A. B. "Weasel" Chung FAQ
Weasel Chung FAQ
this FAQ has been reissued with a title less susceptible to forgery.
The authors regret the necessity to take such a step.)
---------------------------------
| The Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD FAQ |
| Version 4.0, February, 2004 |
---------------------------------
Introduction
------------
New people arriving in sci.med.cardiology (s.m.c.) are often puzzled
and troubled by the controversy surrounding the poster who posts as
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD (Dr. Chung) and want to know what the
controversy is about. This FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions)
attempts to provide an answer.
The FAQ is arranged in typical FAQ form, i.e. a series of questions
and answers. For those who don't wish to read the whole FAQ, the
following summary is provided.
Note: Since this FAQ first appeared in January of 2004, Dr. Chung
forged his own "Issue 2" of the FAQ on February 3, 2004:
Message-ID: <12042dd2fa45f132...@news.teranews.com>
As a courtesy to Dr. Chung, his forged version of the FAQ (Version
2.0) is accepted and included here verbatim, identified by braces
{}. The reader may judge for himself whether Dr. Chung's version
refutes or reinforces the points made in this FAQ.
Dr. Chung has continued to forge this FAQ and to flood s.m.c with
the forgeries. The reader should have no difficulty recognizing the
forgeries for the self-serving lies that they are. The fact that
Dr. Chung engages in such a deceit reveals more about Dr. Chung than
it does about his critics.
Summary
-------
Dr. Chung represents himself to be a licensed physician specializing
in cardiology. In this capacity he responds to medical questions on
s.m.c.. If that were all he did, there would probably be no
controversy.
{Chung: "The controversy arises from Dr. Chung being Christian"}
The controversy arises from Dr. Chung's other behaviors on s.m.c.,
in particular:
o He uses s.m.c. to not only proselytize his particular
interpretation of Christianity, but also to disparage and
attack anyone with a different interpretation or different
religion.
{Chung: "He publically [sic] professes to have accepted
Christ as his Lord and Savior."}
o He uses s.m.c. to promote his unscientific Two Pound Diet
(2PD) and, in fact, cross posts this information to other
groups in order to gain more exposure.
{Chung: "He freely helps people to lose weight in an
altruistic fashion."}
o When challenged on the above issues, or one of his medical
opinions, he attacks his challengers as "obsessive
anti-Christians", "libelers", "homosexuals", "pedophiles",
"people who can't understand English", etc.
{Chung: "When attacked on the above issues, he turns the
other cheek."}
o When challenged he performs Internet searches on his
challengers in order to "get the dirt" on them and smear
their reputations.
{Chung: "When challenged about his faith, he witnesses in
civil discussions."}
o When challenged, he answers with evasions, non sequiturs,
dissembling, rhetorical questions, quotes from the bible,
religious mantras, thinly veiled death threats, ad hominem
arguments, and other such disreputable, unethical, and
unprofessional tactics.
{Chung: "When insulted for his faith, he considers himself
blessed."}
o He is insufferably full of himself, claiming to have "the
Gift of Truth Discernment" and to be "Humble" while behaving
anything but humbly.
{Chung: "He remains truthful despite being libeled and
defamed."}
o He uses a shill who posts under variations of the name "Mu" to
avoid killfiles. Mu's job is to troll other newsgroups and,
when he gets a reaction, to cross post the reaction to s.m.c.
so that Dr. Chung can disingenuously claim to be "only
responding" to a cross post. Whereas Dr. Chung has to be
somewhat careful what he says and so attacks primarily
through insinuation and innuendo, Mu's tactics are blunt and
direct like those of a playground bully.
{Chung: "Other Christians have affirmed his faith in Christ."}
The above lists only the highlights of Dr. Chung's egregious
behavior on s.m.c.. If anything, it understates it. Everything can
be verified in the Google archives.
The issue then arises: so what? As long as Dr. Chung provides free
medical advice on s.m.c., who cares what else he does?
Many people provide free medical advice on the Internet. How does
one know whether it is good advice or bad advice? If the person
giving the advice is, or represents himself to be, a doctor
shouldn't that be enough? Unfortunately, no.
{Chung: "Yes, it should be. Medical education is enough to assure
good information. Knowledge is knowledge. Experience adds to
knowledge. Dr. Chung has both. Dr. Chung consistently demonstrates
the breadth of his knowledge. This is archived many times over in
Google."}
Medical education alone is not enough to guarantee good advice. If
facts alone were all that were required, we could replace Physicians
with Medical Encyclopedias. Knowledge must be tempered with
judgment, impartiality, integrity, ethics, and professionalism. If
someone consistently demonstrates by their behavior that they lack
these qualities, how much credence should be given to their medical
advice?
