Re: major weight problem - reply to Alan, Old Al, and RK
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
>
> Thanks. I went straight to her page and read it. I actually already do that.
> I test about 4 - 6 times a day and I have a meter that lets me download and chart
> the readings. I even kept up with what I was eating to discuss with my doctor. She said
> I wasn't eating enough. My first doctor told me to eat less. According to him, a person can survive off of 500 calories
> a day. I often eat only 1 or 2 meals a days ... I'm rarely actually hungry.
Your craving COKE **is** hunger.
> Yesterday, the fattiest thing I ate was
> a hamburger. I had that and half of a normal sized NY Strip steak (thick cut) for dinner. Also had 2 serving sizes of
> light hawaiian punch (4g carbs total). I do crave COKE (I'm probably addicted to it). I dont't like Diet COKE
> (the one with Splenda tastes like Pepsi, awful). C2 COKE is ok but it still has major carbs (I have actually
> turned into a label reader). That's why I drink so much water. I consciously keep it around so I will drink
> it instead of a soda.
>
> Someone else suggested aerobic exercise. When I lived in a city, I used to go to the senior citizens (I couldn't
> keep up with my age group) hydroaerobics class and loved it. I can't swim so I stayed in the shallow end. One day I got
> kicked out because my back went out and I to be recused and lifted out on the handicap lift ... they did refund my gym
> membership. I don't mind walking. Where I live now it's usually too cold to walk and because it's rural I have to walk
> in the street (on curvy mountain roads) or in a ditch. I know it is not enough but every couple of weeks I go to a real
> city and I walk for hours. This is actually against doctor's advice. I've torn my left ankle apart 4 times and I've
> had to have foot surgery to remove a dead nerve. I hurt my foot walking. Right now my main exercise is heavy
> duty housework once a week (I got rid of the maid).
>
> I'm type II but I kind of think I may be type I. When I was 17, my doctor told me I was borderline. Coming from a family
> of diabetics, I knew when I crossed that border but despite my daddy pushing, I didn't go to the doctor. About 2 years after
> "crossing over", I actually went to the doctor complaining of a symptom I didn't know was diabetic related. That's when they
> caught it. The endocrinologist I went to see tried to hospitalize me (I tested 700). I felt fine and I refused. I did start
> orals that day. For years, I refused insulin ... major needle issues (childhood trauma thing) and seeing my daddy go into
> insulin shock once didn't help. I ended up hospitalized 2 years ago for the flu and tachycardia. I didn't know they put
> me on insulin for a couple of days. After that I've kept it up. I still have major needle issues and
> probably always will ... anti-depressants have helped some.
>
> Somone suggest rechecking the thyroid. I will. The reason I had it checked was because I have been on thyroid pills twice
> before for low thyroid. Once at 13 and once at about 22. Since then, I keep testing fine. I'm tired alot (not sleepy or
> depressed) but I try to make myself be active ... yesterday I moved mattresses to clean under beds.
>
> I'm way too much of a girl to change my priorities. I don't feel pretty looking like a cow and I hate it. On the bright
> side, I know that losing weight will help my blood sugar issues but I'm putting the weight loss first.
>
> I bought Tae Bo a yard sale. I tried once before but speed and coordination is not me. I'm going to try it again. I'm
> thinking about going on full Atkins. I haven't because one doctor said it was bad for women and the endocrinologist said it
> would be bad for my kidneys. I don't have the patience for 1 pound a week and I think the doc Al mentioned is right ...
> the weight loss outweighs the risks. I really want children and one of the reasons I have put it off is because I know
> that uncontrolled blood sugars can cause serious birth defects (I researched it). Losing weight will help with the control
> and definitely improve my mental outlook. I getting too old to wait much longer.
>
> PS. to Al - I didn't know about the Actos. I was taking it along with the Avandia.
Would suggest you inform your doctor(s) that you have been prescribed
medications from the same class.
In Christ's love and service,
Andrew
--
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
**
Suggested Reading:
(1) http://makeashorterlink.com/?G1D5217EA
(2) http://makeashorterlink.com/?W13A4250B
(3) http://makeashorterlink.com/?X1C62661A
(4) http://makeashorterlink.com/?U1E13130A
(5) http://makeashorterlink.com/?K6F72510A
(6) http://makeashorterlink.com/?I24E5151A
(7) http://makeashorterlink.com/?I22222129
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
>
> Let me say up front that I know I was not meant to be thin; however, I need to and want to lose weight.
> I would be happy to see 132 lbs (i'm 5'2"). That was my lowest adult weight. I was doing great at one point ... I had
> gotten down to 155 lbs. Then came Avandia. My blood sugars were great but I gained 40 pounds in about 7 months. Also started
> to lose hair and nails got brittle. My doctor said it was my imagination. I finally refused to take the medicine anymore and I
> eventually got rid of the doctor. Before anyone bashes me for doing this and says my health is more important, I am a single female. I think not looking
> like a cow is more important and it definitely helps my mental health. Since Avandia got me off track, I have slowly
> gained even more weight. Yes, I love carbs, but I have limited myself to a lot less carbs than I was eating before
> the Avandia. This tactic put 5 more pounds on me. I drink a lot of water each day ... I think it is causing the
> bloating and swelling in my legs. I'm an admitted couch potato but I did try going to the gym ... all I got from it
> was tachycardia (yep, I tried different exercises and routines). I recently tried Xenical. My new doc warned me about all of
> the side effects from having high fat meals. I didn't have those problems because I try not to eat too much fat anyway.
> The problem I did have was with my stomach. I had to stop taking the Xenical. Went to an endocrinologist. Was tested
> for everything. Thyroid, etc. ok. I'm taking Lantus, Humalog, and Glucophage XR. My blood sugars are getting better but are
> not under control. I did weight watchers, without cheating (unusual for me), and lost one pound in one month. I hate milkshakes
> so please don't suggest anything like optifast, etc. With a slightly modified Atkins, I lost 4 pounds in a month.
> I did slightly modified because the endocrinologist told me that regular Atkins would not be good for me.
>
> I'm open to suggestions. HELP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Would suggest you have your doctor supervise your use of the diabetic
2PD-OMER Approach:
http://www.HeartMDPhD.com/wtloss.asp
http://www.HeartMDPhD.com/press.asp
http://www.acius.net
(look up past event: Our Premier Conference on…WOMEN’S HEART HEALTH)
Alternatively, you may hear me speak publicly here:
Jeff
"Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <and...@heartmdphd.com> wrote in message
news:42B5518B...@heartmdphd.com...
(...)
> Would suggest you have your doctor supervise your use of the diabetic
> 2PD-OMER Approach:
Instead, i would suggest that you talk with your doctor establishing a
healthy diet for yourself and increasing excercise. Unfortunately, the
2PD-OMER Approach has not been shown to be safe or effective in any
published trial nor does it include excercise.
Jeff
RK
"Jeff" <kidsd...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:zPgte.8103$VK4...@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
which says a lot of his medical ability.
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
>
> "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <and...@heartmdphd.com> wrote in message
> news:42B5518B...@heartmdphd.com...
> (...)
>
> > Would suggest you have your doctor supervise your use of the diabetic
> > 2PD-OMER Approach:
>
> Instead, i would suggest that you talk with your doctor establishing a
> healthy diet for yourself and increasing excercise.
It remains controversial whether "healthy" diets and increased exercise
actually help people to achieve permanent weight loss.
In my experience in patient care, "eating right and exercising" improves
health, thereby increasing that healthy appetite (AKA hunger):
http://makeashorterlink.com/?T2921205B
... compelling those who fear hunger to eat more resulting in more
weight gain.
This again leads back to the need for the 2PD-OMER Approach as described
here:
http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtloss.asp
Jeff
> Jeff wrote:
>>
>> "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <and...@heartmdphd.com> wrote in message
>> news:42B5518B...@heartmdphd.com...
>> (...)
>>
>> > Would suggest you have your doctor supervise your use of the diabetic
>> > 2PD-OMER Approach:
>>
>> Instead, i would suggest that you talk with your doctor establishing a
>> healthy diet for yourself and increasing excercise.
>
> It remains controversial whether "healthy" diets and increased exercise
> actually help people to achieve permanent weight loss.
Actually, if people stick with a diet and excercise, they do result in
permanent weight loss.
(...)
> This again leads back to the need for the 2PD-OMER Approach as described
> here:
>
> http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtloss.asp
What peer-reviewed studies show that people are able to stick with this
approach?
Jeff
John
wrote:
>
>"Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <and...@heartmdphd.com> wrote in message
>news:42BA8D12...@heartmdphd.com...
>> Jeff wrote:
>>>
>>> "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <and...@heartmdphd.com> wrote in message
>>> news:42B5518B...@heartmdphd.com...
>>> (...)
>>>
>>> > Would suggest you have your doctor supervise your use of the diabetic
>>> > 2PD-OMER Approach:
>>>
>>> Instead, i would suggest that you talk with your doctor establishing a
>>> healthy diet for yourself and increasing excercise.
>>
>> It remains controversial whether "healthy" diets and increased exercise
>> actually help people to achieve permanent weight loss.
>
>Actually, if people stick with a diet and excercise, they do result in
>permanent weight loss.
>
>(...)
>
>> This again leads back to the need for the 2PD-OMER Approach as described
>> here:
>>
>> http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtloss.asp
>
>What peer-reviewed studies show that people are able to stick with this
>approach?
Yesterday I went to my cardiologist for a stress/echo test. Last week
I had gone to the lab and had blood drawn for a look at the lipids.
Results: treadmill - 10 1/2 minutes w/hr up to 150 - excellent
exercise tolerance;
echo - nothing remarkable
Total - 180
LDL - 119
HDL - 54
What's interesting is that one year ago, I could only get to about
hr135 and Total cholesterol was around 260. My BMI was 29.5 - now
it's 24.5. Sounds like another win for Lipitor -- except that I've
never taken any kind of statin. All I've done is to work the 2PD-OMER
approach for the last year or so. Oh, but wait, that can't work
because it has not been peer reviewed. Must have been something else?
A miracle? Yes, definitely.
John
Ernst Primer
John wrote:
> Oh, but wait, that can't work
> because it has not been peer reviewed.
Just because a method or approach hasn't been subjected to rigorous
study doesn't mean it "can't work," it just means that you have no
basis for believing that it worked other than a person's claim to
authority (e.g., Chung).
Likewise, no one else has a basis for believing this approach works
aside from said claim to authority (in addition to your testimonial).
If you lost weight, great.
I hear lots of people lose weight on pills and such advertised on AM
radio as well. They have as much evidence to back them up as Chung's
diet - er - approach.
I've lost weight too. Atkins.
Bob (this one)
> "Jeff" <kidsd...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>"Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <and...@heartmdphd.com> wrote
>>
>>>Jeff wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <and...@heartmdphd.com> wrote
>>>>
>>>>>Would suggest you have your doctor supervise your use of the diabetic
>>>>>2PD-OMER Approach:
>>>>
>>>>Instead, i would suggest that you talk with your doctor establishing a
>>>>healthy diet for yourself and increasing excercise.
>>>
>>>It remains controversial whether "healthy" diets and increased exercise
>>>actually help people to achieve permanent weight loss.
>>
>>Actually, if people stick with a diet and excercise, they do result in
>>permanent weight loss.
>>
>>>This again leads back to the need for the 2PD-OMER Approach as described
>>>here:
>>>
>>>http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtloss.asp
>>
>>What peer-reviewed studies show that people are able to stick with this
>>approach?
>
> Yesterday I went to my cardiologist for a stress/echo test. Last week
> I had gone to the lab and had blood drawn for a look at the lipids.
> Results: treadmill - 10 1/2 minutes w/hr up to 150 - excellent
> exercise tolerance;
> echo - nothing remarkable
> Total - 180
> LDL - 119
> HDL - 54
>
> What's interesting is that one year ago, I could only get to about
> hr135 and Total cholesterol was around 260. My BMI was 29.5 - now
> it's 24.5. Sounds like another win for Lipitor -- except that I've
> never taken any kind of statin. All I've done is to work the 2PD-OMER
> approach for the last year or so. Oh, but wait, that can't work
> because it has not been peer reviewed. Must have been something else?
