogs or something?
Jerome R. Long
Pompous balderdash!
No educated person questions the importance of "properly conducted randomised
double-blind control trials" to effective medicine. However, should someone
propose to the NIH that such a study be funded to test the proposition that:
A diet of three Big Mac Biggy Fries Jumbo Cola Combos each day will lead to
obesity in most persons in white collar professions." the proposal would not
even be sent out for peer review much less funded. One does not need to run
expensive trials to test the obvious unless serious evidence can be submitted
to contradict the proposition.
I think it equally obvious that simple amount restriction combined with
sensible content is the gold standard of weight control. I think that Dr.
Andrew Chung is basically saying that complex diet systems are hard to follow
and so tend to fail when there is a very simple and sensible approach that
works if you just stick to one idea;that being to not eat more than a specific
amount each day, that amount being about 2 pounds for a typical person.
>
>
>
>
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
well said :-)
--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Atlanta Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com
Michael Roose
Long) wrote:
|... Dr.|Andrew Chung is basically saying that complex diet systems are hard to follow
|and so tend to fail when there is a very simple and sensible approach that
|works if you just stick to one idea;that being to not eat more than a specific
|amount each day, that amount being about 2 pounds for a typical person.
It's the complexity of the approach that throws most people :)
Richard Cavell
of
> those questions unanswerable by a randomized double-blind control trial
because
> it is not possible to blind folks to what there are or are not eating.
I accept that.
There have been some farfetched experiments which have managed to blind
people where you wouldn't think so. I've heard of experiments where both
surgeon and patient have been blind to whether or not the patient was going
to, was having, and has had an operation all the way through to discharge.
With food, though, there's a satiety response just from seeing the food, let
alone eating it.
Beca4177
website....including me!
I have been able to get answers from him when my own cardiologist did not ,
would not discuss my situation with me.
Yes, I had taken a question list with me to my appt, but my assigned
cardiologist, smiled, patted me on the shoulder...said I would be fine...and
out the door he went. No discussion...nothing. It IS reasonable for the
patient to expect info from the doc re the dynamics of a heart anomaly and the
varibles as they apply to the patient!!! Could not get that from my own
Cardiologist!!!
AGAIN, Dr. Chung...your help was invaluable! Many thanks for taking the time
to help me understand about my situation!
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
You are most welcome :-)
I simply believe that being a doctor means participating actively in discussions
with your patients about all their questions and concerns regarding their health.
I carry myself here in newsgroups and via email in the same manner that I do in
person in my cardiology practice. Certainly, there will be some folks who will be
uncomfortable with my style of encouraging patient discussion and dialogue and may
even call it unprofessional (as you have witnessed)... however, I get positive
reinforcement every day when folks come back to me able to come off of nearly all
their medications (especially when they have lost significant amounts of weight
:-).
Ted
Cardiology, and is "self described" as treating cardio-vascular
diseases.
One more "self described" expert.
Ronnie Ruff
> This Chung character is NOT a cardiologist, he is not board certified in
> Cardiology, and is "self described" as treating cardio-vascular
> diseases.
>
> One more "self described" expert.
>
> "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" wrote:
Ted I was wondering where you were on this!!!!!!! I figured you were on
vacation!
Welcome home :-)
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> This Chung character is NOT a cardiologist, he is not board certified in
> Cardiology, and is "self described" as treating cardio-vascular
> diseases.
>
> One more "self described" expert.
Ahem. Should I be insulted? Nah.
Try harder, Ted.
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> On Fri, 31 May 2002 16:03:36 -0400, Ted <tedros...@iname.com>
> wrote:
>
> >This Chung character is NOT a cardiologist, he is not board certified in
> >Cardiology, and is "self described" as treating cardio-vascular
> >diseases.
>
> Ted:
> Are you sure of your claims? A person claiming to be a specialist
> like a cardiologist can't afford to play games. That individual goes
> to jail for practicing medicine without a proper license and
> training.'
>
> 1. In your research, what type of MD is he? Educated where?
> Licensed where?
> 2. What is his PHD in? From what university?
>
> You may be correct, but, a person has to be a fool claiming to be a
> cardiologist. Doesn't make sense. Usenet posts are permanent. What
> has he to gain?
Nothing.
