Re: Several alternatives for aspirin therapy
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> Jason wrote:
>
> >Some cardiologists recommend that everyone over age forty take a daily
> >low-dose aspirin as part of good cadiovascular prevention.
>
> >The problem is that aspirin is one of the causes of gastrointestional bleeding.
>
> Of course for the minority of patients who develop gastrointestinal
> bleeding it would be contraindicated, but it continues to be a
> relatively safe, cheap, and effective treatment.
Moreover, as discussed in another SMC thread, it remains wiser for
people at very low risk for heart attacks and strokes, where risk of
GI bleeding from the aspirin would be greater than benefit of primary
prevention, to reduce their cardiovascular risk to zero by losing
their visceral adiposity by eating the right amount (32 oz/day):
May GOD give you, Don, a new heart and a new spirit (Ezekiel 11:19-20
and 36:26) so that you would be born again of water and Spirit (John
3:3 and 3:5) so that you would come to trust the truth, Who is Jesus:
Amen.
Be hungrier, which truly is healthier especially for diabetics and
other heart disease patients:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/9642aafa0aad16eb?
Marana tha
Prayerfully in the awesome name of our Messiah, LORD Jesus Christ,
Andrew <><
--
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-certified Cardiologist
and Author of the 2PD-OMER Approach:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/f882137d4e2858d8?
ver...@gefinden.com
their visceral adiposity by eating the right amount (32 oz/day):"
Truth:
The two pound diet,aka 2pd etc. is quack science. It has flaws of both
fact and logic. It was invented to fit a preexisting agenda and does
not flow from evidence based on research. The diet inventor has many
times been appraised of his flaws but clings to them for reasons other
then science or valid medical practice
All of this nonsense of measure by weight or volume comes from the
agenda fitting, not well established research. But sadly even the
agenda is based on misunderstood and misapplied information. Even when
corrected, the author of the agenda for nothing but pride and vain face
saving can not deal with that truth.
The weight part came from a failed knowledge of a particular verse in
scripture. When shown to be wrong, he promptly said he had been given a
new interpretation to set the record straight. And of course this new
information led where the agenda demands.
Bottom line, ignore any reference to the two pound diet,aka 2 pd etc.
and stick with established information and sources of expert authorities
which do not include the vanity of vanity distorting reality in this
case.
There is a larger problem then misinformation obvious to anyone familiar
with the inventor's posts.
May God bless and protect and heal.
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/ba8379f6c69b4310?
<><
"The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the
LORD." (Proverbs 16:33)
Amen.
A Spirit-guided exegesis of Proverbs 16:33 ...
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/085dcffcafb7e4e2?
Nothing happens by chance because everything happens only as GOD
allows it (Ecclesiastes 9:11):
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/21527d1832960109?
Sign that GOD can easily unleash an H5N1 Pandemic, for which there is
no vaccine, at any time:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/a4581567229974c0?
What we are teaching to prepare folks in our local communities for the
probable eventuality of a Pan-Flu virus deadlier than the current H1N1
Pandemic virus (i.e. one for which there is no vaccine):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfmkax1wbRU
How to not be fearful:
Trust the truth, Who is Jesus !!!
May dear neighbors, friends, and brethren have a blessedly wonderful
2009th year since the birth of our LORD Jesus Christ as our Messiah,
the Son of Man ...
... by being hungrier:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/f891e617d10bd689?
Hunger is wonderful ! ! !
It's how we know the answer to the question "What does Jesus
want?" (WDJW):
Yes, hunger is our knowledge of good versus evil that Adam and Eve
paid for with their and our immortal lives:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/52a3db8576495806?
Hunger is the physical "hearts burning within us" feeling that unlocks
the 4 mysteries of the "Road to Emmaus" adventure described in Luke
24:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/386f56c2f6d0b154?
Moreover, being hungrier is the key to being Jesus' disciples:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/bd20d7c4fe878897?
Being physically hungrier is how we will physically recognize Jesus
when He physically returns for us to meet Him physically in the air:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/ffa6609710ea9587?
"Blessed are you who hunger NOW...
... for you will be satisfied." -- LORD Jesus Christ (Luke 6:21)
Amen.
Here is a Spirit-guided exegesis of Luke 6:21 given in hopes of
promoting much greater understanding:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/cc2aa8f8a4d41360?
Jesus is LORD, forever !!!
Be hungrier, which is truly healthier especially for diabetics and
Ken
Clinical Sociopathic *NARCISSISM*"
Having 5 of these 9 "qualifies" a person as a narcissist...
How many of these fit him to a "T"?
1. Feels grandiose and self-importance (e.g., exaggerates
achievements and talents to the point of lying, demands to be
recognized as superior without commensurate achievements)
2. Is obsessed with fantasies of unlimited success, fame, fearsome
power or omnipotence, unequalled brilliance (the cerebral
narcissist),
bodily beauty or sexual performance (the somatic narcissist), or
ideal, everlasting, all-conquering love or passion
3. Firmly convinced that he or she is unique and, being special,
can only be understood by, should only be treated by, or associate
with, other special or unique, or high-status people (or
institutions)
4. Requires excessive admiration, adulation, attention and
affirmation - or, failing that, wishes to be feared and to be
notorious (narcissistic supply).
5. Feels entitled. Expects unreasonable or special and favourable
priority treatment. Demands automatic and full compliance with his or
her expectations
6. Is "interpersonally exploitative", i.e., uses others to achieve
his or her own ends
7. Devoid of empathy. Is unable or unwilling to identify with or
acknowledge the feelings and needs of others
8. Constantly envious of others or believes that they feel the same
about him or her
9. Arrogant, haughty behaviours or attitudes coupled with rage when
frustrated, contradicted, or confronted
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/e444a7f27fc8ae79?
Truth is reality ...
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/459c9c0ed3b24ca2?
... despite your efforts:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/3160f9fd903ab7c2?
There is pure joy in being used by GOD to change hearts:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/8824c8a5b7c7518c?
May GOD give you, Ken, a new heart and a new spirit (Ezekiel 11:19-20
and 36:26) so that you would be born again of water and Spirit (John
3:3 and 3:5) so that you would come to trust the truth, Who is Jesus:
Amen.
