Re: 2 heads up, a food and a book
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
(hungrier) to lose all the VAT that is behind most if not all medical
problems that folks in industrialized countries face.
Be hungry... be healthy... be hungrier... be blessed:
http://TheWellnessFoundation.com/PressRelease
Prayerfully in the infinite power and might of the Holy Spirit,
Andrew <><
--
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Lawful steward of http://EmoryCardiology.com
Bondservant to the KING of kings and LORD of lords.
Alex Frottenheimer wrote:
> One is the toasted flax seeds at Trader Joes. You'll find them near the
> oatmeal (apologies to anyone not living in the States, but, you can
> probably find them anywhere). Carbs too low to list separately (wish I
> knew what they really were, though), it's all fiber, they taste great,
> and, it's flax! Raw flax seeds are a chore to try to eat, but these taste
> toasted, like sesame seeds, and they're brittle, so you can actually chew
> them, unlike raw flax seeds. Maybe the toasting costs some enzymes or
> something, but the omega 3s remain (they claim) and, they're an all-
> around great snack food.
>
> Second, 'The Brain Trust Program' by neurosurgeon Larry McCleary, just
> out (Sep 4th), says to cut down on carbs to preserve your brain function.
> And gives many other ways to treat your brain right.
>
> Alex
em
news:nCGJi.74575$U24....@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
> One is the toasted flax seeds at Trader Joes.
"Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <heart...@emorycardiology.com> wrote in message
news:1190607909.3...@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
> Wiser to eat less, down to the optimal amount
What is that supposed to mean? A type of food was mentioned, not an amount.
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> "Alex Frottenheimer" wrote:
> > One is the toasted flax seeds at Trader Joes.
>
>
> > Wiser to eat less, down to the optimal amount
>
> What is that supposed to mean?
It is written plainly.
> A type of food was mentioned, not an amount.
It is not any one type of food that is causing most if not all the
health problems in industrialized countries such as the U.S. but
rather the overeating.
em
> convicted neighbor em wrote:
>> "Alex Frottenheimer" wrote:
>> > One is the toasted flax seeds at Trader Joes.
>>
>> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
>>
>> > Wiser to eat less, down to the optimal amount
>>
>> What is that supposed to mean?
>
> It is written plainly.
If it were, I wouldn't have had to ask.
>
>> A type of food was mentioned, not an amount.
>
> It is not any one type of food that is causing most if not all the
> health problems in industrialized countries such as the U.S. but
> rather the overeating.
Really, I'm just trying to understand. Are you saying that it doesn't matter
what you eat so long as you eat the correct amount? Second question: given
that a person eats a certain amount of food each day, does it not matter
what type of food they eat?
Two pounds of sugar = two pounds of rice = two pounds of meat = two pounds
of fruit & vegies: is that what you're saying?
>
> Be hungry... be healthy... be hungrier... be blessed:
There is a part of your message that is clear and makes sense. That being
hungry is not just OK, its a good thing. Certainly, eating whenever I was
hungry, and eating until I was "full", was my path to o-beast-ity. You also
say fat people should eat less. That's right on the mark. Where you lose me
is with this "omar" thing. You've been pushing the concept for quite some
time. Can you sum up the concept in a sentance or two?
Your religousness has been in question. Would you feel up to the challange
if I were to hit you up with a deep question? Certainly, if you've really
studied the Bible, you would be able to answer the question.
Em,
"Fellow Convict"
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
> > convicted neighbor em wrote:
> >> "Alex Frottenheimer" wrote:
> >>
> >> > One is the toasted flax seeds at Trader Joes.
> >>
> >> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
> >>
> >> > Wiser to eat less, down to the optimal amount
> >>
> >> What is that supposed to mean?
> >
> > It is written plainly.
>
> If it were, I wouldn't have had to ask.
May reading further help you understand.
> >> A type of food was mentioned, not an amount.
> >
> > It is not any one type of food that is causing most if not all the
> > health problems in industrialized countries such as the U.S. but
> > rather the overeating.
>
> Really, I'm just trying to understand. Are you saying that it doesn't matter
> what you eat so long as you eat the correct amount?
What folks are having difficulty with is eating less, down to the
optimal amount.
It remains easy for folks to eat the right foods because these are the
foods they enjoy.
It is actually difficult to get folks to eat the wrong foods because
they hate such foods.
What is the right food for one person may be the wrong food for
another.
What is the right food is what tastes delicious, what does not fill us
up, and what we can envision eating at each meal for the rest of our
lives without getting sick of it.
> Second question: given
> that a person eats a certain amount of food each day, does it not matter
> what type of food they eat?
If a person is eating the optimal amount of food each day, s/he will
become healthier (hungrier) than they have ever been in his/her life
if allowed to eat what they enjoy eating (ie eating foods that are
right for them as described above).
> Two pounds of sugar = two pounds of rice = two pounds of meat = two pounds
> of fruit & vegies: is that what you're saying?
No. Would suggest you read what the Holy Spirit has guided me to
write above.
> >
> > Be hungry... be healthy... be hungrier... be blessed:
>
> > http://TheWellnessFoundation.com/PressRelease
>
> There is a part of your message that is clear and makes sense. That being
> hungry is not just OK, its a good thing.
More than even that...
... being hungry is wonderful :-)
> Certainly, eating whenever I was
> hungry, and eating until I was "full", was my path to o-beast-ity. You also
> say fat people should eat less. That's right on the mark. Where you lose me
> is with this "omar" thing.
It is actually an "omer."
> You've been pushing the concept for quite some
> time. Can you sum up the concept in a sentance or two?
An omer is simply the one optimal amount of food for everyone as has
been set by LORD Almighty GOD, Who is our Creator.
Those who understand this cannot deny that GOD is our Creator because
only our Creator can possibly know this fact.
> Your religousness has been in question.
It actually remains my choice to not be religious, which is to hold a
fixed unchanging set of beliefs about GOD (or about either gods or no
god) as defined by other men.
Instead, it remains my choice to continue to receive the guidance of
the Holy Spirit in everything I say, do, and write. As it is written,
those reborn of GOD's living water and the Holy Spirit are as
unfathomable by those of this world as the wind's direction is
unpredictable.
> Would you feel up to the challange
> if I were to hit you up with a deep question?
GOD has made me able to inform for that is HIS purpose for me here.
> Certainly, if you've really
> studied the Bible, you would be able to answer the question.