People arrive in this group looking for help. For their own
protection, they deserve to know the quality of the person
purporting to dispense that help and not be lulled into a false
sense of security simply because someone displays an MD after their
name. It is the intention of this FAQ to provide people with enough
information to allow them to make an informed decision.
{Chung: "People arrive in this group looking for help. Dr. Chung
has graciously provided this over several years."}
Ask yourself this: Suppose you went to see a cardiologist
and, while in the waiting room, observed some clearly disturbed
behavior on his part. Perhaps, for example, he was sitting in the
corner sucking his thumb and rocking back and forth, playing with
his feces, or babbling incoherently. Suddenly, he pulls himself
together and calls you into his office. How comfortable are you
going to be with his advice, even if it is technically correct?
s.m.c is Dr. Chung's "virtual waiting room". If you have been here
a while, you have observed his behavior. If you are new, this FAQ
will give you some background. The decision is yours.
List of Questions Answered
--------------------------
1. Who is Dr. Andrew B Chung, MD/PhD?
2. What is the Charter of s.m.c.?
3. Aren't Religious Discussions Covered by the Charter?
4. So Dr. Chung is Religious... What's the Problem With That?
5. But it's Just a Little "Tag Line" in His Signature.
6. But I'm a Christian Too!
7. Well, Why Not Just Ignore His Religious Rants?
8. But Isn't It Wonderful That Dr. Chung Offers This Free
Medical Advice Out of the Goodness of His Heart?
9. How Does a Practicing Physician Find so Much Time to Spend on
Usenet?
10. Won't Challenging Dr. Chung Drive People Away?
11. Doesn't the "Fault" for all Those Posts Lay With Those Who
Challenge Dr. Chung?
12. Why Do I see So Many "Ad Hominem" Attacks?
13. I'm Sick of Seeing All This!
14. What is the Two Pound Diet?
15. Is Discussion of the Two Pound Diet "On Topic"?
16. Who is Mu?
17. What is Mu's Role?
18. Doesn't Dr. Chung Claim to Always Tell The Truth?
19. What is the "Chung macro"?
20. What is "Hissing"
1. Who is Dr. Andrew B Chung, MD/PhD?
--------------------------------------
The poster who posts as Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD claims to be a
licensed physician, practicing internal medicine in Atlanta,
Georgia, USA and specializing in cardiology. His signature contains
a link to a website which is consistent with his posts.
It should be noted that anyone can claim to be anyone on Usenet and
so caution is always advised. Indeed there are those who claim that
the poster in question is not Dr. Andrew B. Chung, or is not the Dr.
Andrew B. Chung listed in the Atlanta telephone directory, and/or
has lost his license and/or hospital privileges for misconduct.
This FAQ does not attempt to address those claims one way or the
other. The reader with an interest in these matters can easily find
the relevant discussions archived in Google Groups.
This FAQ deals with the poster who posts as Dr. Chung and restricts
itself to issues demonstrated by those posts. No position is taken
on his "true" identity.
2. What is the Charter of s.m.c.?
----------------------------------
"The purpose of this newsgroup is to establish electronic media for
communication between health care providers, scientists and other
individuals with interest in cardiovascular field. Such
communications will provide quick and efficacious means to exchange
information and knowledge, offer problem solutions and stimulate
research interest.
The sci.med.cardiology newsgroups will welcome participants who are
health care providers, researchers, students or recipients with
interest in the field of cardiovascular problems."
<ftp://ftp.uu.net/usenet/news.announce.newgroups/sci/sci.med.cardiology>
3. Aren't Religious Discussions Covered by the Charter?
--------------------------------------------------------
What do you think?
{Chung: "Possibly. See: http://www.heartmdphd.com/healer.asp"}
4. So Dr. Chung is Religious... What's the Problem With That?
--------------------------------------------------------------
There is no problem with that. Most of the people who participate
in s.m.c. are probably religious. However no one but Dr. Chung
feels compelled to characterize themselves as the "Humble Servant of
God" in their signatures, continually thank God for the opportunity
to "witness", question others about their religious beliefs, claim
the "Gift of Truth Discernment", etc.