Be hungrier, which truly is healthier especially for diabetics and
Ken
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
>
> Dr. Sinatra's medical grounding appears to be somewhat inferior to Dr.
> Chung's and his advice as inferred from his book titles is scarcely
> more scientific than the Two Pound Diet [Approach].
The 2PD-OMER Approach simply works as evident by the fact that its US
$2,000,000.00 guarantee remains in force:
Moreover, the underpinnings of the 2PD-OMER Approach is secured by an
understanding of the first law of thermodynamics so that no true
scientist is able to truthfully claim that the Approach lacks
scientific validity.
Would continue to gently suggest that you, Don, stop lying post-haste
before you start believing the lies and suffer a break from reality:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/ebf80fd52b13b1ca?
There is pure joy in being used by GOD to change hearts:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/8824c8a5b7c7518c?
May GOD give you, Don, a new heart and a new spirit (Ezekiel 11:19-20
MU
> Moreover, the underpinnings of the 2PD-OMER Approach is secured by an
> understanding of the first law of thermodynamics so that no true
> scientist is able to truthfully claim that the Approach lacks
> scientific validity.
Yep, /any/ weight loss regimen has to pass this test, validity, however,
is based on sustainability.
Atkins, Ornish and every other commercial, book or pamphlet based
dieting plan fail the validity/sustainability test with reversions as
high as 98%.
MoSn
(in article <hehjfk$crt$1...@news.eternal-september.org>):
Duh.
"There is a much easier way to lose weight, as we can learn from the first
law of thermodynamics. Eat less. "
http://muller.lbl.gov/TRessays/22-ThePhysicsDiet.htm
The key to weight loss is to eat less. Most people count calories and eat
less calories than they need. Exercise also helps by burning calories.
True the average person eats more than 2 pounds of food a day and so will
lose weight ..... but the idea of 2 pounds of celery and 2 pounds of cheese
cake will give the same result is absurd. The idea that the same amount for
6 foot 4 inch 350 pound male is the same as for a 4 foot 150 woman is also
absurd.
Beware of those advocating a simple one size fits all diet
Bill who putters
MoSn <mos...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> The key to weight loss is to eat less. Most people count calories and eat
> less calories than they need. Exercise also helps by burning calories.
>
Take a look at Gary Taubes book "Good Calories, Bad calories". P
352 dealing with Pennington. Then buy the book. High fat with
restricted carbs ..................... Get your own adipose cranking.
Bill
--
Garden in shade zone 5 S Jersey USA
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> MU wrote:
>> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
>>
>>> Moreover, the underpinnings of the 2PD-OMER Approach is secured by an
>>> understanding of the first law of thermodynamics so that no true
>>> scientist is able to truthfully claim that the Approach lacks
>>> scientific validity.
>>
>> Yep, /any/ weight loss regimen has to pass this test, validity, however,
>> is based on sustainability.
>>
>> Atkins, Ornish and every other commercial, book or pamphlet based
>> dieting plan fail the validity/sustainability test with reversions as
>> high as 98%.
>
> Duh.
Delusion.
It's the "hunger is starvation" delusion.
>"There is a much easier way to lose weight, as we can learn from the first
>law of thermodynamics. Eat less. "
Much smarter to eat the right amount (32 oz/day) of food:
> http://muller.lbl.gov/TRessays/22-ThePhysicsDiet.htm
From your cite:
"Of course, there is a catch. You'll be hungry. It's not real hunger -
not like the painful hunger of starving people in impoverished
countries." -- Richard A. Muller
It seems even Physicist Muller is suffering from the "real hunger is
starvation and is painful" delusion. Folks dying from starvation
(i.e. those that cause us to suffer when looking upon their emaciated
forms) are simply not hungry because they are in starvation ketosis.
Indeed, folks truly dying for any reason are simply not hungry.
The 2PD-OMER Approach does help people overcome the "hunger is
starvation" delusion as evident by the fact that its US
$2,000,000.00 guarantee remains in force:
There is pure joy in being used by GOD to change hearts:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/8824c8a5b7c7518c?
May GOD give you, neighbor, a new heart and a new spirit (Ezekiel
ver...@gefinden.com
Truth:
sometimers
> The key to weight loss is to eat less.
I'm overweight because I am diabetic. I am not diabetic
because I am overweight.
You have to remember also that eating is a survival
strategy, not entirely a matter of choice. Now that
my heart is pumping better and I have more energy I
am losing weight, though I doubt I'll ever again
achieve my ideal weight.
I'm not making excuses, just providing food for thought.
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> a neighbor wrote:
>
> > The key to weight loss is to eat less.
>
> I'm overweight because I am diabetic.
Not according to the first law of thermodynamics as physicist Muller
has explicated :
http://muller.lbl.gov/TRessays/22-ThePhysicsDiet.htm
sometimers
>> a neighbor wrote:
>>
>>> The key to weight loss is to eat less.
>> I'm overweight because I am diabetic.
>
> Not according to the first law of thermodynamics as physicist Muller
> has explicated :
>
> http://muller.lbl.gov/TRessays/22-ThePhysicsDiet.htm
I'm going to reply to you this one time only.
You're a kook.
Richard A. Muller is a kook as well. (1) He is not diabetic.
(2) He has some mental issues unique to himself. (3) The
human body is a complex system, not a project study under
the simplistic rules governing thermodynamics analysis.
People like you spout off easy answers because you don't
actually understand the problems you're attempting to
address. Real world solutions are never successfully one
size fits all.
Go hide in a corner somewhere and pray for the wisdom that
is eluding you. Please don't come out again until that
wisdom manifests. The first step is realizing that almost
everything you presently tell us you believe is wrong.
That's the key to your permission to engage in conversation
with me in the future.
Best of luck to you.
MoSn
> http://muller.lbl.gov/TRessays/22-ThePhysicsDiet.htm
This is the article from the above site
The Physics Diet
Want to lose weight? Easy! Just remember the first law of thermodynamics:
conservation of energy.
by Richard A. Muller
Technology for Presidents
November 14, 2003
Here's an old joke. The dairy industry hires a physicist to improve milk
production. After several weeks, he's ready to lecture about his progress. He
draws a circle on the blackboard and says, 'Consider a spherical cow.'