The Holy Spirit has planted HIS Bible in my heart and so HE lives in
my heart.
May GOD bless you in HIS mighty way making you healthier (hungrier)
than ever:
http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit/PressRelease
tr...@is-best.com
"An omer is simply the one optimal amount of food for everyone as has
been set by LORD Almighty GOD, Who is our Creator."
It was a measure of volume not two pounds of weight. It was in volume
relative only to mana in the description of its use of how much mana to
collect.
Its application in any other context is simply the invention of the
author. The author misunderstood what unit of measure it was and
continues to do so even when corrected by experts on the subject. Pure
ego and fear of loss of face prohibits him from correcting himself in
this simple truth.
God bless..
Pastor Frank
> convicted neighbor em wrote:
>>
>> Would you feel up to the challange
>> if I were to hit you up with a deep question?
>
> GOD has made me able to inform for that is HIS purpose for me here.
>
>> Certainly, if you've really
>> studied the Bible, you would be able to answer the question.
>
> The Holy Spirit has planted HIS Bible in my heart and so HE lives in
> my heart.
> May GOD bless you in HIS mighty way making you healthier (hungrier)
> than ever:
> http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit/PressRelease
> Prayerfully in the infinite power and might of the Holy Spirit,
> Andrew <><
>
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
> >>
> >> Would you feel up to the challange
> >> if I were to hit you up with a deep question?
> >
> > GOD has made me able to inform for that is HIS purpose for me here.
> >
> >> Certainly, if you've really
> >> studied the Bible, you would be able to answer the question.
> >
> > The Holy Spirit has planted HIS Bible in my heart and so HE lives in
> > my heart.
>
Perhaps it was the question about omer and its implications:
Deuteronomy 8:3
Suggested additional reading:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/c6b52241437363fb?
Be hungry... be healthy... be hungrier... be blessed:
http://TheWellnessFoundation.com/PressRelease
Prayerfully in the infinite power and might of the Holy Spirit,
Andrew <><
em
"Pastor Frank" <P...@christfirst.edu> wrote
>>
> What happened to the "deep question"?
Well, in St. Andrew's words, "G-D has made me able to inform for that is HIS
purpose for me here." Thanks, but no, St. Andrew, nobody believes you any
more than they do the breatharians.
I was curious as to whether he knew anything about the Bible outside of what
he seems to think supports his personal theories. Looks like (a) the answer
is no, and (b) St. Andy's got his defense mechanism all setup. I'm not going
to feed him a serious question knowing that all I'll get back is crap. That
would not be respectful of The Book. It was bad thinking to propose that in
the first place.
Andy's "message" of "eat less" and "be hungry" are good ones. The clinical
work he did when he was sane (?) may actually be worth looking at.
Years ago, St. Andrew's original message made sense. It was more-or-less
this: "My studies show that obese people eat between six and ten pounds of
food a day. The way for them to lose weight is keep eating the same mixture
and ratios of food they're eating now, but cut the quantity down to 2 pounds
a day." You know what, to me, that made sense and had potential. He talked
about cutting down gradually. "Weigh all the food that you eat. Reduce the
quantity gradually until you're eating two pounds of food a day."
Too bad this guy's a nut case. If he would put his message forward in the
terms I described and back it up with his clinical work, things might be
different. Instead, he's become "G-d's messenger".
From Your Condemed Neighbor,
Mike
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> "Pastor Frank" <P...@christfirst.edu> wrote
>
> > What happened to the "deep question"?
>
> Well, in St. Andrew's words
Not a saint but rather only a servant.
> , "G-D has made me able to inform for that is HIS
> purpose for me here."
Yes, GOD's purpose for me here remains to inform and not to be
glorified as a saint.
> Thanks, but no, St. Andrew, nobody believes you any
> more than they do the breatharians.
HIS purpose for me here remains to inform and not to convince.
The brethren of LORD Jesus Christ are called to be HIS uncovered lamps
providing the light of the truth for everyone in the room so that they
can find the way to GOD:
> I was curious as to whether he knew anything about the Bible outside of what
> he seems to think supports his personal theories.
In the Holy Spirit, the brethren of LORD Jesus Christ live the Bible
outside of its pages.
> Looks like (a) the answer is no, and
You remind me of the blind man who would feign vision by describing
things to the seeing.
> (b) St. Andy's got his defense mechanism all setup.
The Power from on High is the Holy Spirit and not a defense mechanism
though HE does keep Jesus' brethren from harm.
> I'm not going
> to feed him a serious question knowing that all I'll get back is crap.
Without the LORD, what you believe you know is meaningless
(Ecclesiastes).
> That would not be respectful of The Book.
Solus Scriptura cum Spiritus Sancti.
> It was bad thinking to propose that in the first place.
Not being in the perfect will of GOD is bad.
> Andy's "message" of "eat less" and "be hungry" are good ones.
All praise and glory belong to GOD, because the Holy Spirit continues
to guide me in everything I say, do, and write.
> The clinical
> work he did when he was sane (?) may actually be worth looking at.
In my ever closer walk with LORD Jesus Christ, HE keeps me completely
well.
There is no insanity for those who walk with HIM because HE is the
Author of all reality including the alternate ones.
Instead, it is you, dear Mike, who are in danger of losing touch with
reality as did dearly departed Bob (this one) Pastorio:
http://HeartMDPhD.com/libel.asp
> Years ago, St. Andrew's original message made sense. It was more-or-less
> this: "My studies show that obese people eat between six and ten pounds of
> food a day. The way for them to lose weight is keep eating the same mixture
> and ratios of food they're eating now, but cut the quantity down to 2 pounds
> a day." You know what, to me, that made sense and had potential.
It remains the same message:
http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit/2PD-OMER
> He talked
> about cutting down gradually. "Weigh all the food that you eat. Reduce the
> quantity gradually until you're eating two pounds of food a day."
This has not changed.
Only the name of the Approach has changed to fully glorify GOD, Who is
the Source of the knowledge about the omer.
> Too bad this guy's a nut case.
Name-calling simply shows that you are lost:
http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit/dream.asp
> If he would put his message forward in the
> terms I described and back it up with his clinical work, things might be
> different. Instead, he's become "G-d's messenger".
No. Simply one of HIS many brethren.
The brethren of LORD Jesus Christ are neighbor perfect nor more
special...