{Chung: "Some people are fiercely anti-christian."}
When one person insists on introducing his personal religious
interpretations into the discussions, it naturally generates
responses from others who feel just as strongly that their
viewpoints are correct. The resulting debate easily swirls out of
control, especially given Dr. Chung's intolerant and dismissive
attitude towards beliefs which differ from his. The situation is
further exacerbated by Mu's rabble raising from the sidelines.
There are over 160 Usenet groups dedicated to the discussion of
religion. Dr. Chung should take his beliefs to one of these and
stick to cardiology in s.m.c. It is a simple matter of respect for
others.
5. But it's Just a Little "Tag Line" in His Signature.
-------------------------------------------------------
{Chung: "Yes it is. But it offends those who are anti-christian."}
No, it is not. He has even gone so far as to "investigate" someone
asking for advice about stents and accuse her of being
anti-Christian.
A quick search of Google will reveal that the vast
majority of Dr. Chung's posts have nothing whatever to do with
cardiology as described in the charter, but instead are religious
rants, religious arguments, arguments about the Two Pound Diet
(see 14 below) or posts of the "Chung macro" (see 19 below).
6. But I'm a Christian Too!
----------------------------
{Chung: "And so you have Christ's promise of eternal life."}
Lots of people are Christians. There is a time and a place for
everything. s.m.c. isn't the place to "witness" or recruit. In
addition, lots of other people are Jews, Moslems, Buddhists,
Taoists, Hindus, etc. Would s.m.c. be better or worse if they all
emulated Dr. Chung in their proselytizing and recruiting?
Furthermore, if you are a Christian, you should be appalled by Dr.
Chung's pharisaical, cynical, and manipulative use of Christianity.
He is truly a "whitened sepulcher", loudly proclaiming his adherence
to Christian values while overtly lying, carrying on smear campaigns
against others, making false accusations, dissembling, and marketing
his web site under the guise of altruism. He is "bearing false
witness" and true Christians should be concerned.
As an example, when John Ritter recently died unexpectedly, Dr.
Chung rushed to use this unfortunate event to market his web site.
He showed a total lack of Christian compassion for Mr. Ritter and
his family, even when challenged to do so.
As another example, he recently choreographed a smear campaign
against a poster who had criticized him. Dr. Chung found a
homosexual author with the same first name and then insinuated that
the poster and anyone who agreed with him were engaged in a
homosexual relationship. Ask yourself if this the brand of
Christianity you identify with.
In still yet another example, when an anonymous post was made
implying that one of his critics was a pedophile, Dr. Chung, rather
than condemning such a despicable and outrageous charge, attempted
to get more information.
7. Well, Why Not Just Ignore His Religious Rants?
--------------------------------------------------
{Chung: "Well, Why Not Just Ignore his Christian nature?
-----------------------------------------------
Anti-christians are unable to do that."}
Why should one individual be given carte blanche to violate the
rights of everyone else? Usenet is a community. It is up to the
community to sanction its members. There is nothing "ad hominem"
about challenging inappropriate and antisocial behavior.
8. But Isn't It Wonderful That Dr. Chung Offers This Free
Medical Advice Out of the Goodness of His Heart?
----------------------------------------------------------
{Chung: "It is."}
First, it is only of value if it is good advice. Medical education
alone is not enough to guarantee good advice. If facts alone were
all that were required, we could replace Physicians with Medical
Encyclopedias. Knowledge must be tempered with judgment,
impartiality, integrity, ethics, and professionalism. If someone
consistently demonstrates by their behavior that they lack these
qualities, how much credence should be given to their medical
advice?
Ask yourself this: Suppose you went to see a cardiologist
and, while in the waiting room, observed some clearly disturbed
behavior on his part. Perhaps, for example, he was sitting in the
corner sucking his thumb and rocking back and forth, playing with
his feces, or babbling incoherently. Suddenly, he pulls himself
together and calls you into his office. How comfortable are you
going to be with his advice, even if it is technically correct?
s.m.c is Dr. Chung's "virtual waiting room". If you have been here
a while, you have observed his behavior. If you are new, this FAQ
will give you some background. The decision is yours.
Secondly, despite his protestations to the contrary, Dr. Chung is
not simply motivated by altruism. Every post of Dr. Chung's
contains a link to a website with the following quote:
"If you are looking for a cardiologist and reside in Georgia,
please consider me your best option for a personal heart
advocate. Check out my credentials and my background.