> A miracle? Yes, definitely.
>
> John
<LOL> How many logical fallacies has our dear "John" perpetrated today?
Oh, let's let him off the hook band just cite two of the most egregious.
Non sequitur. Post hoc, propter hoc.
For "John" the mysterious "engineer" and Chungish apologist, "absolute
proof" is the plural of "anecdote." Say *anything* twice and it
magically transforms itself into irrefutable fact.
I bet in that stat course you had to take, "John" they taught you that
for condition n=1, there can be no principles extracted. Forget that
part...?
No, seriously...
Pastorio
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Excellent :-)
> Sounds like another win for Lipitor -- except that I've
> never taken any kind of statin. All I've done is to work the 2PD-OMER
> approach for the last year or so.
Your experience is in line with the more than 625,550 people who have
had more than 5 years experience with the 2PD-OMER Approach which I have
publicly described:
http://www.HeartMDPhD.com/press.asp
> Oh, but wait, that can't work
> because it has not been peer reviewed.
Actually, it has been peer reviewed countless times. The effectiveness
of the 2PD-OMER Approach arises from the truth and the freedom that the
truth brings to those discern it. The effectiveness does **not** arise
from the peer review.
> Must have been something else?
Yes.
> A miracle? Yes, definitely.
"Truth is unfathomable by the untruthful."
Jeff
"John" <john9...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1prmb1dp91s4016su...@4ax.com...
No. Simple science. You ate fewer calories than you used up. That resulted
in weight loss.
Excellent for you.
However, I have never said that the 2-PD Omer appraoch does not work.
However, we don't know how well people stay on the approach nor any unwanted
effects of the diet.
jeff
Nico Kadel-Garcia
"Ernst Primer" <dr_ernie...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:1119585621.8...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> John wrote:
>
>> Oh, but wait, that can't work
>> because it has not been peer reviewed.
>
> Just because a method or approach hasn't been subjected to rigorous
> study doesn't mean it "can't work," it just means that you have no
> basis for believing that it worked other than a person's claim to
> authority (e.g., Chung).
That's a logical fallacy. That a specific other line of evidence (direct
observation in a reputable study) does not mean that other lines of evidence
do not exist (such as anecdote or experience with related approaches
revealing similar approaches as butt-stupid).
> Likewise, no one else has a basis for believing this approach works
> aside from said claim to authority (in addition to your testimonial).
See above. Chung's silliness is a suffiiciently obvious rephraisng of
another more basic principle (namely eating less) that it and he deserve
quite a lot of scorn.
Jeff
(...)
> Your experience is in line with the more than 625,550 people who have
> had more than 5 years experience with the 2PD-OMER Approach which I have
> publicly described:
what about all the people who started the approach and decided it was not
for them? Did you hear back from each of them? what about all the people who
started the approach and had a heart attack? did you hear back from them?
How did you decided that 2-lbs is the right amount? WHy not 1.5 lbs for
short people, 2 lbs for aveage people and 2.5 lbs for tall people? What if
they are more active? What if they are couch potatoes?
Putting out a press release is not the same as writing a peer-reviewed
article. Perhaps you should work with that hospital of yours where you have
admitting priveledges,
>
> http://www.HeartMDPhD.com/press.asp
>
>> Oh, but wait, that can't work
>> because it has not been peer reviewed.
>
> Actually, it has been peer reviewed countless times.
Excellent. Please send us the links.
> The effectiveness
> of the 2PD-OMER Approach arises from the truth and the freedom that the
> truth brings to those discern it. The effectiveness does **not** arise
> from the peer review.
I totally agree. But the truth is that you said it is peer-reviewed. Please
show us the links.
And the way that you spread the truth in science is through publishing in
peer-reviewed journals.
>
>> Must have been something else?
>
> Yes.
>
>> A miracle? Yes, definitely.
>
> "Truth is unfathomable by the untruthful."
What miracle? The guy ate fewer calories than he used.
Jeff
Ernst Primer
Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
> "Ernst Primer" <dr_ernie...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
> news:1119585621.8...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> >
> > John wrote:
> >
> >> Oh, but wait, that can't work
> >> because it has not been peer reviewed.
> >
> > Just because a method or approach hasn't been subjected to rigorous
> > study doesn't mean it "can't work," it just means that you have no
> > basis for believing that it worked other than a person's claim to
> > authority (e.g., Chung).
>
> That's a logical fallacy. That a specific other line of evidence (direct
> observation in a reputable study) does not mean that other lines of evidence
> do not exist (such as anecdote or experience with related approaches
> revealing similar approaches as butt-stupid).
Well, I did point out that this poster is providing an anecdote. I
will concede that I didn't exhaustively specify the other lines of
evidence that may or may not indicate Chung's "approach" works.
Basically, all Chung has has claim to authority, and perhaps some
anecdotes/testimonials. About what you'd get to back up the nostrums
and diets advertised on AM radio.
>
> > Likewise, no one else has a basis for believing this approach works
> > aside from said claim to authority (in addition to your testimonial).
>
> See above. Chung's silliness is a suffiiciently obvious rephraisng of
> another more basic principle (namely eating less) that it and he deserve
> quite a lot of scorn.
Eat less, excercise more. That's not really an approach. Its just a
basic principle of weight loss.
John
wrote:
Jeff, I'm just trying to use a little humor but I guess it's too
subtle. The miracle refers to two things: the significant reduction
in cholesterol without medication or even change in diet (except for
amount); and the significant loss of weight (and keeping it off) even
though YOU say it can't work. Yep, it's anecdotal but since I'm the
person that benefited, why should I care what the 'peers' think.
John
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
>
> "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <and...@heartmdphd.com> wrote in message
> news:42BBE199...@heartmdphd.com...
> (...)
>
> > Your experience is in line with the more than 625,550 people who have
> > had more than 5 years experience with the 2PD-OMER Approach which I have
> > publicly described:
>
> what about all the people who started the approach and decided it was not
> for them?
Those who start don't stop.
The best analogy is riding a bike. Folks who learn, never forget.
> Did you hear back from each of them?
Yes.
> what about all the people who
> started the approach and had a heart attack?
None have.
> did you hear back from them?
None have had heart attacks.
> How did you decided that 2-lbs is the right amount?
It is neither my decision nor my design.
It is the Lord's design (Genesis) then and now. Revealed in the past
(Exodus 16:16) and now as described at
http://www.HeartMDPhD.com/wtloss.asp
> WHy not 1.5 lbs for
> short people, 2 lbs for aveage people and 2.5 lbs for tall people?
The Lord likes to keep things simple for He is the truth.
> What if
> they are more active?
The gut will extract more out of the food passing through the gut.
> What if they are couch potatoes?
The gut will extract less out of the food passing through the gut.
> Putting out a press release is not the same as writing a peer-reviewed
> article.
It terms of putting your reputation on the line, there is no difference
actually.
> Perhaps you should work with that hospital of yours where you have
> admitting priveledges,
The study is already completed. The help of hospitals would serve no
purpose then and now. Hospitalization is not necessary for using the
2PD-OMER Approach.
> > http://www.HeartMDPhD.com/press.asp
> >
> >> Oh, but wait, that can't work
> >> because it has not been peer reviewed.
> >
> > Actually, it has been peer reviewed countless times.
>
> Excellent. Please send us the links.
You will have to wait. Sorry.
> > The effectiveness
> > of the 2PD-OMER Approach arises from the truth and the freedom that the
> > truth brings to those discern it. The effectiveness does **not** arise
> > from the peer review.
>
> I totally agree. But the truth is that you said it is peer-reviewed.
It has been reviewed by my peers countless times. Recall that using the
2PD-OMER Approach requires physician supervision. These physicians are
all my peers.
> Please
> show us the links.
You will have to wait. Again, sorry.
> And the way that you spread the truth in science is through publishing in
> peer-reviewed journals.
Actually, science is the search for truth and not the spread of it.
> >
> >> Must have been something else?
> >
> > Yes.
> >
> >> A miracle? Yes, definitely.
> >
> > "Truth is unfathomable by the untruthful."
>
> What miracle? The guy ate fewer calories than he used.
"Truth is unfathomable by the untruthful."
Jeff
> Jeff wrote:
>>
>> "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <and...@heartmdphd.com> wrote in message
>> news:42BBE199...@heartmdphd.com...
>> (...)
>>
>> > Your experience is in line with the more than 625,550 people who have
>> > had more than 5 years experience with the 2PD-OMER Approach which I
>> > have
>> > publicly described:
>>
>> what about all the people who started the approach and decided it was not
>> for them?
>
> Those who start don't stop.
>
> The best analogy is riding a bike. Folks who learn, never forget.
I would like to see the peer-reviewed studies supporting your claims.
>> Did you hear back from each of them?
>
> Yes.
How do you know that you heard back from each of the 625,550 people? How
many people do you have working on your database? What organization are you
working with to do the study? Who is funding it?
>> what about all the people who
>> started the approach and had a heart attack?
>
> None have.
I find this really hard to believe, considering the rate of heat attacks
overall. Again, I would like to see the peer-reviewed paper.
>> did you hear back from them?
>
> None have had heart attacks.
>
>> How did you decided that 2-lbs is the right amount?
>
> It is neither my decision nor my design.
>
> It is the Lord's design (Genesis) then and now. Revealed in the past
> (Exodus 16:16) and now as described at
> http://www.HeartMDPhD.com/wtloss.asp
>
>> WHy not 1.5 lbs for
>> short people, 2 lbs for aveage people and 2.5 lbs for tall people?
> The Lord likes to keep things simple for He is the truth.
Unless you can show that the Bible is a scientifically valid book, that the
Bible described the Omer as two pounds (which seems quite unlikely,
considering that pound was not around at the time as a unit of measure), and
the Bible meant that is the normal diet of people, and it should not be
adjust for different activity levels, you are in the wrong newsgroup.
Considering that the Bible dates the universe at 6,000 or so years and the
science dates the universe at billions of years, the Bible is not a
scientifically valid book.
So, for you to support you guess in a scientifically valid way, you have to
prove scientifically that 2-pounds is the correct amount for everyone.
>> What if
>> they are more active?
>
> The gut will extract more out of the food passing through the gut.
I am afraid this is incorrect. The amount of energy extracted from food does
not vary much according to the activity level of people. If I am incorrect
that in not beleiving "The gut will extract more out of the food passing
throuh the gut," please provide evidence that I am incorrect.
>> What if they are couch potatoes?
>
> The gut will extract less out of the food passing through the gut.
Again, please provide peer-reviewed evidence to back your claim.
>> Putting out a press release is not the same as writing a peer-reviewed
>> article.
>
> It terms of putting your reputation on the line, there is no difference
> actually.
Really? A peer-reviewed article is reviwed by experts in the field as having
passed scientific muster. A press released has not passed any scientific
muster.
>> Perhaps you should work with that hospital of yours where you have
>> admitting priveledges,
> The study is already completed. The help of hospitals would serve no
> purpose then and now. Hospitalization is not necessary for using the
> 2PD-OMER Approach.
However, funding and appropriate oversite is necessary for any good study.
>> > http://www.HeartMDPhD.com/press.asp
>> >
>> >> Oh, but wait, that can't work
>> >> because it has not been peer reviewed.
>> >
>> > Actually, it has been peer reviewed countless times.
>>
>> Excellent. Please send us the links.
>
> You will have to wait. Sorry.
In other words, your study is not peer-reviewed.
>> > The effectiveness
>> > of the 2PD-OMER Approach arises from the truth and the freedom that the
>> > truth brings to those discern it. The effectiveness does **not** arise
>> > from the peer review.
>>
>> I totally agree. But the truth is that you said it is peer-reviewed.
>
> It has been reviewed by my peers countless times.
Could you please provide us with some details? Was it reviewed when it was
funded? When it was reviewed by the appropriate institutional committees?