Ted is traveling down that dangerous path of libel and slander in his efforts
to discredit me.
--
Dr. Andrew B. Change, MD/PhD
Atlanta Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com
Diana
news:3CF804D3...@heartmdphd.com...
>
> Ted is traveling down that dangerous path of libel and slander in his
efforts
> to discredit me.
That is impossible since you already discredited yourself when you went to
gradeschool level of fighting making fun of others weight and mother.
Diana
Michael Roose
|Ted:
|Are you sure of your claims? A person claiming to be a specialist
|like a cardiologist can't afford to play games. That individual goes
|to jail for practicing medicine without a proper license and
|training.'
|
|1. In your research, what type of MD is he? Educated where?
|Licensed where?
|2. What is his PHD in? From what university?
|
|You may be correct, but, a person has to be a fool claiming to be a
|cardiologist. Doesn't make sense. Usenet posts are permanent. What
|has he to gain?
Let me save you a little time.
Ted's a retard.
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Believe me, it is possible.
--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Atlanta Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com
R.K.
but i'm sure after the medical review board sees the crap and his wonderful
bedside manner in here, he might not be for long..
RK
"Ted" <tedros...@iname.com> wrote in message
news:3CF7D718...@iname.com...
: This Chung character is NOT a cardiologist, he is not board certified in
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Actually Ted, unfortunately this quack is a board certified cardiologist
but i'm sure after the medical review board sees the crap and his wonderful
bedside manner in here, he might not be for long..
Step right up and recline on my virtual bed so you too can witness
my incredible bedside manner.
Mack
<and...@heartmdphd.com> cast the following words into the void:
>Diana wrote:
>
>> "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <and...@heartmdphd.com> wrote in message
>> news:3CF804D3...@heartmdphd.com...
>> > oo...@endrun.nat wrote:
>> >
>> > > On Fri, 31 May 2002 16:03:36 -0400, Ted <tedros...@iname.com>
>> > Nothing.
>> >
>> > Ted is traveling down that dangerous path of libel and slander in his
>> efforts
>> > to discredit me.
>>
>> That is impossible since you already discredited yourself when you went to
>> gradeschool level of fighting making fun of others weight and mother.
>>
>
>Believe me, it is possible.
not after your behavior has proven you to be less than what you claim.
DerekM
Type 1 since 1975
Minimed 508 Insulin Pump
http://www.alt-support-diabetes.org
http://sweetblood.org
http://www.insulin-pumpers.org
http://www.diabetesinterview.com
http://www.zerolimit.net (irc server webpage for our chat room)
#diabeticnet is the name of our IRC chat on zerolimit.net
http://www.zerolimit.net/files/zl-mirc.exe
http://www.irchelp.org/irchelp/misc/webtv.html
http://www.xs4all.nl/~ircle/ <--Ircle Mac IRC software
http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2001/06/cureall.htm
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
On Fri, 31 May 2002 20:25:50 -0400, "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD"
<and...@heartmdphd.com> cast the following words into the void:>Diana wrote:
>
>> "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <and...@heartmdphd.com> wrote in message
>> news:3CF804D3...@heartmdphd.com...
>> > oo...@endrun.nat wrote:
>> >
>> > > On Fri, 31 May 2002 16:03:36 -0400, Ted <tedros...@iname.com>
>> > Nothing.
>> >
>> > Ted is traveling down that dangerous path of libel and slander in his
>> efforts
>> > to discredit me.
>>
>> That is impossible since you already discredited yourself when you went to
>> gradeschool level of fighting making fun of others weight and mother.
>>
>
>Believe me, it is possible.not after your behavior has proven you to be less than what you claim.
--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Atlanta Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com
Mack
<and...@heartmdphd.com> cast the following words into the void:
>Mack wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 31 May 2002 20:25:50 -0400, "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD"
>> <and...@heartmdphd.com> cast the following words into the void:
>>
>> >Diana wrote:
>> >
>> >> "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <and...@heartmdphd.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:3CF804D3...@heartmdphd.com...
>> >> > oo...@endrun.nat wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > > On Fri, 31 May 2002 16:03:36 -0400, Ted <tedros...@iname.com>
>> >> > Nothing.
>> >> >
>> >> > Ted is traveling down that dangerous path of libel and slander in his
>> >> efforts
>> >> > to discredit me.