I've told this joke many times, but nobody ever laughs -- except other
physicists. For the rest of you, I should explain that it is self-deprecating
humor. It makes fun of our penchant for oversimplification.
This month I want to talk about diet and exercise for weight loss, and I'm
going to oversimplify on purpose. Consider a spherical physicist.
Most dieters are so concerned about second-order effects, such as daily
fluctuations in weight and changes in metabolism, that they lose track of the
first law of thermodynamics: conservation of energy.
Want to lose a pound of fat? You can work it off by hiking to the top of a
2,500-story building. Or by running 60 miles. Or by spending 7 hours cleaning
animal stalls. (It is amazing what scientists have actually measured. This
last example is tabulated in the book Exercise Physiology by G. Brooks and T.
Fahey.)
Exercise is a very difficult way to lose weight. Here's a rule of thumb:
exercise very hard for one hour (swimming, running, or racquetball)ￜ and
you'll lose about one ounce of fat. Light exercise for an hour (gardening,
baseball, or golf) will lose you a third of an ounce. That number is small
because fat is a very energy-dense substance: it packs about 4,000 food
calories per pound, the same as gasoline, and 15 times as much as in TNT.
If you run for an hour, you'll lose that ounce of fat and also a pound or two
of water. By the next day, when you've replenished the water, you might
think, 'the weight came right back!' But you'd be wrong -- you really did
lose an ounce. It is hard to notice, unless you keep running every day for a
month or more, and don't reward yourself after each run with a cookie.
There is a much easier way to lose weight, as we can learn from the first law
of thermodynamics. Eat less.
A reasonable daily diet for an adult is 2,000 food calories. That's 8.36
megajoules per day, or about 100 joules per second -- in other words, 100
watts. Most of that ends up as heat, so you warm a room as much as a bright
light bulb. Cut your consumption by 600 calories per day and you'll lose a
pound of fat every week. Most diet experts consider that a reasonable goal.
Don't drop below 1,000 calories per day, or you might get lethargic. But at
1,400 calories per day, you can easily maintain an active life.
Of course, there is a catch. You'll be hungry.
It's not real hungerï¿œnot like the painful hunger of starving people in
impoverished countries. It's more of a mild ache, or an itch that you mustn't
scratch. To be popular, a diet must somehow cope with this hunger. Weight
Watchers does it with peer support. The food pyramid does it by encouraging
you to eat unlimited celery. Some high-fat diets satisfy all your old
cravings -- and figure you'll eventually cut back the butter you put on your
bacon.
Last April, I had once again grown out of my belt. I wasn't grossly
overweight: 205 pounds in a six-foot, one-inch body. That wouldn't be bad
for a football player, but I'm 59 years old, and the excess pounds weren't in
muscle. I had gained a pound a year for several decades. I felt heavy and
old. I decided to try conservation of energy. I gave up lunch and snacks.
How to cope with the hunger? I attempted to enjoy it. I thought of the movie
Lawrence of Arabia, in which T.E. Lawrence says, 'The trick is not minding
that it hurts.' I told myself that the mild ache was only the sensation of
evaporating fat. That interpretation has some basis in physics. When you lose
weight, most of your fat is converted to the gases carbon dioxide and water
vapor, and so you get rid of fat by breathing it out of your body.
Physics works, and I lost weight. By August, I was down to 175 pounds, a
30-pound drop. My belt went from 42 inches to 36 inches. My Zen-like
approach to hunger also worked; I found myself declining offers of chocolate
cake because I didn't want to lose the sensation of evaporation. I didn't
change my level of activity, and managed to maintain my diet while taking
trips to Cuba and Alaska -- and during a week-long backpacking excursion in
the Sierra Nevada. A key innovation: I kept up the social aspects of lunch,
without eating. I watched others gobbling cheeseburgers, while I sipped diet
cola. It really wasn't that hard to do. And the mild afternoon discomfort was
compensated by several positive developments. Dinner became truly wonderful.
I hadn't had pre-dinner hunger for decades. A sharp appetite turns a meal
into a feast. No more cheese 'appetizers' for me.
Moreover -- and this may sound silly coming from a physicist -- I was
surprised that I began to feel lighter. I no longer walk down streets -- I
float. Distant stores seem closer. And my knees have responded to the lighter
load. Their aching, which I had mistakenly attributed to aging, went away.
Food is instant gratification. And fast-food chains and gourmet restaurants
serve tasty food at remarkably low cost. It is a situation unprecedented in
history and unanticipated by our genes. No wonder we are overweight.
Anybody can lose weight. Energy is conserved. Just stop scratching that itch.
Of course, you'll have to sacrifice instant gratification. Is it worth it?
You decide. Food is delicious and cheap. You might reasonably choose to take
advantage of this unique historical circumstance, and decide to be fat.
It's been seven months since I started my diet, and two months since I left
it. I've begun eating a light lunch, and having an occasional small snack.
I'm still at 175. But I never want to lose the delicious edge of hunger
before dinner, or the floating sensation when I walk. Moving takes less
energy now, so I have more energy. I no longer feel like a spherical
physicist. And for losing weight, dieting sure beats cleaning animal stalls.
-------------------
Richard A. Muller, a 1982 MacArthur Fellow, is a physics professor at the
University of California, Berkeley, where he teaches a course called 'Physics
for Future Presidents.' Since 1972, he has been a Jason consultant on U.S.
national security
MoSn
(in article
<acdf89d8-c281-4da0...@37g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>):
> Not according to the first law of thermodynamics as physicist Muller
> has explicated :
>
> http://muller.lbl.gov/TRessays/22-ThePhysicsDiet.htm
No where do Muller advocate or even mention Chung 2 pound diet in the site
As a matter of fact no where in the medical literature is Chung's diet
discussed or even mentioned and there are no published studies in any of the
standard medical literature.
MoSn
(in article <heib8a$9lb$1...@news.eternal-september.org>):
> Real world solutions are never successfully one
> size fits all.
Yes ..... and beware of those spouting simple one-size fits all diets.
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> sometimers wrote:
>
> > Real world solutions are never successfully one
> > size fits all.
Incorrect.