What was reviewed? Your web page? The results of the research project?
> Recall that using the
> 2PD-OMER Approach requires physician supervision. These physicians are
> all my peers.
If the 2PD-OMER Approach is dictated by the Bible, why does it require
physician supervision?
I have to say, I think you are quite mistaken if you believe supervision of
a patient on the approach is the same as peer-review.
>> Please
>> show us the links.
>
> You will have to wait. Again, sorry.
Yes, you are very sorry.
>> And the way that you spread the truth in science is through publishing in
>> peer-reviewed journals.
>
> Actually, science is the search for truth and not the spread of it.
While you are correct that science is the search for the truth, a very
important part of that is sharing one's findings with others. If scientists
didn't share information, science would be unable to advance.
>> >
>> >> Must have been something else?
>> >
>> > Yes.
>> >
>> >> A miracle? Yes, definitely.
>> >
>> > "Truth is unfathomable by the untruthful."
>>
>> What miracle? The guy ate fewer calories than he used.
>
> "Truth is unfathomable by the untruthful."
Are you calling me a liar? If you think I am a liar, please show where I
lied.
Jeff
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
<snip>
> > Those who start don't stop.
> >
> > The best analogy is riding a bike. Folks who learn, never forget.
>
> I would like to see the peer-reviewed studies supporting your claims.
There are undoubtably many things you would like to have that you will
receive in time before you die and many you won't.
> >> Did you hear back from each of them?
> >
> > Yes.
>
> How do you know that you heard back from each of the 625,550 people?
The same way I know that I have heard back from you.
> How many people do you have working on your database?
Enough.
> What organization are you working with to do the study?
You will have to wait. Sorry.
> Who is funding it?
You will have to wait. Again, sorry.
> >> what about all the people who
> >> started the approach and had a heart attack?
> >
> > None have.
>
> I find this really hard to believe, considering the rate of heat attacks
> overall.
Then you will have to believe it to be a miracle.
> Again, I would like to see the peer-reviewed paper.
Again, there are undoubtably many things you would like to have that you
will receive in time before you die and many you won't.
> >> did you hear back from them?
> >
> > None have had heart attacks.
> >
> >> How did you decided that 2-lbs is the right amount?
> >
> > It is neither my decision nor my design.
> >
> > It is the Lord's design (Genesis) then and now. Revealed in the past
> > (Exodus 16:16) and now as described at
> > http://www.HeartMDPhD.com/wtloss.asp
> >
> >> WHy not 1.5 lbs for
> >> short people, 2 lbs for aveage people and 2.5 lbs for tall people?
> > The Lord likes to keep things simple for He is the truth.
>
> Unless you can show that the Bible is a scientifically valid book,
Only God can give you His ability to discern the truth. Without this
ability, no truth can be shown to you.
> that the
> Bible described the Omer as two pounds (which seems quite unlikely,
> considering that pound was not around at the time as a unit of measure),
Through the Bible, the Lord has revealed that one amount of food (omer
of manna) was enough for all without regard to whether they are tall or
short, active or not.
> and
> the Bible meant that is the normal diet of people,
The diet consisted of manna and the prescribed amount for all was an
omer.
> and it should not be
> adjust for different activity levels, you are in the wrong newsgroup.
While I remain a cardiologist discussing issues related to
cardiovascular disease, I remain in the right newsgroup. Methods of
curing the obesity epidemic remain germane to the topic of
cardiovascular disease.
> Considering that the Bible dates the universe at 6,000 or so years and the
> science dates the universe at billions of years, the Bible is not a
> scientifically valid book.
In truth, there are no dates in the Bible.
> So, for you to support you guess in a scientifically valid way, you have to
> prove scientifically that 2-pounds is the correct amount for everyone.
That has been empirically achieved with the 5 year experiences of more
than 625,550 people.
> >> What if
> >> they are more active?
> >
> > The gut will extract more out of the food passing through the gut.
>
> I am afraid
Yes you are.
> this is incorrect.
It remains my choice to continue to write truthfully.
> The amount of energy extracted from food does
> not vary much according to the activity level of people. If I am incorrect
> that in not beleiving "The gut will extract more out of the food passing
> throuh the gut," please provide evidence that I am incorrect.
Here you go:
http://makeashorterlink.com/?W2196235B
Jeff
I have never, ever said it can't work.
I do question whether or not most people who start the approach stay on the
approach, though. Unfortunately, there are no published figures to back up
Chung's claims.
> Yep, it's anecdotal but since I'm the
> person that benefited, why should I care what the 'peers' think.
I am glad you benefited. And even if you do care what the peers think, you
will have a lot longer to ponder this.
Jeff
Jeff
> Jeff wrote:
>>
>> "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <and...@heartmdphd.com> wrote in message
>> news:42BC4459...@heartmdphd.com...
>
> <snip>
>
>> > Those who start don't stop.
>> >
>> > The best analogy is riding a bike. Folks who learn, never forget.
>>
>> I would like to see the peer-reviewed studies supporting your claims.
>
> There are undoubtably many things you would like to have that you will
> receive in time before you die and many you won't.
Stephen Jay Gould wrote that extraordinary claims require extraordinary
evidence. I believe that your claim that everyone who start the approach
stays on and no one ever leaves is quite extraordinary. Your Biblical
inspiration for this approach leads me question your objectivity, as well as
your lack of acceptance of the truth of evolution.
You claim that there were 600,000+ users of this approach, and each and
every one of them stayed on the diet is extraordinary. And not one had a
heart attack after. I quite surprised, considering that there are many other
factors that can cause a heart attack. Again, extraordinary claims require
extraordinary evidence.
Considering the complexities of tracking 600,000+ people and the lack of any
apparent outside support (peoplewise and money wise), I question your
ability to even have valid data on this. I don't believe that you have
academic affiliation. And you stopped a study when Emory was made aware that
you were using the URL for an internet study. And, internet studies have all
sorts of issues about self-selection and data validity, as well. And there
are very few people who have the medical, statistical, computer backgrounds
to pull off a study like this without collaboration. And, personally, I
think only a fool would think that he could do it alone or attempt to do it
alone.
>> >> Did you hear back from each of them?
>> >
>> > Yes.
>>
>> How do you know that you heard back from each of the 625,550 people?
>
> The same way I know that I have heard back from you.
>> How many people do you have working on your database?
>
> Enough.
Again, enough is not good enough, at least for a scientist.
>> What organization are you working with to do the study?
>
> You will have to wait. Sorry.
yes, your claim is sorry.
>> Who is funding it?
>
> You will have to wait. Again, sorry.
Again, your claim is sorry.
>> >> what about all the people who
>> >> started the approach and had a heart attack?
>> >
>> > None have.
>>
>> I find this really hard to believe, considering the rate of heat attacks
>> overall.
>
> Then you will have to believe it to be a miracle.
No, I will not have to believe it to be a miracle. You see, scientists are
trained to require evidence before believing something. I have outlined,
above, why I feel that your claims require extraordinary evidence. You have
yet to provide it.
>> Again, I would like to see the peer-reviewed paper.
>
> Again, there are undoubtably many things you would like to have that you
> will receive in time before you die and many you won't.
And you have completely failed to back your claims. They have no scientiic
validity at all.
>> >> did you hear back from them?
>> >
>> > None have had heart attacks.
>> >
>> >> How did you decided that 2-lbs is the right amount?
>> >
>> > It is neither my decision nor my design.
>> >
>> > It is the Lord's design (Genesis) then and now. Revealed in the past
>> > (Exodus 16:16) and now as described at
>> > http://www.HeartMDPhD.com/wtloss.asp
>> >
>> >> WHy not 1.5 lbs for
>> >> short people, 2 lbs for aveage people and 2.5 lbs for tall people?
>> > The Lord likes to keep things simple for He is the truth.
>>
>> Unless you can show that the Bible is a scientifically valid book,
>
> Only God can give you His ability to discern the truth. Without this
> ability, no truth can be shown to you.
Wrong answer. Science is about what can be tested. If the Bible can't be
tested, it is not a reliable book in this realm.
>> that the
>> Bible described the Omer as two pounds (which seems quite unlikely,
>> considering that pound was not around at the time as a unit of measure),
>
> Through the Bible, the Lord has revealed that one amount of food (omer
> of manna) was enough for all without regard to whether they are tall or
> short, active or not.
Again, if you can't test this, it is totally irrelevent to any scientific
discussion.
>> and
>> the Bible meant that is the normal diet of people,
>
> The diet consisted of manna and the prescribed amount for all was an
> omer.
Again, if you can't test this, it is totally irrelevent to any scientific
discussion.
>> and it should not be
>> adjust for different activity levels, you are in the wrong newsgroup.
>
> While I remain a cardiologist discussing issues related to
> cardiovascular disease, I remain in the right newsgroup. Methods of
> curing the obesity epidemic remain germane to the topic of
> cardiovascular disease.
Diet and excercise are relevant. A reduced-calorie diet is relevent. A valid
study of your approach, regardless of its inspiration, is relevent. However,
your claims for the approach are not relevent.
>> Considering that the Bible dates the universe at 6,000 or so years and
>> the
>> science dates the universe at billions of years, the Bible is not a
>> scientifically valid book.
>
> In truth, there are no dates in the Bible.
Yes, But Bishop Usher determined an exact time of creation. Based on
historical information contained in the Bible, there is an upper limit for
the age of the universe. Any age above this is not consistant with the
Bible.
>> So, for you to support you guess in a scientifically valid way, you have
>> to
>> prove scientifically that 2-pounds is the correct amount for everyone.
>
> That has been empirically achieved with the 5 year experiences of more
> than 625,550 people.
But the results have not been made available to scientists and physicians in
the peer-reviewed literature or another approiate manor.
>> >> What if
>> >> they are more active?
>> >
>> > The gut will extract more out of the food passing through the gut.
>>
>> I am afraid
>
> Yes you are.
I am not.
>> this is incorrect.
Interesting how you break up my sentence to change the meaning of what I
say.
> It remains my choice to continue to write truthfully.
I have shown, above, that you do try to decieve. That is not being
truthful.
Your version of "truth" does not represent reality, IMHO.
>> The amount of energy extracted from food does
>> not vary much according to the activity level of people. If I am
>> incorrect
>> that in not beleiving "The gut will extract more out of the food passing
>> throuh the gut," please provide evidence that I am incorrect.
>
> Here you go:
>
> http://makeashorterlink.com/?W2196235B
Although this shows is that the absorbtion of glucose is higher during a
particular phase of digestion after a praticular phase of excercise. It
does not address the issue of whether or not the total of glucose absorbed
changed during the entire digestion or even if this is relevent to normal
human physiology, because normal dog diets don't include intraduodenal
glucose infusion.
In fact, you made the claim that "the gut will extract less out of the food
passing through the gut." I asked to back this claim. Instead, you deleted
your claim and my request and failed to show (like with <snip>) that you
deleted this part of the post. This seems somewhat intelelctually dishonest
of you.
You also snipped out the part requesting info about how your study has been
reviwed by peers countless times and failed to address how a physician
suppervising someone on your approach is the same as peer-review.
Your intellectual honesty is, again, called into question.
You said that: "Truth is unfathomable by the untruthful." I asked if you are
calling me a liar, if so, to show where I have lied.
I see you are ducking these questions.
Those who are interested, may wish to follow to see the thread here:
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.support.diabetes/browse_frm/thread/9c12d5e003075bb3/77d1cfe538207926?q=group:sci.med.cardiology+author:jeff&rnum=8&hl=en#77d1cfe538207926
Jeff
b...@cs.toronto.no-uce.edu
Jeff <kidsd...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>"Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <and...@heartmdphd.com> wrote in message
>
>You claim that there were 600,000+ users of this approach, and each and
>every one of them stayed on the diet is extraordinary. And not one had a
>heart attack after. I quite surprised, considering that there are many other
>factors that can cause a heart attack. Again, extraordinary claims require
>extraordinary evidence.