>> >>
>> >> That is impossible since you already discredited yourself when you went to
>> >> gradeschool level of fighting making fun of others weight and mother.
>> >>
>> >
>> >Believe me, it is possible.
>>
>> not after your behavior has proven you to be less than what you claim.
>>
>
>opinions are simply that... they do not supplant facts
interesting that you say that, after you also admitted that you have
no peer reviewed or scientifically gathered data to support your diet
claims.
Mack
a visitor from across the pond
Mack
>glad I have your interest... what is more interesting is that many lurkers from ASD
>have emailed me privately about their willingness to give the 2 lb diet a try. It
>seems that folks are universally disappointed with the other diets they have tried
>in the past to keep the weight off. So stick around, we should have at least some
>observational data from ASD in a few months.
and another old tactic, the lurkers email me their support, yes, like
this hasn't been tried a million times by people with no clue or proof
of their claims.
Ted Rodrick
Ted wrote:
>
> This Chung character is NOT a cardiologist, he is not board certified in
> Cardiology, and is "self described" as treating cardio-vascular
> diseases.
>
> One more "self described" expert.
>
It's a "leap of faith" to assume that the medical doctor Andrew Benhua Chung
and the person posting as Dr Andrew B Chung are one and the same person.
However, if one accepts that as a fact, then the following is applicable:
Per the AMA site, Andrew Benhua Chung is a medical doctor:
- Board *Eligible* in Cardiology, and
- Board Certified in Internal Medicine
Board Eligible in Cardiology means that the physician completed
Residency in Cardiology, but has not taken the TEST required for
Board Certification.
Per the ABMS site, Andrew Benhua Chung *is* board-certified in
Internal Medicine.
In other words, it seems to me that Dr Andrew B Chung posting
here ... if he is actually Andrew Benhua Chung ... has been
truthful about his medical qualifications. FWIW, the AMA has
no problem with a doctor who is "Board-Eligible" in Cardiology
setting up practice as a Cardiologist, so I don't think you have
much of a case in challenging that premise.
Finally, this whole business of the "two pound diet" strikes me
as much ado about nothing ... hard to fathom all of the uproar
and rancor about it (just another manifestation of the DIET WARS
I guess). My take on Dr Chung's web page is that his diet
premise ... stated simply ... is "eat less, and lose weight."
Wow ... what a breakthrough! Assuming the foods ingested
include all nutrients necessary for health, it's actually
pretty hard to argue with his premise.
OTOH, his guidelines (algorithm) for how a diabetic patient
should adjust his meds (insulin) while initiating/following
his "two pound diet" may or may not make sense or have any
validity. It's interesting that no one has challenged that
aspect of his website. After all, Dr Chung makes no claim
of being an Endocrinologist. :-))
Ted Rodrick
Ted Rodrick
"R.K." wrote:
>
> Actually Ted, unfortunately this quack is a board certified cardiologist
> but i'm sure after the medical review board sees the crap and his wonderful
> bedside manner in here, he might not be for long..
>
Ahem! Per the ABMS site (the physician board-certificion authority),
he is board-certified in Internal Medicine ... NOT in Cardiology.
However, the AMA site indicates that he is "Board-Eligible" in
Cardiology ... i.e. completed all required training including his
residency, but has not passed the TEST required for certification
(no information on whether he's ever taken the test).
Ted Rodrick
R.K.
per say.
either way he's passing himself off as a diabetic specialist and a
cardiologist
which he is neither. he's a 2lbs diet pusher.. LOL
RK
"Ted Rodrick" <trod...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:3CF8E045...@cox.net...
: R.K. ...
Ted
It is really very easy to check, and, it isn't illegal to claim a
specialty you are not certified in - look at Bernstein, HE claims to be
an Endo. It IS illegal to practice medicine without a license - which
he DOES have, but in most, if not all, states, there are little or no
legal restrictions on specialty claims. This is a "grandfather"
situation, as many specialties now requiring certification, did not HAVE
certification 20 years ago, SOME did not even exist.
If you will check his record at the ABMS, you will find out he is NOT
certified as a cardiologist.
THEN check his record at the AMA, and you will see that he is listed as
"self-described" rather than "board-certified".