Additional information is available in the protected sections
of this web site. Email me at cardio...@heartmdphd.com to
me of your interest and I may send you a temporary username
and password to allow a preview. The more information you
email, the more likely my decision to send you a temporary
username and password. If you like what you see and learn
from this website and wish to confer with me about your
heart, you or your doctor should email me privately or call
my voicemail at 404-699-2780 to schedule an appointment to
see me at my *real* office."
<http://www.heartmdphd.com/office.asp>
Thirdly, Dr. Chung has repeatedly stated that one of his key
motivations for participating is s.m.c. is to "witness" and win
converts to his religious beliefs.
9. How Does a Practicing Physician Find so Much Time to Spend on
Usenet?
------------------------------------------------------------------
An interesting question.
{Chung: "God has blessed him with a quick mind and fast typing
skills."}
10. Won't Challenging Dr. Chung Drive People Away?
--------------------------------------------------
Perhaps. But not challenging him will drive others away.
{Chung: "No. But it will give him the extraordinary opportunity to
glorify God."}
s.m.c. is historically a "low traffic" group. Therefore, when Dr.
Chung misbehaves, he generates an apparently large response. This
is compounded by Dr. Chung's need to "get in the last word" and Mu's
provocations. In spite of this, if someone has a question it will
usually be answered.
Dr. Chung is not the only participant who offers advice in s.m.c.
He is not even the only doctor who participates in s.m.c. However,
the controversy he generates and sustains often makes it appear that
he is the "only game in town".
Finally, Dr. Chung himself drives others away including other
physicians who leave in disgust after being verbally assaulted by
him, and other knowledgeable posters who point out where Dr. Chung's
medical opinion might be in error or at least not the only one
generally held. Anyone disagreeing with Dr. Chung on any subject can
expect a series of increasingly vitriolic attacks, including threats
of libel suits.
11. Doesn't the "Fault" for all Those Posts Lay With Those Who
Challenge Dr. Chung?
--------------------------------------------------------------
{Chung: "Yes."}
An interesting perspective: blame the victim. No other poster (with
the exception of Mu, of course) introduces religion or the Two Pound
Diet. How can it be acceptable for Dr. Chung to introduce these
topics, but not acceptable for others to respond?
In any thread, someone must, of necessity "get the last word". Dr.
Chung has amply demonstrated that he will not be outdone in this
respect.
12. Why Do I see So Many "Ad Hominem" Attacks?
----------------------------------------------
{Chung: "Anti-christian folks can't seem to help themselves."}
You are probably referring to an "Ad Hominem" _argument_, which
attempts to disprove an adversary's fact by personal attack on the
adversary. An example would be "You are opposed to the Two Pound
Diet because you are anti-Christian".
When someone misbehaves, for example lies or distorts what someone
else is saying, it is not an "ad hominem attack" to call them on it.
It is a legitimate social sanction.
There are also, unfortunately too often, simple personal attacks and
insults on both sides. While we can all wish it weren't so, it is
simply human nature when an argument becomes heated or the other
person is obviously not arguing in good faith. If you are
distressed by this, see the next question.
13. I'm Sick of Seeing All This!
--------------------------------
{Chung: "Would suggest you killfile the anti-christians. You won't
see any as [sic] hominems from Dr. Chung."}
There is no reason why you have to see it. Just as you can change
the TV channel if you don't like a show, you can killfile a poster
or thread you don't want to see. See the manual that came with your
Usenet reader for directions on how to do it.
Before you do this, however, you may wish to consider if a truer
picture of the world is not gained by seeing all that goes on - both
the good and the bad.
14. What is the Two Pound Diet?
-------------------------------
{Chung: "See: http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtloss.asp"}
The Two pound Diet is a diet which Dr. Chung "invented". It's only
rule is to restrict yourself to two pounds of food per day. That's
it. Doesn't matter if you are a 16 year old girl or an 80 year old
man; a 5' 2" woman or a 7' man; a weight lifter or a mattress
tester. Two pounds. That's it. No more, less if you want. One
size fits all.
Oh, and the food? Whatever you want: two pounds of lettuce, two
pounds of ice cream, two pounds of celery, two pounds of bacon, two
pounds of chocolate, two pounds of peanuts... doesn't matter. Mix
and match. Just keep it under two pounds.
Dr. Chung's claim is that this magical weight of food, this
universal gustatory constant will cause everyone to arrive at and
maintain their ideal weight. His scientific basis for this claim:
none. The proof he offers: none. Studies supporting this claim:
none. Nutritional explanation: none. Metabolic explanation: none.