>
>Considering the complexities of tracking 600,000+ people and the lack of any
>apparent outside support (peoplewise and money wise), I question your
>ability to even have valid data on this. I don't believe that you have
>academic affiliation. And you stopped a study when Emory was made aware that
>you were using the URL for an internet study. And, internet studies have all
>sorts of issues about self-selection and data validity, as well. And there
>are very few people who have the medical, statistical, computer backgrounds
>to pull off a study like this without collaboration. And, personally, I
>think only a fool would think that he could do it alone or attempt to do it
>alone.
Note that 625,500 cases over five years means that if the researcher spends
24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year, never eating, sleeping or
posting to Usenet, he can spend on average 4 minutes evaluating and recording
the information for each case.
>>> >> Did you hear back from each of them?
>>> >
>>> > Yes.
>>>
>>> How do you know that you heard back from each of the 625,550 people?
>>
>> The same way I know that I have heard back from you.
See above calculation.
Hm. Maybe his alter ego used a spam program to generate 625,500 bogus
reports automatically, and sent them in. Since they all can have the
same format, they should be easy to auto-analyze, especially since every
one of them said the same thing.
>>> that the
>>> Bible described the Omer as two pounds (which seems quite unlikely,
>>> considering that pound was not around at the time as a unit of measure),
>>
>> Through the Bible, the Lord has revealed that one amount of food (omer
>> of manna) was enough for all without regard to whether they are tall or
>> short, active or not.
A Biblical scholar and philologist posted here that an omer is a volume
(not weight) measure of barley flour, and was more like 2 kilograms of
barley flour than 2 pounds. Chung apparently believes that the Bible
was written in English, or perhaps that the Bible means whatever he
says it means.
>Again, if you can't test this, it is totally irrelevent to any scientific
>discussion.
And it's bogus even in a discussion of the Bible.
>>> and
>>> the Bible meant that is the normal diet of people,
>>
>> The diet consisted of manna and the prescribed amount for all was an
>> omer.
But Chung isn't prescribing an omer of manna, he's prescribing two pounds
of whatever you want to eat, regardless of its caloric or nutritional
content.
What's more, he's not prescribing an omer at all, since the omer is a
volume measure, and food varies in density so the same volume will have
different weights. An omer of potato chips or spinach will weigh a great
deal less than two pounds, and an omer of milk or lard will weigh
considerably more.
IIRC, people went out with baskets to gather their daily ration of
manna, not scales, so we see more Biblical bogosity from Chung.
>>> So, for you to support you guess in a scientifically valid way, you have
>>> to
>>> prove scientifically that 2-pounds is the correct amount for everyone.
>>
>> That has been empirically achieved with the 5 year experiences of more
>> than 625,550 people.
>
>But the results have not been made available to scientists and physicians in
>the peer-reviewed literature or another approiate manor.
Proof by bald assertion, Jeff.
>>> >> What if
>>> >> they are more active?
>>> >
>>> > The gut will extract more out of the food passing through the gut.
Even if it's two pounds of celery, and the person is cycling in the
Tour de France.
Ditto his claim that the gut will only extract enough for the body's
daily needs even if it's two pounds of canola oil (+8000 Cal).
Evidence is no doubt that nobody ever stores fat because obesity is
impossible. Any surplus to current needs never leaves the gut except
through the anus, as long as they never eat more than two pounds, even
if the person is a four foot tall quadriplegic subsisting on
cheesecake.
Jeff, unless you're enjoying this, I recommend you give up. You'll
never get Chung to change his absurd tune, most people can see how
absurd it is and Chung already condemns his own dishonesty from his own
fingers. It's also possible that he's mentally ill -- he certainly
isn't behaving rationally.
This isn't to say that the 2PD can't work. Of course it can, as can
any of innumerable fad diets. If it's an effective way to get obese
people to lose significant weight because it's so very simple, it may
be of value to their health despite its potentially awful nutritional
content, but that requires research. Whether people can stick to it
long enough to lose significant weight, keep it off for a significant
length of time, and will be healthier on it than they were when obese
is another question that would require more research.
But Chung will never do the research, because he has already proved it
to his satisfaction by assertion backed up by allegations of divine
authority. Who needs research when you can just make it up and claim
authority from God?
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
>
> "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <and...@heartmdphd.com> wrote in message
> news:42BD3307...@heartmdphd.com...
> > Jeff wrote:
> >>
> >> "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <and...@heartmdphd.com> wrote in message
> >> news:42BC4459...@heartmdphd.com...
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> >> > Those who start don't stop.
> >> >
> >> > The best analogy is riding a bike. Folks who learn, never forget.
> >>
> >> I would like to see the peer-reviewed studies supporting your claims.
> >
> > There are undoubtably many things you would like to have that you will
> > receive in time before you die and many you won't.
>
> Stephen Jay Gould wrote that extraordinary claims require extraordinary
> evidence.
The 2PD-OMER Approach is not a claim.
> I believe that your claim that everyone who start the approach
> stays on and no one ever leaves is quite extraordinary.
That would be according to your judgment.
In truth, it is no more extraordinary than folks remembering how to ride
a bike once they have learned it.
> Your Biblical
> inspiration for this approach leads me question your objectivity,
The inspiration for the 2PD-OMER Approach was actually not Biblical (see
http://www.HeartMDPhD.com) but retrospectively was divine.
> as well as
> your lack of acceptance of the truth of evolution.
Actually, the decision to reject God and embrace the theory of evolution
as the truth is like other decisions that are subjective rather than
objective.
> You claim that there were 600,000+ users of this approach,
There have been more than 625,550 folks with more than 5 years
experience with the 2PD-OMER Approach.
> and each and
> every one of them stayed on the diet is extraordinary.
What is more extraordinary is your blindness as evident by your
inability to see past your own untruthfulness as you obsessively persist
in writing that the 2PD-OMER Approach is a diet.
John 9:39 comes to mind.
Only the Creator of the universe is able to render you as you are.
God is omnipotent:
http://makeashorterlink.com/?D3DE219AA
God is the truth:
http://makeashorterlink.com/?P2264129A
The way to the truth is straight and narrow:
http://makeashorterlink.com/?A2642108A
You will remain in my prayers, dear Jeff, whom I love, in Lord Christ's
holy name.
May you reject your pride and accept Him as your personal Lord and
Savior, someday, so that you too will have eternal life and the
fascinating riches of His everlasting kingdom.
Here's how:
http://makeashorterlink.com/?I22222129
Please note that God truly made this special link describing that He is
the great "I am" and that His message is as simple as the number 2 which
is a number between 1 to 9 and reminds us of His 2 commandments, the 2
arms of the cross, the 2nd part of the Trinity, the 2 finger sign of the
Prince of Peace [who remains *V*ictorious over death and satan], and the
2PD-OMER Approach. Let it not ever be written that Christ did not make
His presence known here on Usenet :-)
Also, note that Exodus 16:16 continues to remind us that 16 oz plus 16
oz makes 2 pounds, which is "a certain measure of weight," which is what
"omer" literally means in Hebrew.
Enter the 2PD-OMER Approach, which can "cure" metabolic syndrome (MetS)
thereby bringing this thread back on topic in these NGs :-)
http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtloss.asp
Jeff
> Jeff wrote:
>>
>> "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <and...@heartmdphd.com> wrote in message
>> news:42BD3307...@heartmdphd.com...
>> > Jeff wrote:
>> >>
>> >> "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <and...@heartmdphd.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:42BC4459...@heartmdphd.com...
>> >
>> > <snip>
>> >
>> >> > Those who start don't stop.
>> >> >
>> >> > The best analogy is riding a bike. Folks who learn, never forget.
>> >>
>> >> I would like to see the peer-reviewed studies supporting your claims.
>> >
>> > There are undoubtably many things you would like to have that you will
>> > receive in time before you die and many you won't.
>>
>> Stephen Jay Gould wrote that extraordinary claims require extraordinary
>> evidence.
>
> The 2PD-OMER Approach is not a claim.
That each and every person who went on the approach stayed on the approach
and that exactly 0 of over 600,000 people on the approach have had heart
attacks are extraordinary claims.
>> I believe that your claim that everyone who start the approach
>> stays on and no one ever leaves is quite extraordinary.
>
> That would be according to your judgment.
And the judgement of any good scientist.
> In truth, it is no more extraordinary than folks remembering how to ride
> a bike once they have learned it.
In truth, that would be according to your judgment.
>> Your Biblical
>> inspiration for this approach leads me question your objectivity,
>
> The inspiration for the 2PD-OMER Approach was actually not Biblical (see
> http://www.HeartMDPhD.com) but retrospectively was divine.
Thanks for the clarification. This further questions your objectivity.
>> as well as
>> your lack of acceptance of the truth of evolution.
>
> Actually, the decision to reject God and embrace the theory of evolution
> as the truth is like other decisions that are subjective rather than
> objective.
Not in science. You are also mistaken when you think that one cannot accept
God and the fact that evolution happens.
>> You claim that there were 600,000+ users of this approach,
>
> There have been more than 625,550 folks with more than 5 years
> experience with the 2PD-OMER Approach.
>
>> and each and
>> every one of them stayed on the diet is extraordinary.
>
> What is more extraordinary is your blindness as evident by your
> inability to see past your own untruthfulness as you obsessively persist
> in writing that the 2PD-OMER Approach is a diet.
IMHO, the Approach is a diet. It regulates what one eats. You and have an
honest disagreement about this. Holding a belief that is different from
yours does not mean that I am hishonest or untruthful.
When you are willing discuss things as a scientist and a physician, I will
be happy to participate. Until then, I wish you well.
Jeff
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
>
> "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <and...@heartmdphd.com> wrote in message
> news:42BE8ACE...@heartmdphd.com...
> > Jeff wrote:
> >>
> >> "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <and...@heartmdphd.com> wrote in message
> >> news:42BD3307...@heartmdphd.com...
> >> > Jeff wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <and...@heartmdphd.com> wrote in message
> >> >> news:42BC4459...@heartmdphd.com...
> >> >
> >> > <snip>
> >> >
> >> >> > Those who start don't stop.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > The best analogy is riding a bike. Folks who learn, never forget.
> >> >>
> >> >> I would like to see the peer-reviewed studies supporting your claims.
> >> >
> >> > There are undoubtably many things you would like to have that you will
> >> > receive in time before you die and many you won't.
> >>
> >> Stephen Jay Gould wrote that extraordinary claims require extraordinary
> >> evidence.
> >
> > The 2PD-OMER Approach is not a claim.
>
> That each and every person who went on the approach stayed on the approach
> and that exactly 0 of over 600,000 people on the approach have had heart
> attacks are extraordinary claims.
In truth, these are the observations regarding the 5 year experiences of
more than 625,550 people and not claims.
> >> I believe that your claim that everyone who start the approach
> >> stays on and no one ever leaves is quite extraordinary.
> >
> > That would be according to your judgment.
>
> And the judgement of any good scientist.
From what you have written in the past, it has been clear that you do
not have the formal scientific training of a scientist.
> > In truth, it is no more extraordinary than folks remembering how to ride
> > a bike once they have learned it.
>
> In truth, that would be according to your judgment.
It remains my choice to write truthfully just as it remains your choice
to be untruthful.
> >> Your Biblical
> >> inspiration for this approach leads me question your objectivity,
> >
> > The inspiration for the 2PD-OMER Approach was actually not Biblical (see
> > http://www.HeartMDPhD.com) but retrospectively was divine.
>
> Thanks for the clarification. This further questions your objectivity.
It remains your choice to reject the truth.
> >> as well as
> >> your lack of acceptance of the truth of evolution.
> >
> > Actually, the decision to reject God and embrace the theory of evolution
> > as the truth is like other decisions that are subjective rather than
> > objective.
>
> Not in science.
"Those who embrace theories as truths are **not** true scientists."
> You are also mistaken when you think that one cannot accept
> God and the fact that evolution happens.
"Evolutionists believe that species are randomly created through chance
events without God."