He IS an MD, Emery as I recall. PhD's are difficult to check, besides
there is no recognized US PhD's in Cardiology.
Of course, reading his posts, it is clear that he has missed a calling
selling Noni Juice. I know a doctor like Chung who got RICH peddling
Amway.
oo...@endrun.nat wrote:
>
> On Fri, 31 May 2002 16:03:36 -0400, Ted <tedros...@iname.com>
> wrote:
>
> >This Chung character is NOT a cardiologist, he is not board certified in
> >Cardiology, and is "self described" as treating cardio-vascular
> >diseases.
>
Ted
does anyone notice that scammers ALWAYS yell "libel and slander"?
OH great spamming "cardiologist" SUE me if you are so sure -
BUT before you do, remember Oscar Wilde.
"Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" wrote:
>
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> cc'd by email
> does anyone notice that scammers ALWAYS yell "libel and slander"?
>
> OH great spamming "cardiologist" SUE me if you are so sure -
> BUT before you do, remember Oscar Wilde.
cc'd to whom?
as for yelling... just a word to the wise...
--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Atlanta Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> cc'd by email
>
> It is really very easy to check, and, it isn't illegal to claim a
> specialty you are not certified in - look at Bernstein, HE claims to be
> an Endo. It IS illegal to practice medicine without a license - which
> he DOES have, but in most, if not all, states, there are little or no
> legal restrictions on specialty claims. This is a "grandfather"
> situation, as many specialties now requiring certification, did not HAVE
> certification 20 years ago, SOME did not even exist.
>
> If you will check his record at the ABMS, you will find out he is NOT
> certified as a cardiologist.
>
> THEN check his record at the AMA, and you will see that he is listed as
> "self-described" rather than "board-certified".
>
> He IS an MD, Emery as I recall. PhD's are difficult to check, besides
> there is no recognized US PhD's in Cardiology.
>
> Of course, reading his posts, it is clear that he has missed a calling
> selling Noni Juice. I know a doctor like Chung who got RICH peddling
> Amway.
I must be quite the itch in your nether region for you to work so hard to
discredit me only for your labors to end up verifying my credentials and the
veracity of all that I have posted on ASD.
Ted
I also don't like people who misstate credentials, AND
HiGH on the list of people who deserve being run out on a rail are scam
doctors
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
No, I hate spamming assholes like you
I also don't like people who misstate credentials, AND
HiGH on the list of people who deserve being run out on a rail are scam
doctors
Again, thanks for verifying my credentials... I couldn't have
done it better myself.
Pixie
> No, I hate spamming assholes like you
> I also don't like people who misstate credentials, AND
> HiGH on the list of people who deserve being run out on a rail are scam
> doctors
>
do to Loretta!!
Michael Roose
wrote:
|In other words, it seems to me that Dr Andrew B Chung posting
|here ... if he is actually Andrew Benhua Chung ... has been
|truthful about his medical qualifications. FWIW, the AMA has
|no problem with a doctor who is "Board-Eligible" in Cardiology
|setting up practice as a Cardiologist, so I don't think you have
|much of a case in challenging that premise.
Ooops, what a disappointment to the Melonheads of ASD.
|Finally, this whole business of the "two pound diet" strikes me
|as much ado about nothing ... hard to fathom all of the uproar
|and rancor about it (just another manifestation of the DIET WARS
|I guess). My take on Dr Chung's web page is that his diet
|premise ... stated simply ... is "eat less, and lose weight."
|Wow ... what a breakthrough! Assuming the foods ingested
|include all nutrients necessary for health, it's actually
|pretty hard to argue with his premise.
Yep. Now the question is why has the 2PDiet caused the biggest uproar
in the diabetes groups in their history?
Any ideas?
Ted Rodrick
delbert wrote:
>
> So Ted Rodrick... in short he is certifiable...
>
> certifiable
> adj 1: fit to be certified as insane (and treated accordingly)
> [syn: certified]
>
> I could have told you that... hahahahahha
>
> d.
>
LOL. Good point! :-)
Ted Rodrick
Ron Ritzman
<somewhatus...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Yep. Now the question is why has the 2PDiet caused the biggest uproar
>in the diabetes groups in their history?
Even the best ideas get poo pood on when someone advocates them by riding
down your street with a bullhorn.