... we are simply forgiven by GOD:
http://www.interviewwithgod.com/forgiven/
May you wisely choose to be forgiven too by publicly declaring with
your mouth that "Jesus is LORD:"
http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit/TheWay
Prayerfully in the infinite power and might of the Holy Spirit,
Andrew <><
tr...@is-best.com
Deuteronomy 8:3
I like Deut. 18:22 also:
when a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the word does not come
to pass or come true, that is a word which the LORD has not spoken; the
prophet has spoken it presumptuously, you need not be afraid of him.
God bless.
em
The issue is one of credibility. When I receive medication from a doctor,
for example, I expect that medication to have gone through some sort of
approval process (FDA), and that the doctor is prescribing that medication
based on common practice within the field, as well as her experience and
education. The same goes for any program of treatment. Atkins, Eades,
etc. -- they've done years and years of clinical trials, experimentation and
validation. The reason they are successful is because of all the work
they've done and their accomplishments. Have they dedicated their lives to
G-d? I have no idea. I do believe, however, that they have been put on this
earth for a purpose, and that they have fulfilled (or are fulfilling) that
purpose.
You have the potential to offer that; instead, you're pursuing the route of
a rusty knife faith healer. G-d has given you more than that! It takes time,
but you can establish your credibility if you choose to do so. If G-d put
you here for the purpose of creating this diet of yours and getting other
people to follow it, then He made you a doctor, He gave you the education,
He gave the experience, etc., that you need, to make a real go of this.
Think of it like this: there aren't too many people out there following your
diet, if any. You certainly aren't picking up any sort of following on
Usenet. If it is indeed your "mission" to inform and educate others, this
ain't working. Look at your options and consider another approach.
Just my 2pd.
Your Condemned Neighbor,
Mike
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
>
> Dr. Chung,
>
> The issue is one of credibility. When I receive medication from a doctor,
> for example, I expect that medication to have gone through some sort of
> approval process (FDA), and that the doctor is prescribing that medication
> based on common practice within the field, as well as her experience and
> education. The same goes for any program of treatment. Atkins, Eades,
> etc. -- they've done years and years of clinical trials, experimentation and
> validation.
Actually, they have not.
> The reason they are successful is because of all the work
> they've done and their accomplishments.
Actually, their diets have been shown in RCTs to **not** help folks
achieve sustained weight loss. Commercial success arises from
marketing and can not be equivalenced with clinical efficacy. There
will not be any commercial success with the 2PD-OMER Approach which is
completely **FREE**.
However, there is clinical efficacy because the 2PD-OMER Approach has
invariably helped folks achieve sustained weight loss. We have seen
this for more than 625,550 folks followed worldwide for more than 5
years making it possible for the offering of an unprecedented million-
dollar guarantee whose details have been freely given and discussed in
sci.med.cardiology as archived in Google:
This guarantee remains in force.
Be hungry... be healthy... be hungrier... be blessed:
http://TheWellnessFoundation.com/PressRelease
Prayerfully in the infinite power and might of the Holy Spirit,
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
>
>
> The issue is one of credibility. When I receive medication from a doctor,
> for example, I expect that medication to have gone through some sort of
> approval process (FDA), and that the doctor is prescribing that medication
> based on common practice within the field, as well as her experience and
> education. The same goes for any program of treatment. Atkins, Eades,
> etc. -- they've done years and years of clinical trials, experimentation and
> validation.
Actually, they have not.
> The reason they are successful is because of all the work
> they've done and their accomplishments.
Actually, their diets have been shown in RCTs to **not** help folks
achieve sustained weight loss. Commercial success arises from
marketing and can not be equivalenced with clinical efficacy. There
will not be any commercial success with the 2PD-OMER Approach which is
completely **FREE**.
However, there is clinical efficacy because the 2PD-OMER Approach has
invariably helped folks achieve sustained weight loss. We have seen
this for more than 625,550 folks followed worldwide for more than 5
years making it possible for the offering of an unprecedented million-
dollar guarantee whose details have been freely given and discussed in
sci.med.cardiology as archived in Google:
This guarantee remains in force.
Be hungry... be healthy... be hungrier... be blessed:
http://TheWellnessFoundation.com/PressRelease
Prayerfully in the infinite power and might of the Holy Spirit,
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
>
>
> The issue is one of credibility. When I receive medication from a doctor,
> for example, I expect that medication to have gone through some sort of
> approval process (FDA), and that the doctor is prescribing that medication
> based on common practice within the field, as well as her experience and
> education. The same goes for any program of treatment. Atkins, Eades,
> etc. -- they've done years and years of clinical trials, experimentation and
> validation.
Actually, they have not.
> The reason they are successful is because of all the work
> they've done and their accomplishments.
Actually, their diets have been shown in RCTs to **not** help folks
achieve sustained weight loss. Commercial success arises from
marketing and can not be equivalenced with clinical efficacy. There
will not be any commercial success with the 2PD-OMER Approach which is
completely **FREE**.
However, there is clinical efficacy because the 2PD-OMER Approach has
invariably helped folks achieve sustained weight loss. We have seen
this for more than 625,550 folks followed worldwide for more than 5
years making it possible for the offering of an unprecedented million-
dollar guarantee whose details have been freely given and discussed in
sci.med.cardiology as archived in Google:
This guarantee remains in force.
Be hungry... be healthy... be hungrier... be blessed:
http://TheWellnessFoundation.com/PressRelease
Prayerfully in the infinite power and might of the Holy Spirit,
em
"Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" wrote:
> convicted friend Mike (em) wrote:
>>
>> Atkins, Eades,
>> etc. -- they've done years and years of clinical trials, experimentation
>> and
>> validation.
>
> Actually, they have not.
http://www.atkins.com/research-library
> Actually, their diets have been shown in RCTs to **not** help folks
> achieve sustained weight loss.
Cite?
> Commercial success arises from
> marketing and can not be equivalenced with clinical efficacy. There
> will not be any commercial success with the 2PD-OMER Approach which is
> completely **FREE**.
The cost of the subject books is not much. Five/ten dollars for a book.
Also, there's nothing wrong with making a living by doing one's life work.
> However, there is clinical efficacy because the 2PD-OMER Approach has
> invariably helped folks achieve sustained weight loss. We have seen
> this for more than 625,550 folks followed worldwide for more than 5
> years
Has there been a controlled, clinical study? Do you have a direct link to
the findings?
> Be hungry... be healthy... be hungrier... be blessed:
>
> Prayerfully in the infinite power and might of the Holy Spirit,
>
> Andrew <><
> --
> Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> Lawful steward of http://EmoryCardiology.com
> Bondservant to the KING of kings and LORD of lords.