This belief is inherently incompatible with a belief God.
> >> You claim that there were 600,000+ users of this approach,
> >
> > There have been more than 625,550 folks with more than 5 years
> > experience with the 2PD-OMER Approach.
> >
> >> and each and
> >> every one of them stayed on the diet is extraordinary.
> >
> > What is more extraordinary is your blindness as evident by your
> > inability to see past your own untruthfulness as you obsessively persist
> > in writing that the 2PD-OMER Approach is a diet.
>
> IMHO, the Approach is a diet.
And so you remain untruthful.
> It regulates what one eats.
In truth, it does not.
> You and have an honest disagreement about this.
"What one eats" and "how much one eats" are as different as night and
day. Those who claim either is not different are untruthful.
> Holding a belief that is different from
> yours does not mean that I am hishonest or untruthful.
You are untruthful, Jeff, regardless of what beliefs you hold. This has
occurred by your own personal choice.
> When you are willing discuss things as a scientist and a physician, I will
> be happy to participate.
Sorry the truth makes you unhappy.
> Until then, I wish you well.
The Lord my God keeps me well whether you wish it or not.
The Lord is omnipotent:
http://makeashorterlink.com/?D3DE219AA
The Lord is the truth:
Bailey's Girl
> Jeff wrote:
>
>>"Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <and...@heartmdphd.com> wrote in message
>>news:42BE8ACE...@heartmdphd.com...
>>
>>>Jeff wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <and...@heartmdphd.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:42BD3307...@heartmdphd.com...
>>>>
>>>>>Jeff wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>"Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <and...@heartmdphd.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:42BC4459...@heartmdphd.com...
>>>>>
>>>>><snip>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>Those who start don't stop.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The best analogy is riding a bike. Folks who learn, never forget.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I would like to see the peer-reviewed studies supporting your claims.
>>>>>
>>>>>There are undoubtably many things you would like to have that you will
>>>>>receive in time before you die and many you won't.
>>>>
>>>>Stephen Jay Gould wrote that extraordinary claims require extraordinary
>>>>evidence.
>>>
>>>The 2PD-OMER Approach is not a claim.
>>
>>That each and every person who went on the approach stayed on the approach
>>and that exactly 0 of over 600,000 people on the approach have had heart
>>attacks are extraordinary claims.
>
>
> In truth, these are the observations regarding the 5 year experiences of
> more than 625,550 people and not claims.
claim n. A statement of something as a fact; an assertion of truth.
Thank you for clarifying that your statements are intended as neither
fact or truth.
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
"Truth is infinitely more than an assertion"
Truth is simple:
http://makeashorterlink.com/?P2264129A
The way to the truth is straight and narrow:
http://makeashorterlink.com/?A2642108A
You will remain in my prayers, dear neighbor, whom I love, in Lord
Maâ–Ž
and Puffed the following into the madness of usenet:
why are you cross posting?
tonyw...@gmail.com
> inability to see past your own untruthfulness as you obsessively persist
> in writing that the 2PD-OMER Approach is a diet.
How does the "2PD-OMER Approach" differ from your "Andrew's Famous 2
Pound Diet"?
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
It seems John understands the purpose of cross posting.
John
wrote:
BTW, I forgot to mention that my BP also dropped from a pretty good
120/80 to an excellent 105/65 over the same period. Now, if only my
paroxysmal atrial fibrillation would go away....
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. ;-)
John
Bob (this one)
> 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
Jeff
Of course not.
> Do you not sometimes
> find wide divergence of opinion in such literature?
Of course.
> If you are
> treating a patient and the peers disagree, what do you do?
Irrelevent. The point is that chung has not published any of this.
Regardless of whether or not the peers agree, I would use my best judgement.
> If the
> peers are silent, what do you do?
Use my best judgement.
> 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?
I wouldn't make unsupportable claims, like 600,000+ people followed my plan
unless I had evidence to back this up and it were reliable.
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
>
<snip>
> I wouldn't make unsupportable claims, like 600,000+ people followed my plan
> unless I had evidence to back this up and it were reliable.
Yet you would make the unsupportable claim that God does not exist when
there are more than 600,000+ people on this planet who were created by
Him.
God is omnipotent:
http://makeashorterlink.com/?D3DE219AA
God is the truth:
http://makeashorterlink.com/?P2264129A
The way to God is straight and narrow:
http://makeashorterlink.com/?A2642108A
You will remain in my prayers, dear Jeff, whom I love, in Lord Christ's
holy name.
May you reject your pride and accept Him as your personal Lord and
Savior, someday, so that you too will have eternal life and the
fascinating riches of His everlasting kingdom.
Here's how:
http://makeashorterlink.com/?I22222129
Please note that God truly made this special link describing that He is
the great "I am" and that His message is as simple as the number 2 which
is a number between 1 to 9 and reminds us of His 2 commandments, the 2
arms of the cross, the 2nd part of the Trinity, the 2 finger sign of the
Prince of Peace [who remains *V*ictorious over death and satan], and the
2PD-OMER Approach. Let it not ever be written that Christ did not make
His presence known here on Usenet :-)
Also, note that Exodus 16:16 continues to remind us that 16 oz plus 16
oz makes 2 pounds, which is "a certain measure of weight," which is what
"omer" literally means in Hebrew.
Enter the 2PD-OMER Approach, which can "cure" metabolic syndrome (MetS)
thereby bringing this thread back on topic in these NGs :-)
http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtloss.asp
In Christ's love and service,
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Some years ago, someone gave me a european starling that she named
"Fido" to keep for her. The bird was very intelligent and flew to me
when I called him by that name. Others pointed out to me that "Fido"
is a dog's name. I agreed but shrugged and said that I did not name
him but it did not matter because he is obviously a bird...
... just as obviously, the 2PD-OMER Approach is not a diet by whatever
name you may choose to call it.
Truth is simple.
About the truth:
http://makeashorterlink.com/?P2264129A
The way to the truth is straight and narrow:
http://makeashorterlink.com/?A2642108A
You will remain in my prayers, dear Tony, whom I love, in Lord Christ's
holy name.
May you reject your pride and accept Him as your personal Lord and
Savior, someday, so that you too will have eternal life and the
fascinating riches of His everlasting kingdom.
Here's how:
http://makeashorterlink.com/?I22222129
Please note that God truly made this special link describing that He is
the great "I am" and that His message is as simple as the number 2
which is a number between 1 to 9 and reminds us of His 2 commandments,
the 2 arms of the cross, the 2nd part of the Trinity, the 2 finger sign
of the Prince of Peace [who remains *V*ictorious over death and satan],
and the 2PD-OMER Approach. Let it not ever be written that Christ did
not make His presence known here on Usenet :-)
Also, note that Exodus 16:16 continues to remind us that 16 oz plus 16
oz makes 2 pounds, which is "a certain measure of weight," which is
what "omer" literally means in Hebrew.
Enter the 2PD-OMER Approach, which can "cure" metabolic syndrome (MetS)
thereby bringing this thread back on topic in SMC :-)
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
>
> 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 seems that you the one needing help with your fixation that the
2PD-OMER Approach is a diet.
In Christ's love and service,
tonyw...@gmail.com
> tonyw...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> > > What is more extraordinary is your blindness as evident by your
> > > inability to see past your own untruthfulness as you obsessively persist
> > > in writing that the 2PD-OMER Approach is a diet.
> > How does the "2PD-OMER Approach" differ from your "Andrew's Famous 2
> > Pound Diet"?
> Some years ago, someone gave me a european starling that she named
> "Fido" to keep for her. The bird was very intelligent and flew to me
> when I called him by that name. Others pointed out to me that "Fido"
> is a dog's name. I agreed but shrugged and said that I did not name
> him but it did not matter because he is obviously a bird...
>
> ... just as obviously, the 2PD-OMER Approach is not a diet by whatever
> name you may choose to call it.
Very well, the 2PD-OMER Approach is not a diet.
How does it differ from "Andrew's Famous 2 Pound Diet" by By Dr. Andrew
B. Chung, MD/PhD?
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
In a word: Alias
Truth is simple:
http://makeashorterlink.com/?P2264129A
The way to the truth is straight and narrow:
http://makeashorterlink.com/?A2642108A
You will remain in my prayers, dear Tony, whom I love, in Lord Christ's
holy name.
May you reject your pride and accept Him as your personal Lord and
Savior, someday, so that you too will have eternal life and the
fascinating riches of His everlasting kingdom.
Here's how:
http://makeashorterlink.com/?I22222129
Please note that God truly made this special link describing that He is
the great "I am" and that His message is as simple as the number 2 which
is a number between 1 to 9 and reminds us of His 2 commandments, the 2
arms of the cross, the 2nd part of the Trinity, the 2 finger sign of the
Prince of Peace [who remains *V*ictorious over death and satan], and the
2PD-OMER Approach. Let it not ever be written that Christ did not make
His presence known here on Usenet :-)
Also, note that Exodus 16:16 continues to remind us that 16 oz plus 16
oz makes 2 pounds, which is "a certain measure of weight," which is what
"omer" literally means in Hebrew.
Enter the 2PD-OMER Approach, which can "cure" metabolic syndrome (MetS)
thereby bringing this thread back on topic in these NGs :-)
Bob (this one)
> tonyw...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
>>
>>>tonyw...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>>Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>What is more extraordinary is your blindness as evident by your
>>>>>inability to see past your own untruthfulness as you obsessively persist
>>>>>in writing that the 2PD-OMER Approach is a diet.
>>
>>>>How does the "2PD-OMER Approach" differ from your "Andrew's Famous 2
>>>>Pound Diet"?
>>
>>>Some years ago, someone gave me a european starling that she named
>>>"Fido" to keep for her. The bird was very intelligent and flew to me
>>>when I called him by that name. Others pointed out to me that "Fido"
>>>is a dog's name. I agreed but shrugged and said that I did not name
>>>him but it did not matter because he is obviously a bird...
>>>
>>>... just as obviously, the 2PD-OMER Approach is not a diet by whatever
>>>name you may choose to call it.
>>
>>Very well, the 2PD-OMER Approach is not a diet.
>>
>>How does it differ from "Andrew's Famous 2 Pound Diet" by By Dr. Andrew
>>B. Chung, MD/PhD?
>
> In a word: Alias
Definition of alias says it's a different name for the same thing. So if
the original was the "2 pound diet" then this latest name is still the
"2 Pound Diet." Pretty easy to understand.
"A thing cannot be and not be in the same time and place." It was a diet
but then the name was changed. So it's still a diet but is called by a
different handle. Pretty easy to understand.
Pastorio
Bob (this one)
>
>>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 seems that you the one needing help with your fixation that the
> 2PD-OMER Approach is a diet.
Here, delusion-boy. Fixate this.
Diet = eating regimen. And just as you fumble and waffle about
nomenclature and seek to pervert words as you do your integrity, here's
your own foolishness come to haunt you:
Chung wrote:
"Some years ago, someone gave me a european starling that she named
"Fido" to keep for her. The bird was very intelligent and flew to me
when I called him by that name. Others pointed out to me that "Fido"
is a dog's name. I agreed but shrugged and said that I did not name
him but it did not matter because he is obviously a bird..."
By definitions assembled by rational people, a person's habitual foods,
quantities and qualities are what comprise their diet. It's all about
language usage, not whimsical, Humpty-Dumpty definitions that only one
person buys. Restricting people with one (ridiculous) criterion is still
designing the format of their eating patterns. That's a diet. It doesn't
matter if you call it Fido or 2PD or that preposterous "Omer" idiocy,
it's a diet.
You may now shrug or not, as out choose. Your diet is a diet whether you
say it is or not. What you characterize it as does "not matter because
[it] is obviously a [diet]"
And here's a bird for you.
Pastorio
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
>
> Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> > "Bob (this one)" wrote:
> >
> >>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 seems that you the one needing help with your fixation that the
> > 2PD-OMER Approach is a diet.
>
> Here, delusion-boy.
Ouch. You may have at the other cheek.
> Fixate this.