--
Ron Ritzman |Obesity hurts no one but the
|person carrying the lard
|-- A_Mazz...@hotmail.com
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> On Sat, 01 Jun 2002 23:21:35 -0400, Michael Roose
> <somewhatus...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Yep. Now the question is why has the 2PDiet caused the biggest uproar
> >in the diabetes groups in their history?
>
> Even the best ideas get poo pood on when someone advocates them by riding
> down your street with a bullhorn.
Like the American Revolution... (The British are coming! The British are
coming!)
Those doing the poo pooing found themselves on the wrong side of a war :-)
Ok, who wants to be next to find out that they are indeed on the wrong side
of this flame war ?
Michael Roose
<rrit...@springmail.com> wrote:
|>Yep. Now the question is why has the 2PDiet caused the biggest uproar
|>in the diabetes groups in their history?
|
|Even the best ideas get poo pood on when someone advocates them by riding
|down your street with a bullhorn.
Then why do you see it all the time, Ron? Because it DOESN'T work?
Mack
<somewhatus...@hotmail.com> cast the following words into the
void:
>On Sun, 02 Jun 2002 11:56:04 -0400, Ted <tedros...@iname.com>
>wrote:
>
>|Possibly the doctor is merely off of his Lithium
>
>Careful, careful, Teddy Bear. I have a lawyer who specializes in
>Internet libel and character defamation. I would be sure to lend him
>to Chung, pay the expenses, just to fry your Teddy Butt.
>
>Wanna know something fun, Teddy? If you file a lawsuit against a
>defendant, you can jurisdiction shop. KNow what that means, Teddy? You
>don't?
>
>Well, let me explain. I sue you. I get to set the court IN ANY STATE
>I WANT?
>
>Ever visit California and I don't mean your pilgrimages to SF BAY,
>Boyo.
your so called lawyers would have a hard time in hell of doing
anything after your behavior in the groups you have harassed. you
have proven the doctor to be a quack by both his behavior and yours.
Mack
Mack
<and...@heartmdphd.com> cast the following words into the void:
>Ted Rodrick wrote:
>
>> LOL. Good point! :-)
>>
>> Ted Rodrick
>
>Yep, I keep my spear sharp.
>
>Back for more abuse, I see. When did your fetish for S&M start?
>
>Don't you just hate it when you find yourself on the wrong side of a
>flame war?
>
>Whoosh! ---------> Thump!
>
>Your smoldering carcass has just been catapulted back to the ASD mud pile
>again. Be sure to come back if you want more.
interesting
Michael Roose
<and...@heartmdphd.com> wrote:
|Who is this Mack fellow anyway?
No clue. He went into my Room For Usenet Idiots (killfile) long ago.
| Someone should look in on him. I think
|his pump has run out of insulin.
He won't co-pay. Let him rot.
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
interestingYou enjoy being a voyeur, don't you?
--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Atlanta Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> Doc... you are not very good at this flaming stuff... and you don't
> seem to have many on your team with one notable exception who I don't
> believe adds anything to your credibility. Do you think you are
> winning anything?
>
> delusion
> n 1: an erroneous belief that is held in the face of evidence to
> the contrary [syn: psychotic belief]
> 2: a mistaken opinion or idea; "he has delusions of competence"
> 3: the act of deluding; deception by creating illusory ideas
> [syn: illusion, head game]
Who is this Dipbert character anyway? And, why is he acting like a dictionary
:-)
R.K.
TELL HIM TO STAY THE FUCK OUTTA THE DIABETES NEWSGROUP
AND WE'LL LEAVE YOU ALL ALONE!
"Beca4177" <beca...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020531141411...@mb-cf.aol.com...
: I think all this is ridiculous! Dr. Chung has helped so many on this
: website....including me!
:
: I have been able to get answers from him when my own cardiologist did not
,
: would not discuss my situation with me.
:
: Yes, I had taken a question list with me to my appt, but my assigned
: cardiologist, smiled, patted me on the shoulder...said I would be
fine...and
: out the door he went. No discussion...nothing. It IS reasonable for the
: patient to expect info from the doc re the dynamics of a heart anomaly
and the
: varibles as they apply to the patient!!! Could not get that from my own
: Cardiologist!!!