GOD is One real world solution and He is always successful.
> Yes ..... and beware of those spouting simple one-size fits all diets.
Thankfully the 2PD-OMER Approach is not a diet:
It is by GOD's design that there exists one right amount of food for
humans (Exodus 16:16).
It is not by chance that the chapter and verse numbers add up to 32
here (Proverbs 16:33).
It is not by chance that the "hunger is starvation" delusion is
described in the middle of Genesis at verse 32.
It is by GOD, the 2PD-OMER Approach is another real world solution
that has been successful:
And, will remain successful:
May GOD give you, neighbor, a new heart and a new spirit (Ezekiel
11:19-20 and 36:26) so that you would be born again of water and
Spirit (John 3:3 and 3:5) so that you would come to trust the truth,
Who is Jesus.
Amen.
There is pure joy in being used by GOD to change hearts:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/8824c8a5b7c7518c?
Being hungrier truly is healthier especially for diabetics and other
QJ
(in article
<432c31a6-a87c-4709...@c34g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>):
> GOD is One real world solution and He is always successful.
>
Which God - people believe fervently, as much as you do, in different Gods.
>
> Thankfully the 2PD-OMER Approach is not a diet:
Weight Watchers and Jenny Craig's and Atkin's are all Approaches also to
dieting and life style changes.
It is interesting that you have to resort to word games when you do not have
the facts and data to back up what you write. Of course, that goes for most
of what you post.
MoSn
(in article <0001HW.C7329EDB...@news.x-privat.org>):
> On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 03:54:08 -0600, Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote
> (in article
> <432c31a6-a87c-4709...@c34g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>):
>
>> GOD is One real world solution and He is always successful.
>>
>
> Which God - people believe fervently, as much as you do, in different Gods.
>
Naturally my God and not yours.
>>
>> Thankfully the 2PD-OMER Approach is not a diet:
>
> Weight Watchers and Jenny Craig's and Atkin's are all Approaches also to
> dieting and life style changes.
>
> It is interesting that you have to resort to word games when you do not have
> the facts and data to back up what you write. Of course, that goes for most
> of what you post.
>
Yes. "A rose is a rose is a rose is a rose" no matter what you call it
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
>>> sometimers wrote:
>>>
>>> > Real world solutions are never successfully one
>>> > size fits all.
>>
>> Incorrect.
>>
>>
>>
>>
If 2PD-OMER Approach were a diet, it would not dovetail as easily with
a regular diet as it does with either Atkins or vegan diets.
>> It is by GOD's design that there exists one right amount of food for
>> humans (Exodus 16:16).
>>
>> It is not by chance that the chapter and verse numbers add up to 32
>> here (Proverbs 16:33).
>>
>> It is not by chance that the "hunger is starvation" delusion is
>> described in the middle of Genesis at verse 32.
>>
>> It is by GOD, the 2PD-OMER Approach is another real world solution
>> that has been successful:
>>
>> http://WDJW.net/NJ
>>
>> And, will remain successful:
>>
>> http://WDJW.net/Guarantee
>
>Which God
The Author of all reality and Creator GOD, Whom this physician most
assuredly without doubt **knows** and understands to be kind, just,
and right (Jeremiah 9:24)
May GOD give you, neighbor, a new heart and a new spirit (Ezekiel
11:19-20 and 36:26) so that you would be born again of water and
Spirit (John 3:3 and 3:5) so that you would come to trust the truth,
Who is Jesus:
MU
People who do not limit their consumption to 2lbs per day fear what they
have been told to fear, the unpleasantness/pain of hunger. What actually
happens is that any unpleasantness will, in time, resolve itself. You
will still know hunger but like watching a fire from afar, you know it
is hot, but you are not hot.
This fear of being without food is part and parcel of a concerted
attempt through mass disinformation and marketing stemming from the
various food delivery agencies. This includes the complicity of the
FedGov, USDA (the ridiculous food pyramid) and others in perpetuating
this dishonesty on the world populations.
Motherhood, this concept of food=love and satiation=parenting, is yet
another strong factor in the obesity of America.
MU
Are you saying that diabetics have no choice but overconsumption,
obesity and, at the very least, being over ideal weight?
MU
> People like you spout off easy answers because you don't
> actually understand the problems you're attempting to
> address. Real world solutions are never successfully one
> size fits all.
So if we destroy all nuclear materials, bombs, and associated, we cannot
end the possibility of nuclear war?
See - a one size fits all solution.
MU
> On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 03:54:08 -0600, Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote
> (in article
> <432c31a6-a87c-4709...@c34g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>):
>
>> GOD is One real world solution and He is always successful.
>>
>
> Which God - people believe fervently, as much as you do, in different Gods.
>
>>
>> Thankfully the 2PD-OMER Approach is not a diet:
>
> Weight Watchers and Jenny Craig's and Atkin's are all Approaches also to
> dieting and life style changes.
They are no such thing, they are dishonest, profit making business and
nothing more. When you fly an approach in an airplane, the reason is to
land successfully and debark. These frauds rarely have any sustainable
successes, they only thing they "approach" is a near certainty of
failure.
> It is interesting that you have to resort to word games when you do not have
> the facts and data to back up what you write. Of course, that goes for most
> of what you post.
Your opinion. My facts just kicked your concepts on WW, JC and Atkins to
the gutter...where all trash belongs.
sometimers
Look around and tell me what you see. Statistically
diabetics are above their ideal weight. It isn't for
want of wishing, and trying, to be closer to ideal
that we're where we are today.
That's not to say there aren't some thin diabetics.
For the rest of us it is a lifetime battle to
control weight. AFAIC the less I weigh the longer
my life might be.
QJ
(in article <hekci4$sq3$1...@news.eternal-september.org>):
>
> Your opinion. My facts just kicked your concepts on WW, JC and Atkins to
> the gutter...where all trash belongs.
What facts. Can you cite established peer reviewed medical journals or a
university sites where these facts are published.
ver...@gefinden.com
a regular diet as it does with either Atkins or vegan diets.
>> It is by GOD's design that there exists one right amount of food for
>> humans (Exodus 16:16).
>>
>> It is not by chance that the chapter and verse numbers add up to 32
>> here (Proverbs 16:33).