And this from a doctor who expects people to take him seriously on
other issues.
15. Is Discussion of the Two Pound Diet "On Topic"?
---------------------------------------------------
{Chung: "Yes. It cures [sic] Metabolic Syndrome (MetS) which
predicts cardiovascular morbidity and mortality."}
Dr. Chung says it is because being overweight is a risk factor for
heart problems and therefore discussion of the Two Pound Diet is On
Topic. However criticism of the Two Pound Diet is Off Topic as is
discussion of any other diet.
As with religion, Dr. Chung takes every opportunity to introduce the
Two Pound Diet (2PD) into any other thread. In addition Mu trolls
other newsgroups, particularly the diet groups looking for
opportunities to introduce the 2PD in these groups and then cross
post the resulting discussion back to s.m.c so that Dr. Chung can
disingenuously claim to be "only responding" to a cross post.
Since Dr. Chung and Mu have been laughed off of these other groups
and have been asked repeatedly not to bring up the 2PD in them,
participants of these groups are understandably angered when it
happens yet again; and, because of Mu's cross-posting, all their
anger spills back into s.m.c.
Another reason for ongoing 2PD discussions is Dr. Chung's habit of
researching anyone who criticizes the 2PD and then cross-posting his
responses back to other groups which the critic has been found to
frequent. He disingenuously claims that he does this as a
"convenience" to the critic, but his true reasons are transparent.
Once again, the cross-post generates a firestorm in s.m.c.
The bottom line is that if the Two Pound Diet is "On Topic" for
anyone, it is "On Topic" for everyone... including it's critics. If
it is "Off Topic", it should not be continually re-introduced by Dr.
Chung.
16. Who is Mu?
--------------
{Chung: "A Christian."}
Mu is a longtime Usenet Troll who has even merited his own FAQ. He
postures as some kind of personal physical trainer, but who really
knows? He has allied himself with Dr. Chung and serves as the "Bad
Cop" in the Chung - Mu "Good Cop - Bad Cop" routine. He specializes
in the short, nasty one-liner and, because unlike Dr. Chung, he has
no reputation to protect, he can afford to be much more direct and
offensive.
Mu parrots an even meaner-spirited version of Dr. Chung's
"Christianity" and does not hesitate to employ anti-Semitism and
homophobia in his attacks.
Naturally, most people would have long ago killfiled Mu, so he
changes his handle on an almost daily basis.
17. What is Mu's Role?
----------------------
{Chung: "God only knows."}
Mu's role is to troll other newsgroups and, when he gets a reaction,
to cross-post the reaction to s.m.c. so that Dr. Chung can
disingenuously claim to be "only responding" to a cross post.
Mu is also responsible for pitching softballs to Dr. Chung so he can
hit them out of the park, and for re-introducing religion and the
Two Pound Diet should the discussion flag.
Finally, Mu's role is to tirelessly wear down unsuspecting Dr. Chung
critics, deflecting the blows that would otherwise be aimed at Dr.
Chung. He is Dr. Chung's Internet equivalent of the "rope-a-dope".
Insults roll off him like water off a duck as do attempts to reason
with him or even have a civil discussion.
Most people have learned to ignore him and his comment is usually
the last one in any thread sub-tree where it appears.
18. Doesn't Dr. Chung Claim to Always Tell The Truth?
-----------------------------------------------------
Yes, he does... repeatedly. However this claim cannot be
reconciled with his behavior on s.m.c.
Dr. Chung has lied repeatedly on Usenet and those lies are
preserved in the Google archives. A few examples:
o Dr. Chung consistently changes other people's words when quoting
them in a response to a post to make it appear they said
something different than what they actually said.
o Dr. Chung consistently posts a macro (see below) which states
that he is responding to a cross-post because the person he
is responding to has not requested that he trim the
headers, even when this request has been explicitly made.
o More recently Dr. Chung has begun forging posts as his bogus
"Version 2" of this FAQ illustrates. Unfortunately for
him the attempts are so amateurish and the language so
self-serving and lame that there is no doubt as to the
authorship.
These are only examples of Dr. Chung's explicit lies. They do not
include lies told through dissembling, innuendo, disingenuousness,
employment of twisted trope's, and other "word games" which he
plays.