:
: AGAIN, Dr. Chung...your help was invaluable! Many thanks for taking the
time
: to help me understand about my situation!
:
:
R.K.
comments.. Chicken shit NIP!
"Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <and...@heartmdphd.com> wrote in message
news:3CFAFFA5...@heartmdphd.com...
: "R.K." wrote:
:
: > Fine he's helped you, done NOTHING but badger Diabetics
: >
: > TELL HIM TO STAY THE FUCK OUTTA THE DIABETES NEWSGROUP
: > AND WE'LL LEAVE YOU ALL ALONE!
: >
:
: Don't you just hate it when you find yourself on the wrong side of a flame
war?
:
: Whoosh! ---------> Thump!
:
: Your smoldering carcass has just been catapulted back to the ASD mud pile
: again. Be sure to come back if you want more.
:
:
:
: --
:
:
Tiger Lily
NOT
"Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <and...@heartmdphd.com> wrote in message
news:3CFAFFA5...@heartmdphd.com...
> "R.K." wrote:
>
> > Fine he's helped you, done NOTHING but badger Diabetics
> >
> > TELL HIM TO STAY THE FUCK OUTTA THE DIABETES NEWSGROUP
> > AND WE'LL LEAVE YOU ALL ALONE!
> >
>
R.K.
"Tiger Lily" <Tige...@nospam.alt-support-diabetes.org> wrote in message
news:RHDK8.5441$J51.3...@news1.telusplanet.net...
: isn't he a wonderful man....... gotta love his manner !
: >
: >
:
:
Brian
> Ok, who wants to be next to find out that they are indeed on
> the wrong side of this flame war ?
This is written to "you", but I hope it will be heard by more than just
you...
I don't post to any of the three groups listed very much. I may if I
have a question about diabetes or cardiovascular health.
I'm not going to question your credentials or anything of that nature,
but I do question your Common Sense...
Most doctors I know, while passionate about their work, would not
conduct themselves in the way in which you are currently conducting
yourself here in these newsgroups. Your involvement in these
"flame wars" might work if your desire is to simply get attention, but
if you are wanting to help people, you would probably be better served
by remaining above this level of bickering back and forth.
Furthermore, the bickering is simply distracting, causing a clutter of
notes that undermine the purpose of the groups. As such, I intend
on filtering out notes from you, Dr. Chung, as well as filtering out any
threads in which it becomes obvious that another flame war has
sprung up because of you.
It was my understanding that doctors were trained to help people,
not to be antagonists. I'd suggest that you reflect upon the values
of what the profession is truly about. Maybe in time your attitude
will change...
I would encourage other posters to these three newsgroups
take similar action in regards to this individual.
Brian
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> "This is written to "you", but I hope it will be heard by more than just
> you...
>
> I don't post to any of the three groups where these flame fests
> are happening very much. I may if I have a question about diabetes
> or cardiovascular health.
>
> I'm not going to question your credentials or anything of that nature,
> but I do question your Common Sense...
>
> Most doctors I know, while passionate about their work, would not
> conduct themselves in the way in which you are currently conducting
> yourself here in these newsgroups.
Most doctors don't participate in these newsgroups.
> Your involvement in these
> "flame wars" might work if your desire is to simply get attention, but
> if you are wanting to help people, you would probably be better served
> by remaining above this level of bickering back and forth.
A flame war is a discussion that becomes a heated argument that degenerates
into personal attacks from the weaker side which has lost the argument but
rather then concede defeat resorts to personal attacks on character,
identity, religion, and credentials. I have for the most part remained
above resorting to personal attacks to win an argument.
>
>
> Furthermore, the bickering is simply distracting, causing a clutter of
> notes that undermine the purpose of the groups. As such, I intend
> on filtering out notes from you, Dr. Chung, as well as filtering out any
> threads in which it becomes obvious that another flame war has
> sprung up because of you.
It is your choice.
>
>
> It was my understanding that doctors were trained to help people,
> not to be antagonists. I'd suggest that you reflect upon the values
> of what the profession is truly about. Maybe in time your attitude
> will change...
>
Part of my effectiveness in helping my patients is my ability to convince my
patients that the advice I give them is sound. On newsgroups, that
sometimes translates to becoming antagonistic when personally attacked but I
don't claim to be a saint.