These seven lines make for a nice sig + sig line.
This has been the first nice, reasonable exchange on Usenet, between you and
I, in the past five years.
Mike
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> > convicted friend Mike (em) wrote:
> >>
> >> Atkins, Eades,
> >> etc. -- they've done years and years of clinical trials, experimentation
> >> and
> >> validation.
> >
> > Actually, they have not.
>
> http://www.atkins.com/research-library
Nothing here showing sustained (> 5 yrs) clinically meaningful weight
loss.
> > Actually, their diets have been shown in RCTs to **not** help folks
> > achieve sustained weight loss.
>
> Cite?
ttp://tinyurl.com/3azrat
> > Commercial success arises from
> > marketing and can not be equivalenced with clinical efficacy. There
> > will not be any commercial success with the 2PD-OMER Approach which is
> > completely **FREE**.
>
> The cost of the subject books is not much. Five/ten dollars for a book.
>
> Also, there's nothing wrong with making a living by doing one's life work.
Did not write that it was wrong.
> > However, there is clinical efficacy because the 2PD-OMER Approach has
> > invariably helped folks achieve sustained weight loss. We have seen
> > this for more than 625,550 folks followed worldwide for more than 5
> > years
>
> Has there been a controlled, clinical study?
Yes.
> Do you have a direct link to the findings?
Not one available to the public at this time.
Be hungry... be healthy... be hungrier... be blessed:
http://HeartMDPhD.com/PressRelease
Cary Kittrell
Nor the last time anyone asked.
Nor the time before that.
Or the time before that.
Mike, don't you find that ...., well, let's just say "interesting"?
-- cary
em
> convicted friend Mike (em) wrote:
>> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
>> > convicted friend Mike (em) wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Atkins, Eades,
>> >> etc. -- they've done years and years of clinical trials,
>> >> experimentation
>> >> and
>> >> validation.
>> >
>> > Actually, they have not.
>>
>> http://www.atkins.com/research-library
>
> Nothing here showing sustained (> 5 yrs) clinically meaningful weight
> loss.
There are so many studies out there, with positive results, regarding
low-carb that you can't shake a stick at them; on top of that, there is so
much anecdotal evidence out there that the safety and efficacy of low-carb
just cannot be denied. Not every diet works for every person, but low carb
works for me.
Honestly, I would rather not compare your diet plan to that of low-carb. If
you want to encourage people to do your diet, do so. If you want to compare
your diet to others, clinically, that's fine too. Taking pot shots at other
diet plans, though, that's uncalled for. Continuing to do so will make it
harder for you to accomplish your goal of getting your diet out there into
the mainstream. In my opionion, blasting the work of others lacks
professionalism and does nothing to further one toward their goals.
I like the foundation of your plan, though: measure the weight of food that
you eat, continue to eat the same foods, and reduce the amount of food you
eat over a period of time. It is common sense. As far as two pounds being
the optimal amount for everyone, I find that hard to believe without both
clinical proof and the test of time.
>
>> > Actually, their diets have been shown in RCTs to **not** help folks
>> > achieve sustained weight loss.
>>
>> Cite?
>
> ttp://tinyurl.com/3azrat
That is a study comparing diet and exercise vs. diet alone over a one year
period. Please double-check that URL for me, thanks.
>
>> > Commercial success arises from
>> > marketing and can not be equivalenced with clinical efficacy. There
>> > will not be any commercial success with the 2PD-OMER Approach which is
>> > completely **FREE**.
>>
>> The cost of the subject books is not much. Five/ten dollars for a book.
>>
>> Also, there's nothing wrong with making a living by doing one's life
>> work.
>
> Did not write that it was wrong.
Why the focus on "commercial success"?
People tend to not value things that are given to them for free.
>
>> > However, there is clinical efficacy because the 2PD-OMER Approach has
>> > invariably helped folks achieve sustained weight loss. We have seen
>> > this for more than 625,550 folks followed worldwide for more than 5
>> > years
>>
>> Has there been a controlled, clinical study?
>
> Yes.
What were the results? To which fiducial limit were the results valid? How
many people in the study? How was the study designed? Who performed the
study?
>
>> Do you have a direct link to the findings?
>
> Not one available to the public at this time.
OK, well, I'll look forward to seeing it. If your findings are significant,
maybe they'll be published in a recognized medical journal. JAMA, for
example, published the Stanford study on Low Carb, maybe they'll publish
your study too.
Mike
em
"Cary Kittrell" <ca...@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote in message
news:fde5r2$qgp$1...@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...
Hi Cary,
I think that Andrew has a valid message: eat less food, allow yourself to be
hungry, etc. The problem is that the fundimental message is lost in all this
bickering, which is due in part to the way this message is presented. I have
an interesting mana factoid that, could possibly, bring Chung's message into
focus. It is this: everyone was told to fill their basket with mana each
day. Some people had to labor all day in order to collect their alotment of
mana, and others only had to put in a little bit of effort and work a short
while. Given this context, its obvious that a basket full of mana is not the
same for everyone. (This story is well known by many Orthodox Jews. I really
don't know how Christians interpret the whole mana thing.)
So, there you have it. If Dr. Chung were to say, for example, "weigh your
food, find out how much you're eating, gradually reduce the overall weight
of the same foods you eat each day *in order to* find out what 2 Omars are
to you"..... It would be virtually impossible to argue with a statement like
that. The only serious problem with Chung's message is that he says two
pounds of food is the righ amount for everyone.
Anyway, this guy is a doctor, I think he has something worthwhile to say, at
least in part, and if not then there ought to be a worthy debate. All the
noise surrounding Andrew's posts do nothing more than waste bandwidth. Why
not just take this whole thing up in a valid way, draw our own conclusions
if we must, and be done with it?
Mike
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
> > convicted friend Mike (em) wrote:
> >> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
> >> > convicted friend Mike (em) wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Atkins, Eades,
> >> >> etc. -- they've done years and years of clinical trials,
> >> >> experimentation
> >> >> and
> >> >> validation.
> >> >
> >> > Actually, they have not.
> >>
> >> http://www.atkins.com/research-library
> >
> > Nothing here showing sustained (> 5 yrs) clinically meaningful weight
> > loss.