19. What is the "Chung macro"?
------------------------------
The "Chung macro" is an approximately 4.5 kilobyte, mind-numbing
diatribe which Dr. Chung attaches as a response to any post he
doesn't like. It includes Chung's unstinting praise of himself, an
advertisement for the Two Pound Diet, an disingenuous protest that
he is "only responding to a cross-post", and gratuitous slaps at
all his critics.
It is called a "macro" because it can be saved and attached to a
message with a single keystroke. Usually, the content of the
original post is either "snipped" so that only Dr. Chung's diatribe
appears or the words of the original poster are modified to say
something which pleases Dr. Chung. Common decency is not
Dr. Chung's concern here.
When the "Chung macro" appears in a thread, it is a sure sign that
a criticism has struck home and/or Dr. Chung has run out of
arguments or anything intelligent to say. Instead he laboriously
and obsessively attaches the "Chung macro" to each and every
message in the thread. If someone responds to the "Chung macro",
he attaches the macro to the response and so on ad infinitum and
ad nauseam.
This generates considerable anger in the victimized newsgroups to
Dr. Chung's apparent glee. Requests to stop are mocked and
ignored. Eventually, people become sick of it and just stop
responding: Dr. Chung has achieved his objective of shutting down
the now objectionable thread... which was probably initiated by Mu
in the first place.
20. What is "Hissing"?
--------------------------
"Hissing" is Dr. Chung's term for something he doesn't want to hear,
particularly a criticism or a correction of one of his errors. He
frequently inserts it in place of other people's words when he
quotes them but is too lazy or unimaginative to change their words
to his liking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments and/or corrections to this FAQ will be taken under advisement.
liam
contributions to this newsgroup : he has amply proven his
knowledgeability and trustworthiness, and I personally have
nothing but admiration and my thanks for being there when
I needed his comments.
Furthermore I say golly good for him to flaunt his religious
beliefs; as a side effect of his input, it is a small price
to pay.
liam
Stephen Nagler
.................
With all respect, for me this has nothing to do with flaming or for
that matter with somebody flaunting his religious beliefs.
Dr. Chung, this man who you say has demonstrated "knowledgeability and
trustworthiness" and for whom you have "nothing but admiration," lied
to the American Medical Association about his credentials, filed a
false police report against a participant on this newsgroup who asked
him to clarify those credentials, and filed a false report with the
State Medical Board against that same individual - who just happens to
be me. And lest you think this was an isolated case, Dr. Chung has
similarly filed false reports against another individual who disagreed
with him in another state.
Moreover, in terms of knowledgeability, answering questions on a
newsgroup does not demenstrate knowledgeability. Answering questions
*correctly* demenstrates knowledgeability. Now I am not a
cardiologist, but on at least two instances Dr. Chung has incorrectly
answered questions in areas that do cross over into my own realm of
knowledge. So we really do not know how many times he has incorrectly
answered questions in other areas, areas where another MD might not
challenge him.
Liam and all, do not be deceived by Dr. Chung. A pit bull has more
"trustworthiness."
Stephen M. Nagler, M.D.
Stephen Nagler
>similarly filed false reports against another individual who disagreed
>with him in another state.
.............
That individual was also a doctor, a *cardiologist* who disagreed with
some of Dr. Chung's *cardiological* opinions.
smn
Matti Narkia
<c2i2kj$mom$1...@news-reader1.wanadoo.fr> liam <lh...@email.com> wrote:
>Flamers miss the target when they try to undermine Chung's
>contributions to this newsgroup :
The FAQ is no flame, it is highly accurate as anyone who has followed this
ng at least for a few months knows.
--
Matti Narkia
Stephen Nagler
times I used it in the above post. They were errors. Doctors make
them, you know. A very good thing to bear in mind.
smn
liam
O me O my.
Happily, I trust my instinct that this guy is cool.
liaM
liam
Anyone who doesn't wear a self-preservative on the Usenet is risking the
worst kind of infection : people like you who have time to waste writing
articles such as the FAQ, etc. The point is, are you a doctor or
a FAQ writer ? How can you be a doctor and have so much time to waste
on such petty activities.
Even tho' you have a M.D. after your name, my conversations with DR.
Chung make me vastly prefer his brand of doctoring to yours.
liaM
Stephen Nagler
>Anyone who doesn't wear a self-preservative on the Usenet is risking the
>worst kind of infection : people like you who have time to waste writing
>articles such as the FAQ, etc. The point is, are you a doctor or
>a FAQ writer ? How can you be a doctor and have so much time to waste
>on such petty activities.
..............