>
> Diet = eating regimen. And just as you fumble and waffle about
> nomenclature and seek to pervert words as you do your integrity, here's
> your own foolishness come to haunt you:
>
> Chung wrote:
> "Some years ago, someone gave me a european starling that she named
> "Fido" to keep for her. The bird was very intelligent and flew to me
> when I called him by that name. Others pointed out to me that "Fido"
> is a dog's name. I agreed but shrugged and said that I did not name
> him but it did not matter because he is obviously a bird..."
>
> By definitions assembled by rational people, a person's habitual foods,
> quantities **and** qualities are what comprise their diet.
**emphasis added**
> It's all about
> language usage, not whimsical, Humpty-Dumpty definitions that only one
> person buys. Restricting people with one (ridiculous) criterion is still
> designing the format of their eating patterns.
Incorrect. See emphasis above.
> That's a diet.
My present diet consists of "normal" kinds of foods in ratios that
approximate a "pyramid" with starches at the base, fruits and veggies in
the midportion and meats at the pinnacle. I change my diet to one that
has a broader base when few days before running long distance (more than
12 miles). Meanwhile, I am using the 2PD-OMER Approach to eat the
optimal amount.
> It doesn't
> matter if you call it Fido or 2PD or that preposterous "Omer" idiocy,
> it's a diet.
Folks have their proof in the example above that the 2PD-OMER Approach
is not a diet but a method of approaching **all** diets.
> You may now shrug or not, as out choose. Your diet is a diet whether you
> say it is or not.
In truth, the 2PD-OMER Approach is **not** a diet whether you write that
it is or not.
> What you characterize it as does "not matter because
> [it] is obviously a [diet]"
It certainly seems to be your wish that this were so.
Sorry, it is not even if you wished upon all the stars in the universe.
> And here's a bird for you.
Thank you for the blessing.
Again, Lord Christ teaches from Matthew 5:
11Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely
say all kinds of evil against you because of me. 12Rejoice and be glad,
because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they
persecuted the prophets who were before you.
You will remain in my prayers, dear Bob, whom I love, in Lord Christ's
holy name.
May you reject your pride and accept Him as your personal Lord and
Savior, someday, so that you too will have eternal life and the
fascinating riches of His everlasting kingdom.
Here's how:
http://makeashorterlink.com/?I22222129
Please note that God truly made this special link describing that He is
the great "I am" and that His message is as simple as the number 2 which
is a number between 1 to 9 and reminds us of His 2 commandments, the 2
arms of the cross, the 2nd part of the Trinity, the 2 finger sign of the
Prince of Peace [who remains *V*ictorious over death and satan], and the
2PD-OMER Approach. Let it not ever be written that Christ did not make
His presence known here on Usenet :-)
Also, note that Exodus 16:16 continues to remind us that 16 oz plus 16
oz makes 2 pounds, which is "a certain measure of weight," which is what
"omer" literally means in Hebrew.
Enter the 2PD-OMER Approach, which can "cure" metabolic syndrome (MetS)
thereby bringing this thread back on topic in these NGs :-)
http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtloss.asp
In Christ's love and service,
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
>
> Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> > tonyw...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> >>Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> >>
> >>>tonyw...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>What is more extraordinary is your blindness as evident by your
> >>>>>inability to see past your own untruthfulness as you obsessively persist
> >>>>>in writing that the 2PD-OMER Approach is a diet.
> >>
> >>>>How does the "2PD-OMER Approach" differ from your "Andrew's Famous 2
> >>>>Pound Diet"?
> >>
> >>>Some years ago, someone gave me a european starling that she named
> >>>"Fido" to keep for her. The bird was very intelligent and flew to me
> >>>when I called him by that name. Others pointed out to me that "Fido"
> >>>is a dog's name. I agreed but shrugged and said that I did not name
> >>>him but it did not matter because he is obviously a bird...
> >>>
> >>>... just as obviously, the 2PD-OMER Approach is not a diet by whatever
> >>>name you may choose to call it.
> >>
> >>Very well, the 2PD-OMER Approach is not a diet.
> >>
> >>How does it differ from "Andrew's Famous 2 Pound Diet" by By Dr. Andrew
> >>B. Chung, MD/PhD?
> >
> > In a word: Alias
>
> Definition of alias says it's a different name for the same thing.
Correct.
Truth is simple:
http://makeashorterlink.com/?P2264129A
The way to the truth is straight and narrow:
http://makeashorterlink.com/?A2642108A
You will remain in my prayers, dear Bob, whom I love, in Lord Christ's
tonyw...@gmail.com
> tonyw...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> > > tonyw...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> > > > > What is more extraordinary is your blindness as evident by your
> > > > > inability to see past your own untruthfulness as you obsessively persist
> > > > > in writing that the 2PD-OMER Approach is a diet.
> > > > How does the "2PD-OMER Approach" differ from your "Andrew's Famous 2
> > > > Pound Diet"?
> > > Some years ago, someone gave me a european starling that she named
> > > "Fido" to keep for her. The bird was very intelligent and flew to me
> > > when I called him by that name. Others pointed out to me that "Fido"
> > > is a dog's name. I agreed but shrugged and said that I did not name
> > > him but it did not matter because he is obviously a bird...
> > >
> > > ... just as obviously, the 2PD-OMER Approach is not a diet by whatever
> > > name you may choose to call it.
> > Very well, the 2PD-OMER Approach is not a diet.
> >
> > How does it differ from "Andrew's Famous 2 Pound Diet" by By Dr. Andrew
> > B. Chung, MD/PhD?
> In a word: Alias
So, as the woman named the starling "Fido", you named the 2PD-Omer
Approach "Andrew's Famous 2 Pound Diet"?
Interesting choice.
Bob (this one)
> "Bob (this one)" wrote:
>
>>Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
>>
>>>"Bob (this one)" wrote:
>>>
>>>>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 seems that you the one needing help with your fixation that the
>>>2PD-OMER Approach is a diet.
>>
>>Here, delusion-boy.
>
> Ouch. You may have at the other cheek.
<LOL> You're such a clown.
>>Fixate this.
>>
>>Diet = eating regimen. And just as you fumble and waffle about
>>nomenclature and seek to pervert words as you do your integrity, here's
>>your own foolishness come to haunt you:
>>
>>Chung wrote:
>>"Some years ago, someone gave me a european starling that she named
>>"Fido" to keep for her. The bird was very intelligent and flew to me
>>when I called him by that name. Others pointed out to me that "Fido"
>>is a dog's name. I agreed but shrugged and said that I did not name
>>him but it did not matter because he is obviously a bird..."
>>
>>By definitions assembled by rational people, a person's habitual foods,
>>quantities **and** qualities are what comprise their diet.
>
> **emphasis added**
For a flawed impression. This is the simple fact of the matter: Diet =
eating regimen
>>It's all about
>>language usage, not whimsical, Humpty-Dumpty definitions that only one
>>person buys. Restricting people with one (ridiculous) criterion is still
>>designing the format of their eating patterns.
>
> Incorrect. See emphasis above.
Already demolished.
>>That's a diet.
>
> My present diet consists of "normal" kinds of foods in ratios that
> approximate a "pyramid" with starches at the base, fruits and veggies in
> the midportion and meats at the pinnacle. I change my diet to one that
> has a broader base when few days before running long distance (more than
> 12 miles). Meanwhile, I am using the 2PD-OMER Approach to eat the
> optimal amount.
Give it up, Chung. If you were counting calories, in the common
parlance, you would be considered to be dieting. People would
characterize what you're doing as "being on a diet" or "dieting." You're
counting weight. Exact parallel. You're dieting. You're on a diet.
>>It doesn't
>>matter if you call it Fido or 2PD or that preposterous "Omer" idiocy,
>>it's a diet.
>
> Folks have their proof in the example above that the 2PD-OMER Approach
> is not a diet but a method of approaching **all** diets.
Nonsense. A fork is a way of approaching all diets.
>>You may now shrug or not, as out choose. Your diet is a diet whether you
>>say it is or not.
>
> In truth, the 2PD-OMER Approach is **not** a diet whether you write that
> it is or not.
Somehow, the general understanding, several dictionaries and your
inability to make the case all point to your being as full of crap as usual.
>>What you characterize it as does "not matter because
>>[it] is obviously a [diet]"
>
> It certainly seems to be your wish that this were so.
My wish is that language be used with honesty and integrity. You lose.
> Sorry, it is not even if you wished upon all the stars in the universe.
Oh, look. Another inane non sequitur. He's got a million of them. But I
must say I miss the quotation marks. They lend such, oh, I dunno,
support for truth. Bwah...
>>And here's a bird for you.
> Thank you for the blessing.
>
> Again, Lord Christ teaches from Matthew 5:
>
> 11Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely
> say all kinds of evil against you because of me.
That's what you always quote when people call you on your falsity. You
say it's because of Jesus. But only because you're too, too besotted to
see yourself in anything approaching a true light.
Just like in Ocala. Sad, sad episode. But it points out that you've
always been an intransigent prig. Even before you had God to blame it on.
Pastorio
Bob (this one)
So the new name still stands for the same old thing. The 2 pound diet.
As in diet. Just like in "diet" which it was called because, well, it's
a diet. As in dietary regimen. Just like that. Like being "on a diet."
Like "dieting." As in "diet."
<LOL> Plus ca change...
Pastorio
John
wrote:
>Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
>> "Bob (this one)" wrote:
[snip]
>> Folks have their proof in the example above that the 2PD-OMER Approach
>> is not a diet but a method of approaching **all** diets.
>
>Nonsense. A fork is a way of approaching all diets.
Bob, you are so tantalizingly close to getting it. A fork is a tool
for eating. A food scale is another tool for eating. Rewrite the
above sentence as: **A food scale is a way of approaching all diets**
and you have it.
John
p.s. A mirror is a tool for self assessment.
Jeff
> Jeff wrote:
>>
> <snip>
>> I wouldn't make unsupportable claims, like 600,000+ people followed my
>> plan
>> unless I had evidence to back this up and it were reliable.
>
> Yet you would make the unsupportable claim that God does not exist when
> there are more than 600,000+ people on this planet who were created by
> Him.
I have never claimed that God doesn't exist. And would not ever make that
claim.
Jeff
Bob (this one)
> On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 14:43:15 -0400, "Bob (this one)" <B...@nospam.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
>>
>>> "Bob (this one)" wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>>> Folks have their proof in the example above that the 2PD-OMER
>>> Approach is not a diet but a method of approaching **all** diets.
>>>
>>
>> Nonsense. A fork is a way of approaching all diets.
>
> Bob, you are so tantalizingly close to getting it.
<LOL> As if you do...
> A fork is a tool for eating. A food scale is another tool for
> eating.
Sorry, "John." Wrong. Different kinds of tools.
> Rewrite the above sentence as: **A food scale is a way of
> approaching all diets** and you have it.
<LOL> "John," you sad little puppet, how wonderful to offer me such a
wonderful setup. I deeply appreciate it. Now to business.
Watch this dazzling transformation of my original sarcastic but true idea:
A *calorie* is a way of approaching all diets...
See how that works? If people are watching the caloric content of their
intake, they are said to be "on a diet." And will describe themselves
that way. On a diet. They are restricting some elements of their intake.
That process is called a "diet." If you're counting calories, it matters
not *what* you eat as long as you come within the levels established as
the appropriate parameters for the diet. Exactly, precisely, identically
the same thing applies to using weight (however absurd the concept) as
the limiting parameter. A diet is a diet is a diet...
> John p.s. A mirror is a tool for self assessment.
Don't be sillier than usual. It's a tool for looking at your exterior -
backwards. Don't try to out-Chung with these ringing yet meaningless
fake aphorisms. One purveyor of this sort of schizophrenic
"almost-meaning" statements is one more than enough.
Self-assessment is something obviously well beyond either you or what's
connected to that hand up your butt. If you were remotely capable of it,
you'd explode from embarrassment. And you'd see yourself for what you
are. Chung is well beyond that capacity, and by all reports, has been
since well before Ocala irrefutably demonstrated it.