>
> There are so many studies out there, with positive results, regarding
> low-carb that you can't shake a stick at them; on top of that, there is so
> much anecdotal evidence out there that the safety and efficacy of low-carb
> just cannot be denied.
There remains concerns about the long-term safety of low-carb dieting:
http://truthrus.org/lowcarb.pdf
Cary Kittrell
Oh, I too do agree -- and I've said so in the past, and here as well --
that eating less would likely be very beneficial for many of us; certainly
it would be so for me. And of course this message is hardly
new: one hears it constantly from health professionals and
service messages and the like.
It is, as you say, all the attendant silliness that's the
problem. And the fun, too.
-- cary
em
> convicted friend Mike (em) wrote:
>> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
>> > convicted friend Mike (em) wrote:
>> >> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
>> >> > convicted friend Mike (em) wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Atkins, Eades,
>> >> >> etc. -- they've done years and years of clinical trials,
>> >> >> experimentation
>> >> >> and
>> >> >> validation.
>> >> >
>> >> > Actually, they have not.
>> >>
>> >> http://www.atkins.com/research-library
>> >
>> > Nothing here showing sustained (> 5 yrs) clinically meaningful weight
>> > loss.
>>
>> There are so many studies out there, with positive results, regarding
>> low-carb that you can't shake a stick at them; on top of that, there is
>> so
>> much anecdotal evidence out there that the safety and efficacy of
>> low-carb
>> just cannot be denied.
>
> There remains concerns about the long-term safety of low-carb dieting:
>
> http://truthrus.org/lowcarb.pdf
That is a fairly well known, frivolous case put forth by PETA. If you don't
know about PETA, let me tell you, they are truly crazy folks. They did an ad
campaign stating that the murder of chickens for food is worse than the
holicost because so many more chickens were killed than Jews. They prounce
around nude and throw animal blood on people wearing fur coats.
Lets not talk about low-carb any more. I don't see how blasting low-carb,
et. al., adds any credence to the program you have to offer.
Mike
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> > convicted friend Mike (em) wrote:
> >> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
> >> > convicted friend Mike (em) wrote:
> >> >> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
> >> >> > convicted friend Mike (em) wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Atkins, Eades,
> >> >> >> etc. -- they've done years and years of clinical trials,
> >> >> >> experimentation
> >> >> >> and
> >> >> >> validation.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Actually, they have not.
> >> >>
> >> >> http://www.atkins.com/research-library
> >> >
> >> > Nothing here showing sustained (> 5 yrs) clinically meaningful weight
> >> > loss.
> >>
> >> There are so many studies out there, with positive results, regarding
> >> low-carb that you can't shake a stick at them; on top of that, there is
> >> so
> >> much anecdotal evidence out there that the safety and efficacy of
> >> low-carb
> >> just cannot be denied.
> >
> > There remains concerns about the long-term safety of low-carb dieting:
> >
> > http://truthrus.org/lowcarb.pdf
>
> That is a fairly well known, frivolous case put forth by PETA.
This case is not PETA vs Atkins.
Personally, I have seen advanced cases of occlusive coronary disease
in very young people where there really is no explanation for the
severity of their disease except for the fact they were low-carbing.
For this reason, I have not been surprised by reports of sudden deaths
in folks as young as teenagers in the setting of low-carbing.
Hyperketonemia has been shown to increase lipid peroxidation, which
would be a proatherogenic event.
A good rule of thumb is that if it kills the hunger it is killing you.
em
Yes, it was, maybe it just didn't look that way, but it was. On another
level, somebody sued somebody... so what?
> Personally, I have seen advanced cases of occlusive coronary disease
> in very young people where there really is no explanation for the
> severity of their disease except for the fact they were low-carbing.
Really, you are debating low-carb with the wrong person. I do like the style
with which you've started to post. Less confrontational. More meaningful.
Discussion/debate of "the facts".
> A good rule of thumb is that if it kills the hunger it is killing you.
Low-carb doesn't kill hunger, it brings hunger under control. For example, I
no longer wake up feeling famished in the middle of the night. Hunger is
good, everyone ought to leave the table a little hungry. Low-cal left
me -too- hungry.
What do you think of my preposition that the quantity of 2 Omers varies from
person to person? If this is something you agree with, I think you have a
uniqe and viable method for a portion control diet.
I'd be interested in reading your Be Hungry book.
> Be hungry... be healthy... be hungrier... be blessed:
You too!
Mike
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Clearly the plaintiff is not PETA but someone stricken with coronary
disease after following the Atkin's diet.
> On another
> level, somebody sued somebody... so what?
Would be concerned when someone is prepared to bring evidence to court
to convince a jury that a diet has harmed them.
> > Personally, I have seen advanced cases of occlusive coronary disease
> > in very young people where there really is no explanation for the
> > severity of their disease except for the fact they were low-carbing.
>
> Really, you are debating low-carb with the wrong person. I do like the style
> with which you've started to post. Less confrontational. More meaningful.
> Discussion/debate of "the facts".
GOD's purpose for me here remains to inform and not to either debate
or convince.
> > A good rule of thumb is that if it kills the hunger it is killing you.
>
> Low-carb doesn't kill hunger, it brings hunger under control.
Controlling hunger is killing hunger.
> For example, I
> no longer wake up feeling famished in the middle of the night.
Feeling hungry is not feeling famished/starving.
> Hunger is
> good, everyone ought to leave the table a little hungry.
If the food was delicious and the amount optimal, one leaves the table
very much hungrier (ie wanting more) than before the meal.
> Low-cal left me -too- hungry.
No such thing as too hungry for those who know in their hearts that
hunger is wonderful.
> What do you think of my preposition that the quantity of 2 Omers varies from
> person to person?
32 ounces (2 lbs) does not vary from person to person.
On the other hand, this is the problem with portion control, which
does vary from person to person.
Truly, we have empirically determined, with the help of the Holy
Spirit, the optimal amount to be 32 ounces per day for everyone.
> If this is something you agree with, I think you have a
> uniqe and viable method for a portion control diet.
Portion control does not work because it varies from person to person
and from moment to moment for any one given person.
> I'd be interested in reading your Be Hungry book.
It should prove to be an eye-opener for you.
> > Be hungry... be healthy... be hungrier... be blessed:
>
> You too!
My stomach is singing and laughing loudly at this very moment as I
type this :-)
May GOD bless you in HIS mighty way making you healthier (hungrier)
than ever:
http://HeartMDPhD.com/PressRelease
em
Dr. Chung,
I'd like to propose that we agree on one thing in particular, which I think
will help us to work through this disussion (which I'd like to pursue):
In order for us to have free will, G-d hides his presence from us.