I didn't write the damned FAQ. I have nothing at all to do with it.
I have no idea who wrote it. I do not post under the nick "Weasel
Chung FAQ" - but as far as I can tell, he or she is pretty much on
target.
..................
>
>Even tho' you have a M.D. after your name, my conversations with DR.
>Chung make me vastly prefer his brand of doctoring to yours.
................
Well, we already have a good idea of your analytical capabilities in
that you somehow divined that I wrote an FAQ I did not write. So
given your laser-like insight, I can readily see why you might reach
the conclusion in the paragraph quoted above. It's your decision
whether or not you follow Dr. Chung's "brand of doctoring." I feel it
my duty to warn you about the potential dangers - and I consider that
done now.
smn
liam
> Well, we already have a good idea of your analytical capabilities in
> that you somehow divined that I wrote an FAQ I did not write. So
> given your laser-like insight, I can readily see why you might reach
> the conclusion in the paragraph quoted above. It's your decision
> whether or not you follow Dr. Chung's "brand of doctoring." I feel it
> my duty to warn you about the potential dangers - and I consider that
> done now.
>
> smn
Thanks for the warning, didn't cost me a dime for once !
In truth.. on the Usenet you can smell warty messages such as the FAQ
and others that emit warnings such as yours a mile away, so why
bother continue to read 'em ? It's a bloody waste of time, yours
and mine.
As far as Chung goes, his answers to my questions have been
corroborated by doctors as far removed as the head of cardiology
at the Hopital Cantonal in Geneva, a doctor who directed one
of Switzerland best cardiac convalescent center, as well as my
general practicioner here in France.
liaM
Matti Narkia
<c2iis8$k3l$1...@news-reader3.wanadoo.fr> liam <lh...@email.com> wrote:
Have you even read the FAQ? I suggest you do; then follow this ng for 3-4
months and read the FAQ again.
--
Matti Narkia
Stephen Nagler
>Thanks for the warning, didn't cost me a dime for once !
.............
When I was in practice (retired now), I simply didn't charge those who
couldn't afford it. That amounted to 18-20% of my practice anually.
I'm not talking about "bad debt" write-off's; I'm talking about a
decision a priori between patient and doctor that the doctor wouldn't
charge. Insurance? The folk I am talking about have no insurance.
There was a hitch, though. See if you can guess what it was - no
cheating, now. It's at the bottom of this post. Anyway, I may be
wrong, but it sems to me that your it "didn't cost me a dime FOR ONCE"
(my caps) might be considered by some readers to be a criticism of the
medical profession. I feel that it is a criticism of *some* elements
of the medical profession, but it is not universal. I have worked
with many doctors who consider it a privilege (not some kind of moral
obligation, but truly a privilege) to treat those who are less
fortunate than others - and to treat them at no charge.
..................
>
>In truth.. on the Usenet you can smell warty messages such as the FAQ
................
The only "warty" FAQ I have read on this newsgroup is the self-serving
one that was written by Dr. Chung. It appears here regularly as a
bot.
The FAQ written by "Weasel?" If Dr. Chung hadn't written his, I am
quite sure that "Weasael" would not have written his response, which
is hardly "warty" in that it admirably serves to correct the
misconceptions and masterfully worded half truths in the Chung FAQ.
It is *not* a bot. It seems to be posted only when the bot appears.
If Dr. Chung shuts off his bot, I wam quite sure that "Weasel" will
stop posting his response.
.................
>and others that emit warnings such as yours a mile away, so why
>bother continue to read 'em ? It's a bloody waste of time, yours
>and mine.
.................
Then I suggest you stop wasting your time immediately. A person who
would purposely do something that he or she feels is a "bloody waste
of time" needs to look into a mirror.
And I further suggest that you stop telling me what *I* should
consider a waste of *my* time. Pretty nervy of you, if you ask me.
Clean your own house, OK?
..................
>
>As far as Chung goes, his answers to my questions have been
>corroborated by doctors as far removed as the head of cardiology
>at the Hopital Cantonal in Geneva, a doctor who directed one
>of Switzerland best cardiac convalescent center, as well as my
>general practicioner here in France.
................
Consider yourself lucky. And while you're at it, try to figure out
why Dr. Chung's last contract was terminated after less than four
months. Because he's a great doc who makes on-target assessments and
sound recommendations - so his cardiological colleagues were jealous
of his superb clinical acumen, and they therefore booted him out of
envy? I guess that's one possibility.
Now ...