>>
>> It is not by chance that the "hunger is starvation" delusion is
>> described in the middle of Genesis at verse 32.
Truth:
MoSn
(in article <0001HW.C73322BF...@news.x-privat.org>):
There are no real facts otherwise they would be in the medical journals and
even the mainstream media if the claims were true and Chung would be citing
those far more than his biblical quotes and citations and of course MU, who
may be a sock puppet, would be parroting them.
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
There is fear of death.
Starvation is synonymous with death.
"What good is my birthright if I die." -- Esau thinking he was
starving (Genesis 25:32)
When folks falsely believe that hunger is starvation, they falsely
also believe they are dying when they are hungry.
The latter does result in fear when hungry.
Mu, note that the verse# of the above verse that identifies the fiery
dart with "hunger is starvation" written on it reminds us of the right
amount of food we should all be eating daily (32 oz).
Therefore, we should always be saying "wonderfully hungry" whenever
greeted to keep for ever having a heart attack:
Be hungrier, which truly is healthier especially for diabetics and
other heart disease patients:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/9642aafa0aad16eb?
Marana tha
Prayerfully in the awesome name of our Messiah, LORD Jesus Christ,
Andrew <><
--
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-certified Cardiologist
and Author of the 2PD-OMER Approach:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/9ef5f0160bbd417c?
Ken
Board-certified Spamming Nutsack
MU
> What facts.
The ones you purposefully snipped, you disingenuous ass.
MU
> MU wrote:
>> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 19:48:45 -0600, sometimers wrote:
>>
>>> MoSn wrote:
>>>
>>>> The key to weight loss is to eat less.
>>> I'm overweight because I am diabetic. I am not diabetic
>>> because I am overweight.
>>>
>>> You have to remember also that eating is a survival
>>> strategy, not entirely a matter of choice. Now that
>>> my heart is pumping better and I have more energy I
>>> am losing weight, though I doubt I'll ever again
>>> achieve my ideal weight.
>>>
>>> I'm not making excuses, just providing food for thought.
>>
>> Are you saying that diabetics have no choice but overconsumption,
>> obesity and, at the very least, being over ideal weight?
>
> Look around and tell me what you see.
Walls, computers, ocean, cat, mirror, sand, grass, etc.
> Statistically
> diabetics are above their ideal weight. It isn't for
> want of wishing, and trying, to be closer to ideal
> that we're where we are today.
>
> That's not to say there aren't some thin diabetics.
>
> For the rest of us it is a lifetime battle to
> control weight. AFAIC the less I weigh the longer
> my life might be.
The diabetics I know who follow the 2lb/day consumption rule are not
overweight.
QJ
(in article <heme0r$ej6$1...@news.eternal-september.org>):
> On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 18:06:55 -0600, QJ wrote:
>
>> What facts.
>
> The ones you purposefully snipped, you disingenuous ass.
I see you snipped out:
>
> What facts. Can you cite established peer reviewed medical journals or a
> university sites where these facts are published.
>
So what does that make you?
It seems obvious that you resort to insults when you have no recognized
medical sources to cite which back up Chung's 2 pd diet.
Do you really think you are fooling anyone?
QJ
(in article <heme51$fmk$1...@news.eternal-september.org>):
> The diabetics I know who follow the 2lb/day consumption rule are not
> overweight.
So you say.
Meanwhile there is no studies in any of the peer reviewed medical journals
where even the 2 pd diet is mentioned.
Diabetics who follow a proper diet are not overweight either.
MU
> On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 11:31:06 -0600, MU wrote
> (in article <heme0r$ej6$1...@news.eternal-september.org>):
>
>> On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 18:06:55 -0600, QJ wrote:
>>
>>> What facts.
>>
>> The ones you purposefully snipped, you disingenuous ass.
>
> I see
*PLONK*
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> sometimers wrote:
And, the patients that this physician knows who are holding to 32 oz/
day of food either are reversing their type-2 diabetes or are no
longer diabetic.
Be hungrier, which truly is healthier especially for diabetics and
other heart disease patients:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/9642aafa0aad16eb?
Marana tha
Prayerfully in the awesome name of our Messiah, LORD Jesus Christ,
Andrew <><
--
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-certified Cardiologist
and Author of the 2PD-OMER Approach:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/3bdb9e06a702694b?
MoSn
If Chung/MU had the scientific studies published in medical journals they
would be citing those instead of insults.
MoSn
(in article <heml3l$t4t$1...@news.eternal-september.org>):
As I just wrote:
If Chung/MU had the scientific studies published in medical journals they
would be citing those instead of insults.
MU, you have just proved what I said.
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> If Chung/MU had the scientific studies published in medical journals they
> would be citing those instead of insults.
Neither Dr. Chung nor MU have cited any insults.
The New England Journal of Medicine is a medical journal and their
moderators would not have allowed the following on their web site if
they believed the 2PD-OMER Approach were without merit:
http://healthcarereform.nejm.org/index.php?p=1364#comment-419
There is pure joy in being used by GOD to change hearts:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/8824c8a5b7c7518c?
May GOD give you, neighbor, a new heart and a new spirit (Ezekiel
11:19-20 and 36:26) so that you would be born again of water and
Spirit (John 3:3 and 3:5) so that you would come to trust the truth,
Who is Jesus:
Amen.
Be hungrier, which truly is healthier especially for diabetics and
other heart disease patients:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/9642aafa0aad16eb?
Marana tha
Prayerfully in the awesome name of our Messiah, LORD Jesus Christ,
Andrew <><
--
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-certified Cardiologist
and Author of the 2PD-OMER Approach:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/3bdb9e06a702694b?
ver...@gefinden.com
> overweight.
"And, the patients that this physician knows who are holding to 32 oz/
day of food either are reversing their type-2 diabetes or are no longer
diabetic."
Truth:
ver...@gefinden.com
they
> would be citing those instead of insults.
Neither Dr. Chung nor MU have cited any insults.