For example, all of modern medicine that is good, is a miracle, yet these
miracles, these blessings, can be explained scientifically (chemically,
studies, clinical trials, etc. etc. etc.) A tighter example may be the
defibrulator. It shocks the heart (or whatever it does), gets it pumping and
saves lives. This invention is truly a miracle!!! Yet the why and how of the
defibrulator can be explained scientifically, and its effectiveness can be
proven statistically.
Can we agree on this one point? If not, please restate/correct to your
liking and lets plow through this. Also, for the time being, lets stick to
this one point.
Thanks for your time, by the way. Regardless of the level of agreement, you
do have the quality of perservernce.
Mike
dsolo
The metaphysical is not necessary to establish the empirical.
Please describe your empirical evidence, research based on observation
of reality.
Thank you
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
>
>
> I'd like to propose that we agree on one thing in particular, which I think
> will help us to work through this disussion (which I'd like to pursue):
>
> In order for us to have free will, G-d hides his presence from us.
Our being aware of HIS presence does not mean we lose free will.
Indeed, folks with hearts made discerning by the Holy Spirit are
acutely aware of GOD's presence when we are hungry :-)
> For example, all of modern medicine that is good, is a miracle, yet these
> miracles, these blessings, can be explained scientifically (chemically,
> studies, clinical trials, etc. etc. etc.)
Wondrous works of GOD are miracles. Good works of man are not
miracles but are made possible with GOD's blessing.
> A tighter example may be the
> defibrulator. It shocks the heart (or whatever it does), gets it pumping and
> saves lives. This invention is truly a miracle!!! Yet the why and how of the
> defibrulator can be explained scientifically, and its effectiveness can be
> proven statistically.
Man's inventions are not miracles.
> Can we agree on this one point?
This really is not a debate but rather a discussion.
> If not, please restate/correct to your
> liking and lets plow through this. Also, for the time being, lets stick to
> this one point.
>
> Thanks for your time, by the way.
You are welcome.
Would redirect all thanks and praises to GOD, Who is the Source of all
time, so that we would both be that much more blessed (hungrier).
> Regardless of the level of agreement, you
> do have the quality of perservernce.
Simply one of HIS uncovered lamps giving the light of the truth to
everyone in the room so that all can find the way to HIM.
Be hungry... be healthy... be hungrier... be blessed:
http://HeartMDPhD.com/PressRelease
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
>
> >>>"Truly, we have empirically determined, with the help of the Holy Spirit, the optimal amount to be 32 ounces per day for everyone." (Dr. Andrew B. Chung)
>
> The metaphysical is not necessary to establish the empirical.
Did not write that it were.
> Please describe your empirical evidence, research based on observation
> of reality.
Empirical determination is its own evidence.
> Thank you
You are welcome.
Redirecting all thanks and praises to GOD so that we will both be that
much more blessed (hungrier):
dsolo
The metaphysical is not necessary to establish the empirical.
>>>"Did not write that it were." (Dr. Andrew B. Chung)
You stated: "We have empirically determined, with the help of the Holy
Spirit..."
Please describe your empirical evidence, research based on observation
of reality.
>>>"Empirical determination is its own evidence." (Dr. Andrew B. Chung)
Please describe in layman's language.
Thank you
Dale
tr...@is-best.com
> of reality.
"Empirical determination is its own evidence."
Is that true for this or the alternative reality? Empirical
determination means only that something was observed, it says nothing
about it being evidence nor the value of the observation in answering
questions based on anything.
God bless.
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
>
>
> The metaphysical is not necessary to establish the empirical.
>
> >>>"Did not write that it were." (Dr. Andrew B. Chung)
>
> You stated: "We have empirically determined, with the help of the Holy
> Spirit..."
Simply stating a fact.
> Please describe your empirical evidence, research based on observation
> of reality.
>
> >>>"Empirical determination is its own evidence." (Dr. Andrew B. Chung)
>
> Please describe in layman's language.
The analogy would be to fit puzzle pieces together to complete a
jigsaw puzzle.
This is done empirically.
Completion of the puzzle is evidence of success in solving the problem
empirically.
> Thank you
Thanks be to GOD.
Be hungry... be healthy... be hungrier... be blessed:
http://TheWellnessFoundation.com/PressRelease
dsolo
Regarding the 2PD-OMER Approach, involving 625,500 people:
Have you submitted your research to the scrutiny of others who are
experts in the same field?
Without peer review, it is prudent to regard any such assertions with
suspicion.
Thank you
Julie Bove
"dsolo" <dalesol...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1190935408....@n39g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
Why are you addressing a quack?
em
I guess it boils down this:
If you have you proven that your diet works based on a valid scientific
study or experiment, please post information regarding the methodology of
your study, the hard data and the statistical evaluation to these two
newsgroups:
alt.support.diet.low-carb
sci.med.cardiology
If you have not performed such a study, please just say so.
Mike
--
"Without data, you're just another person with an opinion." -- unknown
Ozgirl
>
> Regarding the 2PD-OMER Approach, involving 625,500 people:
>
> Have you submitted your research to the scrutiny of others who are
> experts in the same field?
He can't submit his evidence to the scrutiny of others becasue the 65,000
people are the Israelites during the exodus!!!! Dale and em seem to be
taking a long while figuring out just what a total nut case ABC is and that
the rest of world does not want to keep reading the crosspostings. Once
again I urge people to only reply to him in his cardiology group. It's not a
hard ask.
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
>
> Dr. Chung:
>
> I guess it boils down this:
>
> If you have you proven that your diet works based on a valid scientific
> study or experiment, please post information regarding the methodology of
> your study, the hard data and the statistical evaluation to these two
> newsgroups:
>
> alt.support.diet.low-carb
> sci.med.cardiology
The 2PD-OMER Approach is not a diet.
> If you have not performed such a study, please just say so.
The 2PD-OMER Approach has allowed more than 625,550 people achieve
sustained weight loss for a period of more than five years.
Truth is simple.
Archie Leach
em
Dr. Chung:
I believe that I have given you more of a chance than anybody else to
discuss and validate this 2PD-Omer "thing" of yours (since "its not a
diet"), and to give you a chance to establish some credibility. What it
looks like is this: OTHER THAN WHAT YOU'VE READ IN THE BIBLE, you have no
data. You have no proof. You've done no studies.