>
> I would encourage other posters to these three newsgroups
> take similar action in regards to this individual.
>
Again, it would be their choice.
--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Atlanta Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com
Wes Groleau
> OTOH, his guidelines (algorithm) for how a diabetic patient
> should adjust his meds (insulin) while initiating/following
> his "two pound diet" may or may not make sense or have any
> validity. It's interesting that no one has challenged that
> aspect of his website. After all, Dr Chung makes no claim
> of being an Endocrinologist. :-))
I have challenged that aspect several times.
I would have no objection to his dietary instructions
IF he would not offer them as written to diabetics and
persons with other chronic conditions requiring medication.
I do have a problem with his attitudes, his inability
to refrain from perpetuating a useless flame war, and his
insinuation that Jesus endorses such childish behavior.
--
Wes Groleau
http://freepages.rootsweb.com/~wgroleau
R.K.
"Wes Groleau" <wesgr...@despammed.com> wrote in message
news:3CFBA7D0...@despammed.com...
:
: > OTOH, his guidelines (algorithm) for how a diabetic patient
Pixie
"R.K." <j0...@zerolimit.net> wrote in message
news:adgd4v$10n76r$1...@ID-133779.news.dfncis.de...
his profanity posted to this group. I guess it is a case of the "pot
calling the kettle black."
I certainly wouldn't trust a doctor with this kind of mentality, even if he
is the expert he thinks he is.
mark brown
MD/PhD <and...@heartmdphd.com> writes
I'm fairly new here and don't want to get involved in arguments, maybe I
have asked this before, but do you know anything about Hypoxic Brain
injury, which I suffered as a result of a diabetic coma
--
Mark brown ,Hypoxic Brain Damage, Disabled, etc.
Ted
You SURE have brain problems if you ask the Chung quack any questions
except why is his mouth brown and puckered.
This is a first class QUACK who spends his days posting abusive messages
and attacking diabetics
SO, If you are real, and not just a sock puppet for the Chung
GO AWAY
If, as more likely, you are just a sock puppet or shill for Chung/Roose
- then <expletive deleted>
Michael Roose
wrote:
|You SURE have brain problems if you ask the Chung quack any questions
|except why is his mouth brown and puckered.
Your arrogance is only superseded by your stupidity.
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Mike,
Ted is "dead." May his despairing soul rest in peace.
http://www.heartmdphd.com/rip.asp
Andrew
----
Ted
Bud
> Look "Mark Brown"
>
> You SURE have brain problems if you ask the Chung quack any questions
> except why is his mouth brown and puckered.
>
> This is a first class QUACK who spends his days posting abusive messages
> and attacking diabetics
> SO, If you are real, and not just a sock puppet for the Chung
> GO AWAY
>
> If, as more likely, you are just a sock puppet or shill for Chung/Roose
> - then <expletive deleted>
>
>
his story as to why he was asked to leave his first real job as a doctor
less than 10 months into the job. (http://www.heartmdphd.com/testimon.asp)
Or better yet, I'd love to hear his employers comments about Chung.
(http://cfhc.salu.net/staff.html) Just how many doctors with his training
and self-proclaimed qualifications are asked to leave a position after so
little time on the job? The number has to infinitesimally small. One
wonders if it had anything to do with his "2 pound diet" or his arrogance.
(Chung couldn't sell his diet scheme to his supervisors at Emory despite
years of trying.)
The Florida job raises other questions. Unless hundreds of Atlanta-based
patients followed Chung down to Florida and his return trip back to Atlanta,
I doubt that Chung has more than a handful (if even that) of patients that
he has seen longer than 12 months. All this means is that despite his
claims, the odds that he has actual, documented patients who have followed
the diet successfully for 4 years is slim to none. Considering the amount
of free time he has during the work day to read and post to newsgroups, I
suspect his patient role hardly numbers in the hundreds as he has claimed.
I may be mistaken, but I would think that misrepresenting oneself would be
consider unprofessional and a violation the oath he took when he became a
doctor.
Pixie
> Michael Roose <somewhatus...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<588sfu0rpgdgvvaps...@4ax.com>...