The New England Journal of Medicine is a medical journal and their
"moderators would not have allowed the following on their web site if
they believed the 2PD-OMER Approach were without merit:
http://healthcarereform.nejm.org/index.php?p=1364#comment-419 "
This is not a peer reviewed journal article but an opinion piece about
health insurance reform. There is no mention of the two pound diet,aka
2pd etc. in the least. It mentions only in passing preventive practices
related to costs, among which are those which would find the two pound
diet,aka 2pd etc., deficient on several grounds and best ignored.
When do misleading assertions such as this cross the line and become
mere lies?
MU
>> If Chung/MU had the scientific studies published in medical journals
> they
>> would be citing those instead of insults.
>
> Neither Dr. Chung nor MU have cited any insults.
You're a full fledged idiot.
Is that any better?
MU citing MU
David
Geez Ken, looking at the number of posts you make regarding Chung it
does seem YOU are getting rather obsessive.
Remember ...in glass houses etc... and pot calling....
Cheers
David
In article
<d0b98959-8a97-4ebf...@f18g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
Ken <flak...@aol.com> wrote:
> Bottom line concening chung
>
> Clinical Sociopathic *NARCISSISM*"
> Having 5 of these 9 "qualifies" a person as a narcissist...
> How many of these fit him to a "T"?
>
>
> 1. Feels grandiose and self-importance (e.g., exaggerates
> achievements and talents to the point of lying, demands to be
> recognized as superior without commensurate achievements)
> 2. Is obsessed with fantasies of unlimited success, fame, fearsome
> power or omnipotence, unequalled brilliance (the cerebral
> narcissist),
> bodily beauty or sexual performance (the somatic narcissist), or
> ideal, everlasting, all-conquering love or passion
> 3. Firmly convinced that he or she is unique and, being special,
> can only be understood by, should only be treated by, or associate
> with, other special or unique, or high-status people (or
> institutions)
> 4. Requires excessive admiration, adulation, attention and
> affirmation - or, failing that, wishes to be feared and to be
> notorious (narcissistic supply).
> 5. Feels entitled. Expects unreasonable or special and favourable
> priority treatment. Demands automatic and full compliance with his or
> her expectations
> 6. Is "interpersonally exploitative", i.e., uses others to achieve
> his or her own ends
> 7. Devoid of empathy. Is unable or unwilling to identify with or
> acknowledge the feelings and needs of others
> 8. Constantly envious of others or believes that they feel the same
> about him or her
> 9. Arrogant, haughty behaviours or attitudes coupled with rage when
> frustrated, contradicted, or confronted
MoSn
(in article <4b0fe634$0$11061$1c46...@news.club.cc.cmu.edu>):
> This is not a peer reviewed journal article but an opinion piece about
> health insurance reform. There is no mention of the two pound diet,aka
> 2pd etc. in the least. It mentions only in passing preventive practices
> related to costs, among which are those which would find the two pound
> diet,aka 2pd etc., deficient on several grounds and best ignored.
>
> When do misleading assertions such as this cross the line and become
> mere lies?
You are corrected. Not only is it not in a peer reviewed article but not
even in a letter to the editor in the journal, but an on-line forum in which
anyone can post a comment.
This just goes to show that no where is this 2 pound diet is in a peer
reviewed medical journal.
MoSn
(in article <heottp$bmc$1...@news.eternal-september.org>):
Your comments obviously go along with your intellect and once again show when
you do not have the facts, you resort to personal attacks and insults. Thank
you MU/Chung for proving that once again.
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
>
> You are corrected. Not only is it not in a peer reviewed article but not
> even in a letter to the editor in the journal, but an on-line forum in which
> anyone can post a comment.
Incorrect.
The NEJM web site is moderated:
http://healthcarereform.nejm.org/index.php?p=1364#comment-419
> This just goes to show that no where is this 2 pound diet is in a peer
> reviewed medical journal.
The 2PD-OMER Approach is not a diet:
It remains published on-line since 1998 where no one has been able to
successfully refute its efficacy because it is backed by the 1st law
of thermodynamics.
Since then, it has also been described in at least three books. Two
by this medical MD/PhD scientist and one by a CDC research scientist,
Dr. Leslie Dauphin.
Folks should remember that Darwin's theory of evolution was not
published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal so that being
published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal is not needed for
widespread adoption either for thought or belief.
Indeed, belief in the 2PD-OMER Approach has led to the $2 million
dollar guarantee that has remained in force for 2 years thereby
providing the evidence for certain knowledge that truly eating the
right amount (32 oz/day) of food cures obesity:
May GOD give you, neighbor, a new heart and a new spirit (Ezekiel
11:19-20 and 36:26) so that you would be born again of water and
Spirit (John 3:3 and 3:5) so that you would come to trust the truth,
Who is Jesus:
Amen.
Love in the truth,
Andrew <><
--
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-certified Cardiologist
and Author of "Trust the Truth:"
http://www.amazon.com/-/e/B002G22ZWG
plus the 2PD-OMER Approach:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/3bdb9e06a702694b?
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/9642aafa0aad16eb?
Only the truth can cure the "hunger is starvation" delusion:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/74281ab7d7ce78de?
ver...@gefinden.com
not
> even in a letter to the editor in the journal, but an on-line forum in
which
> anyone can post a comment.
"Incorrect.
The NEJM web site is moderated:
http://healthcarereform.nejm.org/index.php?p=1364#comment-419 "
Correction, interpretation; for purposes of civility contributions are
moderated for spotting the ranters and quacks.
> This just goes to show that no where is this 2 pound diet is in a peer
> reviewed medical journal.
"The 2PD-OMER Approach is not a diet:
In previous expressions of it, it was clearly said to be a diet. In
terms of the claimed biology related to calorie restriction it like the
duck fits the bill.
"It remains published on-line since 1998 where no one has been able to
successfully refute its efficacy because it is backed by the 1st law of
thermodynamics."
No, it has in this very newsgroup been refuted in part and in whole over
the years in which its expression was made. Sure calorie
restriction,ie. energy as in the law, as said to apply is in fact one of
its central flaws. The law refutes it.
"Since then, it has also been described in at least three books. Two by
this medical MD/PhD scientist and one by a CDC research scientist, Dr.
Leslie Dauphin."
Self published "books" do not serve in any of your claims. What is the
name of the book of the other person? For all we know, it is a
condemnation of the two pound diet,aka 2pd etc. idea on the same grounds
as have been presented in newsgroups.