Pastorio
Bob (this one)
> "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <and...@heartmdphd.com> wrote in message
> news:42C352B5...@heartmdphd.com...
>
>>Jeff wrote:
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>>I wouldn't make unsupportable claims, like 600,000+ people followed my
>>>plan
>>>unless I had evidence to back this up and it were reliable.
>>
>>Yet you would make the unsupportable claim that God does not exist when
>>there are more than 600,000+ people on this planet who were created by
>>Him.
>
> I have never claimed that God doesn't exist. And would not ever make that
> claim.
The logical irony here is that Chung can't prove that God *does* exist -
both asserting and not asserting God's existence are unprovable. <LOL>
And, he'll fall back on that tired "you can't see the proof" business,
but he won't offer it. Can't offer what you can't offer.
Pastorio
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
>
> John wrote:
> > On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 14:43:15 -0400, "Bob (this one)" <B...@nospam.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> >>
> >>> "Bob (this one)" wrote:
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> >>> Folks have their proof in the example above that the 2PD-OMER
> >>> Approach is not a diet but a method of approaching **all** diets.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Nonsense. A fork is a way of approaching all diets.
> >
> > Bob, you are so tantalizingly close to getting it.
>
> <LOL>
... and so you continue to despair.
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
...especially the side profile :-)
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
>
> Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> > "Bob (this one)" wrote:
> >
> >>Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> >>
> >>>"Bob (this one)" wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>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 seems that you the one needing help with your fixation that the
> >>>2PD-OMER Approach is a diet.
> >>
> >>Here, delusion-boy.
> >
> > Ouch. You may have at the other cheek.
>
> <LOL>
... and so you continue to despair.
You will remain in my prayers, dear Bob, whom I love, in Lord Christ's
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
>
> "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <and...@heartmdphd.com> wrote in message
> news:42C352B5...@heartmdphd.com...
> > Jeff wrote:
> >>
> > <snip>
> >> I wouldn't make unsupportable claims, like 600,000+ people followed my
> >> plan
> >> unless I had evidence to back this up and it were reliable.
> >
> > Yet you would make the unsupportable claim that God does not exist when
> > there are more than 600,000+ people on this planet who were created by
> > Him.
>
> I have never claimed that God doesn't exist. And would not ever make that
> claim.
In truth, you have made this claim within your claim that evolution is
fact rather than theory/hypothesis.
Those who are able to discern the truth, know that evolution is actually
the null hypothesis.
Truth is simple:
http://makeashorterlink.com/?P2264129A
The way to the truth is straight and narrow:
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
>
> Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> > "Bob (this one)" wrote:
> >
> >>Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> >>
> >>>tonyw...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>tonyw...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>What is more extraordinary is your blindness as evident by your
> >>>>>>>inability to see past your own untruthfulness as you obsessively persist
> >>>>>>>in writing that the 2PD-OMER Approach is a diet.
> >>>>
> >>>>>>How does the "2PD-OMER Approach" differ from your "Andrew's Famous 2
> >>>>>>Pound Diet"?
> >>>>
> >>>>>Some years ago, someone gave me a european starling that she named
> >>>>>"Fido" to keep for her. The bird was very intelligent and flew to me
> >>>>>when I called him by that name. Others pointed out to me that "Fido"
> >>>>>is a dog's name. I agreed but shrugged and said that I did not name
> >>>>>him but it did not matter because he is obviously a bird...
> >>>>>
> >>>>>... just as obviously, the 2PD-OMER Approach is not a diet by whatever
> >>>>>name you may choose to call it.
> >>>>
Emphasis added.
> >>>>
> >>>>How does it differ from "Andrew's Famous 2 Pound Diet" by By Dr. Andrew
> >>>>B. Chung, MD/PhD?
> >>>
> >>>In a word: Alias
> >>
> >>Definition of alias says it's a different name for the same thing.
> >
> > Correct.
>
> So the new name still stands for the same old thing.
Yes, the 2PD-OMER Approach was not a diet from the very outset.
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
No.
Just as a woman named the starling "Fido," a woman named the 2PD-OMER
Approach "Andrew's Famous 2 Pound Diet."
However, they were different women.
Don Kirkman
article <42C526BC...@heartmdphd.com>:
>Jeff wrote:
>> "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <and...@heartmdphd.com> wrote in message
>> news:42C352B5...@heartmdphd.com...
>> > Jeff wrote:
>> > <snip>
>> >> I wouldn't make unsupportable claims, like 600,000+ people followed my
>> >> plan
>> >> unless I had evidence to back this up and it were reliable.
>> > Yet you would make the unsupportable claim that God does not exist when
>> > there are more than 600,000+ people on this planet who were created by
>> > Him.
>> I have never claimed that God doesn't exist. And would not ever make that
>> claim.
>In truth, you have made this claim within your claim that evolution is
>fact rather than theory/hypothesis.
>Those who are able to discern the truth, know that evolution is actually
>the null hypothesis.
That must surprise all those who believe in both evolution AND God. And
there are many of them including some very distinguished scientists.
There is more direct evidence for evolution than there is for God.
--
Don Kirkman
tonyw...@gmail.com
> > So, as the woman named the starling "Fido", you named the 2PD-Omer
> > Approach "Andrew's Famous 2 Pound Diet"?
> No.
>
> Just as a woman named the starling "Fido," a woman named the 2PD-OMER
> Approach "Andrew's Famous 2 Pound Diet."
>
> However, they were different women.
Oh.
That answers that question. You did not object to this (mis-)naming?
Apparently not, for you did have it on your web site for quite some
time.
Reproduced below, with permission as noted.
----------------------------------
Simple Step-by-Step Instructions for Permanent Weight Loss
"Andrew's Famous 2 Pound Diet"
(Non-diabetic Version)
By Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD.
Last Modified 9/12/00
These instructions may be freely distributed without any changes.
If you are diabetic, get the other set of instructions.
(1) Purchase a food scale from any store near you. It should cost
around $5-10. Also get a pocket notepad.
(2) Weigh food by first setting an empty plate/bowl/cup on the scale
and zeroing it. Then place food on the plate/bowl/cup. Weigh
everything you eat or drink for a whole day, including any snacks even
if they are fruits. The only things you don't weigh are water and
sugar-free drinks. Typically, overweight people find out they consume 6
to 8 pounds of food per day. Record the amount of food you eat on this
"first" day in your notepad and also write it here as a reminder:
Amount of food consumed on the "first" day of the rest of your life is
__________ lbs.
(3) Gradually, decrease the amount of food by 1 pound every day until
you get to 2 pounds per day. If you can stay under 2 pounds per day,
you should start losing about 2-5 pounds per week in the beginning and
this should level off as you get closer to your ideal body weight. Be
sure to weigh everything you consume and write it down so you will
remember. Check your notepad to make sure the amount of food you're
putting on your plate isn't more than you are allowed for the rest of
the day. For example, if you ate a half pound bowl of cereal plus skim
milk for breakfast and a half pound of tunafish sandwich for lunch,
you're not to put more than a pound of spaghetti and/or other stuff on
your plate for dinner after you are down to 2 pounds of food per day.
(4) Bring the notepad with you to clinic visits so that your doctor can
review your progress and go over any problems.
(5) If you are on high blood pressure medications, you may need to have
them lowered as you lose weight. Have your blood pressure checked at a
local drugstore or firestation every week and if the top number becomes
less than 100 or you become dizzy with standing, contact the clinic for
an adjustment in your blood pressure medications.
HINTS:
(1) Exercise such as brisk walking/running for 30 minutes before
dinner/supper can curb appetite so that you are less likely to have
hunger pangs from eating less than the 2 pound per day limit.
(2) Chew your food slowly and thoroughly so that you don't finish
eating before everyone else at the table. Try talking more. Not
finishing everything on your plate is more than OK. Avoid eating out
too often unless you are not embarrassed to bring your food scale with
you and use it in the restaurant.
(3) If you feel hungry between meals, try drinking some water instead
of snacking. Also, doing things like your favorite hobbies or
socializing can get your mind off of eating.
(4) Start buying less groceries and do your shopping after eating a
meal rather than before so that you will be more likely to buy less.
Typically you should find that you will only need a fourth of the
amount you usually buy. Avoid junk food. Avoid eating out. Continue
to eat healthy things like fish, chicken, fruits, and vegetables.
(5) Buy newer better fitting clothes when your old clothes become
loose. Give your old loose clothes to the salvation army.
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
>
> It seems to me I heard somewhere that Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote in
> article <42C526BC...@heartmdphd.com>:
>
> >Jeff wrote:
>
> >> "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <and...@heartmdphd.com> wrote in message
> >> news:42C352B5...@heartmdphd.com...
> >> > Jeff wrote:
>
> >> > <snip>
> >> >> I wouldn't make unsupportable claims, like 600,000+ people followed my
> >> >> plan
> >> >> unless I had evidence to back this up and it were reliable.
>
> >> > Yet you would make the unsupportable claim that God does not exist when
> >> > there are more than 600,000+ people on this planet who were created by
> >> > Him.
>
> >> I have never claimed that God doesn't exist. And would not ever make that
> >> claim.
>
> >In truth, you have made this claim within your claim that evolution is
> >fact rather than theory/hypothesis.
>
> >Those who are able to discern the truth, know that evolution is actually
> >the null hypothesis.
>
> That must surprise all those who believe in both evolution AND God.
"Truth surprises the undiscerning."
> And
> there are many of them including some very distinguished scientists.
Not those with God's gift of truth discernment.
> There is more direct evidence for evolution than there is for God.
There is no evidence that the species were created by random events
without God.
Truth is simple:
http://makeashorterlink.com/?P2264129A
The way to the truth is straight and narrow:
http://makeashorterlink.com/?A2642108A
You will remain in my prayers, dear Don, whom I love, in Lord Christ's
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
calling it whatever they like.
However, in discussions about the 2PD-OMER Approach especially with
those who oppose it, I will correct folks who write/say that it is a
diet.
This is the inventor's perogative. Sorry that you are bothered by the
Lord choosing me for this honor.
In Christ's love and service,
Andrew
--
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
**
Suggested Reading:
(1) http://makeashorterlink.com/?G1D5217EA
(2) http://makeashorterlink.com/?W13A4250B
(3) http://makeashorterlink.com/?X1C62661A
(4) http://makeashorterlink.com/?U1E13130A
(5) http://makeashorterlink.com/?K6F72510A
(6) http://makeashorterlink.com/?I24E5151A
(7) http://makeashorterlink.com/?I22222129
tonyw...@gmail.com
> I have no objections to folks, who are using the 2PD-OMER Approach,
> calling it whatever they like.
>
> However, in discussions about the 2PD-OMER Approach especially with
> those who oppose it, I will correct folks who write/say that it is a
> diet.
Perhaps they are confused by your changing in nomemclature. Your web
page used to list it at one time under the header of "The 2 lb Diet".
At another "Story behind the Two Pound Diet."
>From your old FAQ, you compare your approach to "other diets".
----------------------
A diet that alters the kind of food a person is accustomed to eat...
the kind of food a person grew up eating... the kind of food associated
with *love* and *comfort*... is likely to be jettisoned as soon as
there is adversity which pretty much defines life for most.
Here, quality *is* important for keeping people on a diet. Instead of
nutritional quality... we are talking about *kinds* of foods. This is
why the Two Pound Diet does *not* restrict the *kinds* of food a person
can eat.
Here, quantity is still the key to weight loss but alter the *quality*
as the other diets do and you risk not keeping people on the "diet"
lifelong. ----------------------
> This is the inventor's perogative.
Sure, you can call it whatever you like.
> Sorry that you are bothered by the
> Lord choosing me for this honor.
I am not bothered, just confused why you would be so defensive about
the terminology. If the "Two Pound Diet" and "Andrew's Famous 2 Pound
Diet" are aliases that you used (for years) [1] for "2PD-OMER
Approach", why are you concerned?
Why do you call people untruthful for calling it a diet?