> > On Wed, 05 Jun 2002 07:49:04 -0400, Ted <tedros...@iname.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > |You SURE have brain problems if you ask the Chung quack any questions
> > |except why is his mouth brown and puckered.
> >
> > Your arrogance is only superseded by your stupidity.
>
> Mike,
>
> Ted is "dead." May his despairing soul rest in peace.
Dr. Chung also suffers from multiple personalities. Notice how he didn't
answer your question but only attacked a fellow diabetic.
Flying Rat
> Right, and The Chung Quack is as accurate as usual
Let's have it right please Ted.
LYING quack as I proved to the group yesterday.
Ratty
--
All killer no filler
ratty at flyingrat.net
New webthingy is www.flyingrat.net
Michael Roose
|The more I learn about Chung, the less credible he looks.
Boy, Butt, is that unsettling coming from you.
| I'd love to hear
|his story as to why he was asked to leave his first real job as a doctor
|less than 10 months into the job. (http://www.heartmdphd.com/testimon.asp)
|Or better yet, I'd love to hear his employers comments about Chung.
|(http://cfhc.salu.net/staff.html)
Well, gee, Butt, why don't you call them up and ask? Huh? Why don't
you come out from behind your cloak of anonymity. you big coward, and
call them up and ask?
You won't because you, Butt, are a gutless wonder.
|I may be mistaken, but I would think that misrepresenting oneself would be
|consider unprofessional and a violation the oath he took when he became a
|doctor.
Not only are you mistaken, Butt, you are a dolt as well.
Bud
"Pixie" <akp...@pixiedust.com> wrote in message
news:ufsovtt...@corp.supernews.com...
"cyber-stalking" him.
Michael Roose
|Interestingly enough, Chung has now accused a number of us as
|"cyber-stalking" him.
maybe it's the death threats we receive, Butt.
Jim Horne
4/26/1995, you are visitor number: 7,753,182" Ain't no friggin way.
that's an average of 3035 visits a day... yea right. yet when I hit the
site three times in just over 5 minutes the counter only moved up the same
number of times that I reloaded the page.
Jim
"Flying Rat" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1768772d1...@news.cis.dfn.de...
: In article <3CFE5E00...@iname.com>, tedros...@iname.com says...
:
Vicki Beausoleil
oooooooohhh, scary
Nobody's reported cops at their door yet.
The sooner you and Chung Fat take a long walk off a short pier the better.
Yank the chain, turd, it's time.
Vicki
--
Tough times don't last - tough people do
Michael Roose
<vbeau...@netscape.net> wrote:
|The sooner you and Chung Fat take a long walk off a short pier the better.
Aw, c'mon don't you have a decent Asian slur in you?
|Tough times don't last - tough people do
Works for me.
Richard Morris
The newly diagnosed are advised that any "information" given by this
individual regarding the so-called "two-pound diet", or other
"information" is undocumented and unverified, and may be dangerous to
diabetics. Readers are encouraged to ignore any "advice" given by this
individual at risk of their
health.
Richard
RK
please ignore what they say.
"Michael Roose" <somewhatus...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5glufuc0tfhvfqrrj...@4ax.com...
:
mark brown
writes
>Look "Mark Brown"
>
>You SURE have brain problems if you ask the Chung quack any questions
>except why is his mouth brown and puckered.
>
>This is a first class QUACK who spends his days posting abusive messages
>and attacking diabetics
>SO, If you are real, and not just a sock puppet for the Chung
>GO AWAY
>
>If, as more likely, you are just a sock puppet or shill for Chung/Roose
>- then <expletive deleted>
Look 'TED', I have no idea who Dr Chung is nor for that matter, I'm
exactly what I say, except that you sound to me like one arrogant
BASTARD. SO "FUCK YOU NASTY BASTARD "
mark brown
<somewhatus...@hotmail.com> writes
Well how the fuck do I know who is Who, in this group, I have heard
mistakes pointed out but not the Way you go about it you arrogant
'Bastard'
Ted
YES "mark" we KNOW "mark"
Michael Roose
wrote:
|Looks like the chung troll has yet another name
|YES "mark" we KNOW "mark"
Roose=Chung=mark brown?
Completely delusional and it is now irreversible.
mark brown
writes
>Looks like the chung troll has yet another name
>YES "mark" we KNOW "mark"