"Folks should remember that Darwin's theory of evolution was not
published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal so that being published
in a peer-reviewed scientific journal is not needed for widespread "
adoption either for thought or belief.
It was first formally presented to his peers at a scientific society
meeting, which publications of its proceedings served in those days as a
journal.. Having a self published book, such as your's, is not "broad"
acceptance, only obscurity.
"Indeed, belief in the 2PD-OMER Approach has led to the $2 million
dollar guarantee that has remained in force for 2 years thereby
providing the evidence for certain knowledge that truly eating the right
amount (32 oz/day) of food cures obesity:"
This dubious claim, regardless of claimed amounts, is not in any way
"proof" of being accepted as valid and far far from being "evidence".
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/ba8379f6c69b4310?
<><
There is pure joy in being used by GOD to change hearts:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/8824c8a5b7c7518c?
Being hungrier truly is healthier especially for diabetics and other
heart disease patients:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/9642aafa0aad16eb?
Marana tha
Prayerfully in the awesome name of our Messiah, LORD Jesus Christ,
Andrew <><
--
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-certified Cardiologist
and Author of the 2PD-OMER Approach:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/6c7ea3fb5d1df708?
QJ
(in article
<f08c8dbc-8286-4455...@o10g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>):
> Incorrect.
>
> The NEJM web site is moderated:
>
> http://healthcarereform.nejm.org/index.php?p=1364#comment-419
I think if you look at the site you will see that my comment on Nov 26th was
accepted ... at the end of the comments
My comments included:
Also not covering non-proven treatments like the one mentioned by Dr. Chung
above and many others all over the internet.
So using your rationale and paraphrasing what you said:
Their moderators would not have allowed the following on their web site if
they believed my comments were without merit:
Therefore, the NEJM must agree that your 2PD "approach" is non-proven.
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote in part:
>
>>
>> The NEJM web site is moderated:
>>
>> http://healthcarereform.nejm.org/index.php?p=1364#comment-419
>
>I think if you look at the site you will see that my comment on Nov 26th was
>accepted ... at the end of the comments
>
>My comments included:
>
>Also not covering non-proven treatments like the one mentioned by Dr. Chung
>above and many others all over the internet.
Dr. Chung did not mention any treatments either proven or unproven.
The 2PD-OMER Approach is neither a diet nor a treatment:
>So using your rationale and paraphrasing what you said:
>
>Their moderators would not have allowed the following on their web site if
>they believed my comments were without merit:
>
>Therefore, the NEJM must agree that your 2PD "approach" is non-proven.
Incorrect. They simply agree that non-proven treatments mentioned by
anybody should not be covered :-)
With all due respect, can you Quentin, publicly say "Jesus is LORD"
using your mouth?
Love in the truth,
Andrew <><
--
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-certified Heart Doctor
and Author of "Trust the Truth:"
http://www.amazon.com/-/e/B002G22ZWG
"... no one can say 'Jesus is LORD' except by the Holy Spirit." (1 Cor
12:3)
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/035c93540862751c?
What are the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven?
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/980b41e6999de315?
Ken
MoSn
(in article <0001HW.C7393569...@news.x-privat.org>):
ROFLOL.
I noticed Chung's response and is his classic non sequitur response.
Your post on the NEJM sites shows that a posting there does not even have to
accurate if as Chung writes that no where did he mention treatment. - if the
NEJM did not think that what Chung, who listed himself as a doctor, wrote was
not a treatment then they would not have allowed your false statement unless
they do not check for accuracy or they view treatment in a broad sense of
what a doctor recommends or does.
The bottom line is that Chung was misleading and wrong when he cited that
NEJM forum as evidence that his 2 PD "approach" was in a peer reviewed
journal. It is interesting that Chung cannot admit when he is wrong.
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote in part:
>> Quentin wrote:
>>> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote in part:
>>>
>>>> The NEJM web site is moderated:
>>>>
>>>> http://healthcarereform.nejm.org/index.php?p=1364#comment-419
>>>
>>> I think if you look at the site you will see that my comment on Nov 26th was
>>> accepted ... at the end of the comments
>>>
>>> My comments included:
>>>
>>> Also not covering non-proven treatments like the one mentioned by Dr. Chung
>>> above and many others all over the internet.
>>
>> Dr. Chung did not mention any treatments either proven or unproven.
However, it is right that non-proven treatments mentioned by some
other Dr. Chung out there should not be covered while something free
like the 2PD-OMER Approach which has a $2 million guarantee of
efficacy that has remained in force (Laus Deo!) since 2007 should
become a matter of public policy if our policymakers were wise:
>> The 2PD-OMER Approach is neither a diet nor a treatment:
>>
>> http://HeartMDPhD.com/BeSmart
>
>Charlie, it is a *diet* by the dictionary definition of *DIET*.
Not for the discerning.
>We who
>are not as smart as *you* sightwalker can't make up our own definitions
>for our way of living.
>http://www.thefreedictionary.com/diet
>
>di�et 1 (dt)
>n.
>1. The usual food and drink of a person or animal.
>2. A regulated selection of foods, as for medical reasons or cosmetic
>weight loss.
>3. Something used, enjoyed, or provided regularly: subsisted on a diet
>of detective novels during his vacation.
Laus Deo for His compelling you to unwittingly prove that the 2PD-OMER
Approach is not a diet.
(1) The 2PD-OMER Approach is not the usual food and drink of a person
or animal as that would be simply known as a "regular" diet.
(2) The 2PD-OMER Approach is not a regulated selection of foods, as
for medical reasons or cosmetic weight loss as that would require that
there be a selection of foods as happens with the Atkins or South
Beach diets. Indeed, a person on an Atkins diet can remain on Atkins
while implementing the 2PD-OMER Approach by holding to 32 oz of food
daily.
(3) The 2PD-OMER Approach is not something used, enjoyed, or provided
in the manner of "subsisted on a diet of detective novels during his
vacation."
Instead, the 2PD-OMER Approach is simply holding to 32 oz of food per
day and is not a diet just as holding to 0 oz of food per day is
fasting, which is also not a diet.