Were you untruthful for the years you called it the "Two Pound Diet"?
[1] One can examine the "wayback machine" and see your previous
references. For those who are interested, see
http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.heartmdphd.com/losewtnd.txt
>From May 6, 2001
http://web.archive.org/web/20010506230835/http://www.heartmdphd.com/losewtnd.txt
to May 5, 2004
http://web.archive.org/web/20040505021711/http://heartmdphd.com/losewtnd.txt
It was called a diet, specifically "Andrew's Famous 2 Pound Diet" by By
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
>
> Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> > I have no objections to folks, who are using the 2PD-OMER Approach,
> > calling it whatever they like.
> >
> > However, in discussions about the 2PD-OMER Approach especially with
> > those who oppose it, I will correct folks who write/say that it is a
> > diet.
>
> Perhaps they are confused by your changing in nomemclature.
As if the blind can be confused by what they do not see.
The way to the truth is straight and narrow:
http://makeashorterlink.com/?A2642108A
You will remain in my prayers, dear Tony, whom I love, in Lord Christ's
holy name.
May you reject your pride and accept Him as your personal Lord and
Savior, someday, so that you too will have eternal life and the
fascinating riches of His everlasting kingdom.
Here's how:
http://makeashorterlink.com/?I22222129
Please note that God truly made this special link describing that He is
the great "I am" and that His message is as simple as the number 2 which
is a number between 1 to 9 and reminds us of His 2 commandments, the 2
arms of the cross, the 2nd part of the Trinity, the 2 finger sign of the
Prince of Peace [who remains *V*ictorious over death and satan], and the
2PD-OMER Approach. Let it not ever be written that Christ did not make
His presence known here on Usenet :-)
Also, note that Exodus 16:16 continues to remind us that 16 oz plus 16
oz makes 2 pounds, which is "a certain measure of weight," which is what
"omer" literally means in Hebrew.
Enter the 2PD-OMER Approach, which can "cure" metabolic syndrome (MetS)
thereby bringing this thread back on topic in these NGs :-)
http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtloss.asp
In Christ's love and service,
Bob (this one)
> tonyw...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
>>
>>>I have no objections to folks, who are using the 2PD-OMER Approach,
>>>calling it whatever they like.
>>>
>>>However, in discussions about the 2PD-OMER Approach especially with
>>>those who oppose it, I will correct folks who write/say that it is a
>>>diet.
You have no objections to people who use the 2 pound diet calling it a
diet. But you object to people who don't use it calling it a diet.
Hilarious. Clownish.
>>Perhaps they are confused by your changing in nomemclature.
>
> As if the blind can be confused by what they do not see.
Another stupid aphorism that can't stand scrutiny.
But all can see the change in nomenclature. So where's the evidence? You
say we don't see it. I say there is none. You say I'm blind, I say
you're fake.
But where's the evidence...?
Pastorio
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
>
> Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
>
> > tonyw...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> >>Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> >>
> >>>I have no objections to folks, who are using the 2PD-OMER Approach,
> >>>calling it whatever they like.
> >>>
> >>>However, in discussions about the 2PD-OMER Approach especially with
> >>>those who oppose it, I will correct folks who write/say that it is a
> >>>diet.
>
> You have no objections to people who use the 2 pound diet
The 2PD-OMER Approach is not a diet. Sorry.
Truth is simple:
http://makeashorterlink.com/?P2264129A
The way to the truth is straight and narrow:
http://makeashorterlink.com/?A2642108A
You will remain in my prayers, dear Bob, whom I love, in Lord Christ's
Jeff
> Jeff wrote:
>>
>> "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <and...@heartmdphd.com> wrote in message
>> news:42C352B5...@heartmdphd.com...
>> > Jeff wrote:
>> >>
>> > <snip>
>> >> I wouldn't make unsupportable claims, like 600,000+ people followed my
>> >> plan
>> >> unless I had evidence to back this up and it were reliable.
>> >
>> > Yet you would make the unsupportable claim that God does not exist when
>> > there are more than 600,000+ people on this planet who were created by
>> > Him.
>>
>> I have never claimed that God doesn't exist. And would not ever make that
>> claim.
>
> In truth, you have made this claim within your claim that evolution is
> fact rather than theory/hypothesis.
The fact of evolution in consistant with the beliefs of the Roman Catholic
Church, whcih is good enough for me.
> Those who are able to discern the truth, know that evolution is actually
> the null hypothesis.
We have been through a discussion on the truth of evolution. Interested
readers may read about it by searching Google. I don't feel a need to repeat
this nor do I see a need to see Andrew make an ass of himself yet again.
Jeff
Jeff
Actually, there is no evidence outside of religious texts that God created
anything.
Jeff
Bob (this one)
> "Bob (this one)" wrote:
>
>>Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
>>
>>>tonyw...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>>Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>I have no objections to folks, who are using the 2PD-OMER Approach,
>>>>>calling it whatever they like.
>>>>>
>>>>>However, in discussions about the 2PD-OMER Approach especially with
>>>>>those who oppose it, I will correct folks who write/say that it is a
>>>>>diet.
>>
>>You have no objections to people who use the 2 pound diet
>
> The 2PD-OMER Approach is not a diet. Sorry.
Oh, but Andrew, you know how much I respect you and I eat at least 2
pounds of food a day, so I'm part of the 625,500 who revere you and your
brilliance and IMAX-translation capacity. <LOL> You have no objection
to people who use the 2 pound diet calling it what they want. Suppose
they "want" to call it a diet? Do you clap your hands together and say,
"Dieters... this is not a diet. It is an approach. However, because
you're showing dutiful obeisance to me and my cosmic ego by doing the
diet (and never failing), you may call it a diet..."
What a red-nosed Chungish clown looks like...
Pastorio
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
"...and so the pot would deny the potter than made it."
And when the potter decides to destroy this pot, it would cry out,
"I have never claimed that God doesn't exist. And would not ever make
that claim."
You will remain in my prayers, dear Jeff, whom I love, in Lord Christ's
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
>
> "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <and...@heartmdphd.com> wrote in message
> news:42C526BC...@heartmdphd.com...
> > Jeff wrote:
> >>
> >> "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <and...@heartmdphd.com> wrote in message
> >> news:42C352B5...@heartmdphd.com...
> >> > Jeff wrote:
> >> >>
> >> > <snip>
> >> >> I wouldn't make unsupportable claims, like 600,000+ people followed my
> >> >> plan
> >> >> unless I had evidence to back this up and it were reliable.
> >> >
> >> > Yet you would make the unsupportable claim that God does not exist when
> >> > there are more than 600,000+ people on this planet who were created by
> >> > Him.
> >>
> >> I have never claimed that God doesn't exist. And would not ever make that
> >> claim.
> >
> > In truth, you have made this claim within your claim that evolution is
> > fact rather than theory/hypothesis.
>
> The fact of evolution
Evolution is not fact.
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
>
> Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
>
> > "Bob (this one)" wrote:
> >
> >>Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> >>
> >>>tonyw...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>I have no objections to folks, who are using the 2PD-OMER Approach,
> >>>>>calling it whatever they like.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>However, in discussions about the 2PD-OMER Approach especially with
> >>>>>those who oppose it, I will correct folks who write/say that it is a
> >>>>>diet.
> >>
> >>You have no objections to people who use the 2 pound diet
> >
> > The 2PD-OMER Approach is not a diet. Sorry.
>
> Oh, but Andrew, you know how much I respect you and I eat at least 2
> pounds of food a day, so I'm part of the 625,500 who revere you and your
> brilliance and IMAX-translation capacity.
You write out of the side of your mouth.
> <LOL>
"Deep is the despair of the untruthful."
Bob (this one)
> "Bob (this one)" wrote:
>
>> Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
>>
>>> "Bob (this one)" wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have no objections to folks, who are using the 2PD-OMER
>>>>>>> Approach, calling it whatever they like.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> However, in discussions about the 2PD-OMER Approach
>>>>>>> especially with those who oppose it, I will correct folks
>>>>>>> who write/say that it is a diet.
>>>>
>>>> You have no objections to people who use the 2 pound diet
>>>
>>> The 2PD-OMER Approach is not a diet. Sorry.
>>
>> Oh, but Andrew, you know how much I respect you and I eat at least
>> 2 pounds of food a day, so I'm part of the 625,500 who revere you
>> and your brilliance and IMAX-translation capacity. You have no
>> objection to people who use the 2 pound diet calling it what they
>> want. Suppose they "want" to call it a diet? Do you clap your hands
>> together and say, "Dieters... this is not a diet. It is an
>> approach. However, because you're showing dutiful obeisance to me
>> and my cosmic ego by doing the diet (and never failing), you may
>> call it a diet..."
> You write out of the side of your mouth.
I bet this is some idiom popular in the backalleys and pleasure domes of
Atlanta. Makes a bit more sense than the 2 pound diet, but you know
where that sits...
Poor humor-challenged, logic-challenged, sense-challenged Chung.
Pastorio
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
>
> Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
>
> > "Bob (this one)" wrote:
> >
> >> Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> >>
> >>> "Bob (this one)" wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I have no objections to folks, who are using the 2PD-OMER
> >>>>>>> Approach, calling it whatever they like.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> However, in discussions about the 2PD-OMER Approach
> >>>>>>> especially with those who oppose it, I will correct folks
> >>>>>>> who write/say that it is a diet.
> >>>>
> >>>> You have no objections to people who use the 2 pound diet
> >>>
> >>> The 2PD-OMER Approach is not a diet. Sorry.
> >>
> >> Oh, but Andrew, you know how much I respect you and I eat at least
> >> 2 pounds of food a day, so I'm part of the 625,500 who revere you
> >> and your brilliance and IMAX-translation capacity.
>
>
> I bet this is some idiom popular in the backalleys and pleasure domes of
> Atlanta.
You would lose the bet.
> Makes a bit more sense than the 2 pound diet
The 2PD-OMER Approach is not a diet. Sorry.
Truth is simple:
http://makeashorterlink.com/?P2264129A
The way to the truth is straight and narrow:
http://makeashorterlink.com/?A2642108A
Again, Lord Christ teaches from Matthew 5:
11Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely
say all kinds of evil against you because of me. 12Rejoice and be glad,
because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they
persecuted the prophets who were before you.
Bob (this one)
> "Bob (this one)" wrote:
>
>> Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
>>
>>
>>> "Bob (this one)" wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> "Bob (this one)" wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I have no objections to folks, who are using the
>>>>>>>>> 2PD-OMER Approach, calling it whatever they like.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> However, in discussions about the 2PD-OMER Approach
>>>>>>>>> especially with those who oppose it, I will correct
>>>>>>>>> folks who write/say that it is a diet.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You have no objections to people who use the 2 pound diet
>>>>>
>>>>> The 2PD-OMER Approach is not a diet. Sorry.
>>>>
>>>> Oh, but Andrew, you know how much I respect you and I eat at
>>>> least 2 pounds of food a day, so I'm part of the 625,500 who
>>>> revere you and your brilliance and IMAX-translation capacity.
>>>> diet? Do you clap your hands together and say, "Dieters...
>>>> this is not a diet. It is an approach. However, because you're
>>>> showing dutiful obeisance to me and my cosmic ego by doing the
>>>> diet (and never failing), you may call it a diet..."
>>
>>
>> I bet this is some idiom popular in the backalleys and pleasure
>> domes of Atlanta.
>
> You would lose the bet.
Poor sludgy witted Chung can't spot sarcasm or irony. And apparently
can't see when he's writing pure nonsense. Literalist Chung would jump
all over that ridiculous sentence if anyone else wrote it.
Where's all that famous "truth discernment" when you need it...?
>> Makes a bit more sense than the 2 pound diet
>
> The 2PD-OMER Approach is not a diet. Sorry.
So you say. But then you say silly things about so much, it's hard to
distinguish when you're lying from when the point is whooshing past you.
Poor humor-challenged, logic-challenged, sense-challenged,
intellectually constipated Chung.
Take your meds.
Pastorio