What was the hitch? More specifically, if I was going to treat a
patient for free, what must the patient have first agreed to do? See
below ...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Almost there ...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Ok. The biggest danger in a doctor treating a patient for free is the
patient not wanting to "bother" the doctor if something isn't going
just right in the treatment. Therefore, the "hitch" is that the
patients (mine anyway) had to commit to "pretending" they were paying
full fare. My staff treated them no differently than anybody else.
And they had to commit to treating my staff and me similarly. If
something wasn't right, they had to agree to let us know without
hesitation.
What did you think the hitch was? Just curious.
And Liam, may all your health problems be minor ones.
smn
liam
> Have you even read the FAQ? I suggest you do; then follow this ng for 3-4
> months and read the FAQ again.
>
I said : I sniffed at the FAQ and it stank. Why would I want to stick
my nose further in this moralistic nonsense ??
No. My experience with Andrew Chung a year and a half ago, as now,
has been 100% forthwith and of great value to me.
Matti Narkia
<c2j0pr$6lh$1...@news-reader3.wanadoo.fr> liam <lh...@email.com> wrote:
>
>> Have you even read the FAQ? I suggest you do; then follow this ng for 3-4
>> months and read the FAQ again.
>
>I said : I sniffed at the FAQ and it stank. Why would I want to stick
>my nose further in this moralistic nonsense ??
>
for informing us about the general quality of your posting behavior, no need
to go through your posts again.
>No. My experience with Andrew Chung a year and a half ago, as now,
>has been 100% forthwith and of great value to me.
>
That was then. Sadly, during last 6-8 months or so Chung's posting behavior
has deteriorated, although very recently there are some signs about a turn
for the better. You don't have to take my word, just browse this ng's
archives from the last 6 months with google groups search .
--
Matti Narkia
liam
> That was then. Sadly, during last 6-8 months or so Chung's posting behavior
> has deteriorated
could you venture to guess why ? is he only human ?
liam
>
> ... try to figure out
> why Dr. Chung's last contract was terminated after less than four
> months. Because he's a great doc who makes on-target assessments and
> sound recommendations - so his cardiological colleagues were jealous
> of his superb clinical acumen, and they therefore booted him out of
> envy? I guess that's one possibility.
This smells of rotting newsgroup flesh meting out boredom's mettle.
> Now ...
>
> What was the hitch? More specifically, if I was going to treat a
> patient for free, what must the patient have first agreed to do? See
> below ...
I saw no hitch, Dr. Nagler. That's because I wouldn't have dreamt
to treat welfare patients differently than paying ones and I
would have insisted that they get their ass in gear should a treatment
not work, explaining to them that all they need to do is ring
and come in the office. A bookkeeper can take care of the rest, no ?
All this has a tinge of old fashioned puritanism, if you ask me !
Lastly.. Thanks for your wishes for my good health. I wish you
the same, and even better : "retirement" for a doctor might be
a harsh fate, is it ? Was it difficult for you to be 100% in
demand one day and the next no longer in the flow of things;
perhaps then a better fate would be joining something like
"Medecins sans frontiere" and be of use 100% for free ?!!
liaM
Carol T
> Lastly.. Thanks for your wishes for my good health. I wish you
> the same, and even better : "retirement" for a doctor might be
> a harsh fate, is it ? Was it difficult for you to be 100% in
> demand one day and the next no longer in the flow of things;
> perhaps then a better fate would be joining something like
> "Medecins sans frontiere" and be of use 100% for free ?!!
Retirement is a dangerous time regardless of the profession,
especially for men. It does not have to be a harsh fate, but a time
for 'new' things and exploring other avenues. Just because people can
do something through work skills does not mean that they would benefit
others most by continuing with it. We have retirement for a purpose,
sometimes it's even for the safety of others or of ourselves.
This time of the year is a good time for planning garden projects and
catching up. Many men wouldn't see this as a harsh fate, but as a
blessed relief to have the time available to do new things.
Carol T
liam
> This time of the year is a good time for planning garden projects and
> catching up. Many men wouldn't see this as a harsh fate, but as a
> blessed relief to have the time available to do new things.
Amen. Like hunting. Travelling. Taking time off to seduce
charming and willing women who appreciate that we do things
better and longer. And can afford late night oysters and champagne..
laiM
Stephen Nagler
surgery, I do not stay quite busy with a variety of worthwhile
productive endeavors? Or am I simply misreading you?
smn
liam
yep.
liaM