Truth is simple :-)
Would continue to gently suggest that you, Jimmy, stop lying before
you lose your mind:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/013d97011bed20f3?
Yes, you know you have been lying:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/363c44ee711557eb?
There is pure joy in being used by GOD to renew minds:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/976a4521b541c4cf?
May GOD renew and strengthen your brain about knowing what is right
(Jeremiah 9:24), Jimmy, so that you would be able to rein in your
deceitful heart (Jeremiah 17:9) which is causing you to continue
sinning.
Amen.
Love in the truth,
Andrew <><
--
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-certified Cardiologist
QJ
(in article <0001HW.C739597D...@news.x-privat.org>):
>
> ROFLOL.
>
> I noticed Chung's response and is his classic non sequitur response.
>
> Your post on the NEJM sites shows that a posting there does not even have to
> accurate if as Chung writes that no where did he mention treatment. - if the
> NEJM did not think that what Chung, who listed himself as a doctor, wrote was
> not a treatment then they would not have allowed your false statement unless
> they do not check for accuracy or they view treatment in a broad sense of
> what a doctor recommends or does.
>
> The bottom line is that Chung was misleading and wrong when he cited that
> NEJM forum as evidence that his 2 PD "approach" was in a peer reviewed
> journal. It is interesting that Chung cannot admit when he is wrong.
>
>
>
Yes, no where in the peer reviewed medical literature is there anything about
the 2 pound whatever you want to call it.
Chung's misrepresentation and his typical responses also show that he does
not have the facts to back up what he posts here.
All we have is Chung's word about the large number of people who follow his
"approach" and the success rate, and yet someone with a MD and PhD who has
published papers in peer reviewed medical/science journals has not had this
published.
He must at least realize that no legitimate journal would accept.
There is plenty of reason to not accept Chung's word even though some like MU
do.
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote in part:
>> Quentin wrote:
>>> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote in part:
>>>
>>>> The NEJM web site is moderated:
>>>>
>>>> http://healthcarereform.nejm.org/index.php?p=1364#comment-419
>>>
>>> I think if you look at the site you will see that my comment on Nov 26th was
>>> accepted ... at the end of the comments
>>>
>>> My comments included:
>>>
>>> Also not covering non-proven treatments like the one mentioned by Dr. Chung
>>> above and many others all over the internet.
>>
>> Dr. Chung did not mention any treatments either proven or unproven.
However, it is right that non-proven treatments mentioned by some
other Dr. Chung who is possibly out there should not be covered while
Not for the discerning.
Truth is simple :-)
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/013d97011bed20f3?
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/363c44ee711557eb?
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/976a4521b541c4cf?
Amen.
Love in the truth,
plus the 2PD-OMER Approach:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/6c7ea3fb5d1df708?
Ken
Board-certified Fundy Fuckwadd
and Author of "How I Became a Spamming Fundy Nutcase"
------Chung has been around for quite a fews years now, and over time
(last 5 years or so) his posts have degenerated from once being
helpful and
knowledgeable to now being consumed with religion and what seems a
paranoid belief in his 2lb diet.
Very sad to a see a once clever man go down the gurgler like this,
but that is unfortunately the nature of his disease - most likely
schizophrenia-------
CCPed from "David"
MoSn
(in article <0001HW.C7396AB7...@news.x-privat.org>):
> do.
>
>
Yes, there are plenty of reasons to accept what Chung posts because there is
no in the medical/scientific literature about the 2 pound diet. As with so
many of the other approaches to diets, like Atkins, Weight Watchers et al,
there is nothing about the 2 pound "approach" (aka diet) in the lay press in
magazines and TV news types of shows.
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
>
> Schizophrenia can set in at any time but it's usual shows up in early
> adulthood.
>
> I'm predisposed due to my biological maw spending her adult life in a
> hospital as a paranoid schizophrenic before passing in '66
Source:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/40a1fbe0d8ff812a?
Only the truth, Who is Jesus, can keep you from becoming more
delusional like your mom was.
There are others who are also observing that you are exhibiting
psychopathology:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/3f56b038f17f681b?
Bottom line concerning you, Ken:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/e444a7f27fc8ae79?
Truth is reality ...
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/459c9c0ed3b24ca2?
... despite your efforts:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/3160f9fd903ab7c2?
There is pure joy in being used by GOD to change hearts:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/8824c8a5b7c7518c?
May GOD give you, Ken, a new heart and a new spirit (Ezekiel 11:19-20
and 36:26) so that you would be born again of water and Spirit (John
3:3 and 3:5) so that you would come to trust the truth, Who is Jesus:
Amen.
Be hungrier, which truly is healthier especially for diabetics and
other heart disease patients:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/9642aafa0aad16eb?
Marana tha
Prayerfully in the awesome name of our Messiah, LORD Jesus Christ,
Andrew <><
--
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-certified Cardiologist
and Author of the 2PD-OMER Approach:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/9ad0c19df5ffc2f7?
ver...@gefinden.com
There are five subtypes of schizophrenia: Paranoid
The key feature of this subtype of schizophrenia is the combination of
false beliefs (delusions) and hearing voices (auditory hallucinations),
with more nearly normal emotions and cognitive functioning (cognitive
functions include reasoning, judgment, and memory). The delusions of
paranoid schizophrenics usually involve thoughts of being persecuted or
harmed by others or exaggerated opinions of their own importance, but
may also reflect feelings of jealousy or excessive religiosity. The
delusions are typically organized into a coherent framework. Paranoid
schizophrenics function at a higher level than other subtypes, but are
at risk for suicidal or violent behavior under the influence of their
delusions.
ver...@gefinden.com
Dr. Chung who is possibly out there should not be covered while
something free like the 2PD-OMER Approach which has a $2 million
guarantee of efficacy that has remained in force (Laus Deo!) since 2007
should become a matter of public policy if our policymakers were wise: "
Truth:
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/ba8379f6c69b4310?
<><
There is pure joy in being used by GOD to change hearts:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/8824c8a5b7c7518c?
Being hungrier truly is healthier especially for diabetics and other
heart disease patients:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/9642aafa0aad16eb?
Marana tha
Prayerfully in the awesome name of our Messiah, LORD Jesus Christ,
Andrew <><
--
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-certified Cardiologist