It is high time, dear doctor, that you stand up, pull up your pants and get
a job.
Best Regards From Your Condemned Friend,
Mike
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
>
>
> I believe that I have given you more of a chance than anybody else to
> discuss and validate this 2PD-Omer "thing" of yours (since "its not a
> diet"), and to give you a chance to establish some credibility.
The 2PD-OMER Approach will still continue work for those who choose to
use it despite your feigned disbelief.
It is satan's lie in your heart that compels you be untruthful.
Ultimately the harm that is done will be done to you as satan
originally intended because his intent has always been to deceive and
keep people from receiving GOD's blessings.
May GOD bless you in HIS mighty way making you healthier (hungrier)
than ever.
One of HIS blessings is the 2PD-OMER Approach if you choose to receive
it:
tr...@is-best.com
> I believe that I have given you more of a chance than anybody else to
> discuss and validate this 2PD-Omer "thing" of yours (since "its not a
> diet"), and to give you a chance to establish some credibility.
"The 2PD-OMER Approach will still continue work for those who choose to
use it despite your feigned disbelief."
But the question is what will it continue to do? If their choice of two
pounds contains fewer calories then they need they will lose weight and
if more calories by another choice of two pounds they will gain.
If and when the two pound diet,aka 2 pd etc., works it is because it is
a calorie restriction diet by accident of which two pounds are chosen.
Truth is simple, and this is simply the truth that it will work or not
regardless of what the author thinks about it. It will work or not even
if he had never invented it.
God bless.
tr...@is-best.com
> I guess it boils down this:
>
> If you have you proven that your diet works based on a valid
scientific
> study or experiment, please post information regarding the methodology
of
> your study, the hard data and the statistical evaluation to these two
> newsgroups:
"The 2PD-OMER Approach is not a diet."
Reminds me of a joke:
1st person, "you murdered your wife on sep 26".
2nd person, "you liar, it wassep 27".
> If you have not performed such a study, please just say so.
"The 2PD-OMER Approach has allowed more than 625,550 people achieve
sustained weight loss for a period of more than five years."
Interpretation, he has done no such research, no one has done such
research.
"Has allowed" in english implies a continuing state starting in the near
past. What he is really saying is that he picked up somewhere that the
number in question was the number of the hebrews roaming in the desert
for 40 years and eating 2 pounds, an omer, of mana.
Thus all the usual calls for references and study results and peer
review and statistical evaluation and publication and so forth can only
be answered so as not to reveal their total absence.
Truth is simple, and this is simply the truth.
God bless.
dsolo
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
>
> > sustained weight loss for a period of more than five years."
>
> Interpretation, he has done no such research, no one has done such
> research.
That would be your misinterpretation, satan.
Because your intent here is clearly to deceive, all know your comment
to be a lie.
Indeed, it is written that you are the source of all lies.
You, satan, have been a liar and murderer from the beginning.
You murder with your lies
In the awesome name of LORD Jesus Christ, my Messiah and Savior, I
rebuke you yet again.
Ferd Farkel
> Our armchair dissembler opines:
>
>
>
> > I guess it boils down this:
>
> > If you have you proven that your diet works based on a valid
> scientific
> > study or experiment, please post information regarding the methodology
> of
> > your study, the hard data and the statistical evaluation to these two
> > newsgroups:
>
> "The 2PD-OMER Approach is not a diet."
>
> Reminds me of a joke:
>
> 1st person, "you murdered your wife on sep 26".
> 2nd person, "you liar, it wassep 27".
>
> > If you have not performed such a study, please just say so.
>
> "The 2PD-OMER Approach has allowed more than 625,550 people achieve
> sustained weight loss for a period of more than five years."
Meet satisfied customer #345,002:
http://nmhm.washingtondc.museum/exhibits/humanbody/imgs/skeleton.jpg
tr...@is-best.com
> If you have not performed such a study, please just say so.
> > "The 2PD-OMER Approach has allowed more than 625,550 people achieve
> > sustained weight loss for a period of more than five years."
>
> Interpretation, he has done no such research, no one has done such
> research.
"That would be your misinterpretation, satan."
No, that wouldbe be your attempt to dissemble again for snipping the
first sentence above in your reply, now restored. He said if "not" then
"say so". For which answer you provide the dessembling response that
answers some other question but not his. This is a common cheap trick
polititions use.
"Because your intent here is clearly to deceive, all know your comment
to be a lie."
Which now that you are exposed makes you exactly a (fill name in here)
right?
"Indeed, it is written that you are the source of all lies."
I forgive you, forgive me if I have offended.
If we sin He is quick to forgive us. If we say we have not sinned the
truth is not in us.
vanity of vanities; all is vanity. Ecclesiastes 1:2
God bless.
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
>
>
> No, that wouldbe be your attempt to dissemble again for snipping the
> first sentence above in your reply, now restored. He said if "not" then
> "say so". For which answer you provide the dessembling response that
> answers some other question but not his. This is a common cheap trick
> polititions use.
It remains my choice to continue to write truthfully.
It clearly remains your choice to continue to lie.
It is written that lying is your native language, satan.
So this has not been a surprise.
In the awesome name of LORD Jesus Christ, my Messiah and Savior, I
rebuke you once more.
tr...@is-best.com
> No, that wouldbe be your attempt to dissemble again for snipping the
> first sentence above in your reply, now restored. He said if "not"
then
> "say so". For which answer you provide the dessembling response that
> answers some other question but not his. This is a common cheap trick
> polititions use.
"It remains my choice to continue to write truthfully."
Of course all have the same choice. The question now answered is if you
have in this example chosen to do so. You were asked a question, you
dissembled by answering with the answer to another question, the common
trick of a politition wanting to avoid the truth.
Unwittingly, or prhaps more correctly because you were forced into it,
the real answer is confessed and revealed. "It clearly remains your
choice to continue to lie."
And as we both have the same choice we now know who exercised that
choice in which direction.
"It is written that lying is your native language, satan."
I forgive you, 70 times 7 as our Lord directs, if I have offended
forgive me.
If we sin He is quick to forgive us. If we say we have not sinned the
truth is not in us.
May God bless and protect you and provide peace.
Global Warming
Sorry Andy, there are so many damned people, pointing their finger at Satan
or some child of Satan, it only supports the cost upon human civilization.
re: cost, in civilization, freedom and true beatitude, is comes from within
the hottest stars the belly of Jesus is a jumping point to the stars and
Eternity and somewher somewhere that place I can look into your eyes, taken
my time my promised every gesture and footsteps in this borrowed universe,
is some personal experience, when you add up all the personal experiences
add up.
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
>
>
> "It remains my choice to continue to write truthfully." -- Andrew, in the Holy Spirit.
>
> Of course all have the same choice.
Not those who have unwisely blasphemed against the Holy Spirit, Who is
the Spirit of Truth.
Thus, you and your demons have only one language, which is lying,
satan.
Indeed, it is written that lying is your native language (ie the
language of your rebirth from formerly being archangel Lucifer).
In the awesome name of LORD Jesus Christ, my Messiah and my Savior, I
publicly rebuke you yet again, satan.
tr...@is-best.com
> "It remains my choice to continue to write truthfully." "
The above the original.
"-- Andrew, in the Hol y Spirit."
This added just now to cover his previously exposed dissembling.
Whatever his relationship with the Holy Spirit, his choice was to
dissemble and was caught at it at his own hands.
> Of course all have the same choice.
"Not those who have unwisely blasphemed against the Holy Spirit, Who is
the Spirit of Truth."
vanity of vanities; all is vanity. Ecclesiastes 1:2
But it was never in your feeble human ability to know if anyone has done
this. This is an example of the utter failure of the magical powers of
"discernment" of the pagan "chi", because it does not exist. It is a
superstition that has nothing to do with the Holy Spirit as the third
person of the Holy Trinity.
"Thus, you and your demons have only one language, which is lying,
satan.
Indeed, it is written that lying is your native language (ie the
language of your rebirth from formerly being archangel Lucifer)."
I forgive you, 70 times 7 as our Lord directs, forgive me if I have
offended.
If we confess our sin He is quick to forgive it. If we say we have not
sinned the truth is not in us.
God bless in the most abundant way, and protect and provide peace.
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> > satan via a sock puppet (corporeal demon) hissed:
> >> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
> >>
> >> > "The 2PD-OMER Approach has allowed more than 625,550 people achieve
> >> > sustained weight loss for a period of more than five years."
> >>
> >> Interpretation, he has done no such research, no one has done such
> >> research.
> >
> > That would be your misinterpretation, satan.
> >
> > Because your intent here is clearly to deceive, all know your comment
> > to be a lie.
> >
> > Indeed, it is written that you are the source of all lies.
> >
> > You, satan, have been a liar and murderer from the beginning.
> >
> > You murder with your lies
> >
> > In the awesome name of LORD Jesus Christ, my Messiah and Savior, I
> > rebuke you yet again.
> >
>
> or some child of Satan, it only supports the cost upon human civilization.
The finger pointing has been done by others. The eternal condemnation
of satan occurred long ago. It remains my choice to continue to
simply rebuke satan per the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
> re: cost, in civilization, freedom and true beatitude, is comes from within
> the hottest stars the belly of Jesus is a jumping point to the stars and
> Eternity and somewher somewhere that place I can look into your eyes, taken
> my time my promised every gesture and footsteps in this borrowed universe,
> is some personal experience, when you add up all the personal experiences
> add up.
It seems you digress.
Be hungry... be healthy... be hungrier... be blessed:
http://HeartMDPhD.com/PressRelease
Prayerfully in the infinite power and might of the Holy Spirit,
Global Warming
` Before I digress too far let me say something about the Next
President Of These United States
Ron Paul is knocking, on Heavens Door, ..
The Rev Dr. Hugh Jarse NLAHN.
<heartdo...@emorycardiology.com> wrote:
> satan via a sockpuppet (corporeal demon) hissed:
>
> > Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
>
> > >http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/2efcee7dbc73a161?
>
> > No, that wouldbe be your attempt to dissemble again for snipping the
> > first sentence above in your reply, now restored. He said if "not" then
> > "say so". For which answer you provide the dessembling response that
> > answers some other question but not his. This is a common cheap trick
> > polititions use.
>
> It remains my choice to continue to write truthfully.
>
Why should anybody believe you?
Because you're a doctor?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/shipman/Story/0,,1517424,00.html
Michael Gray
Because he is an untreated florid schizophrenic fraud.
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> satan via another sockpuppet hissed:
> > Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote
> >> satan via a sockpuppet (corporeal demon) hissed:
> >> > Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
> >>
> >> > >http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/2efcee7dbc73a161?
> >>
> >> > No, that wouldbe be your attempt to dissemble again for snipping the
> >> > first sentence above in your reply, now restored. He said if "not" then
> >> > "say so". For which answer you provide the dessembling response that
> >> > answers some other question but not his. This is a common cheap trick
> >> > polititions use.
> >>
> >> It remains my choice to continue to write truthfully.
> >
> >Why should anybody believe you?
> >
> >Because you're a doctor?
> >http://www.guardian.co.uk/shipman/Story/0,,1517424,00.html
>
> Because he is an untreated florid schizophrenic fraud.
Your name-calling simply shows that the Holy Spirit is absolutely
right to convict you:
http://HeartMDPhD.com/Convicts
... just as HE was absolutely right to convict dearly departed Bob
(this one) Pastorio:
http://HeartMDPhD.com/libel.asp
Bob now knows the truth:
http://HeartMDPhD.com/Convicts/Bob
Be hungry... be healthy... be hungrier... be blessed:
http://HeartMDPhD.com/PressRelease
Prayerfully in the infinite power and might of the Holy Spirit,
The Rev Dr. Hugh Jarse NLAHN.
<heartdo...@emorycardiology.com> wrote:
> convicted neighbor Michael Gray wrote:
>
>
>
> > satan via another sockpuppet hissed:
> > > Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote
> > >> satan via a sockpuppet (corporeal demon) hissed:
> > >> > Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
>
> > >> > >http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/2efcee7dbc73a161?
>
> > >> > No, that wouldbe be your attempt to dissemble again for snipping the
> > >> > first sentence above in your reply, now restored. He said if "not" then
> > >> > "say so". For which answer you provide the dessembling response that
> > >> > answers some other question but not his. This is a common cheap trick
> > >> > polititions use.
>
> > >> It remains my choice to continue to write truthfully.
>
> > >Why should anybody believe you?
>
> > >Because you're a doctor?
> > >http://www.guardian.co.uk/shipman/Story/0,,1517424,00.html
>
> > Because he is an untreated florid schizophrenic fraud.
>
Diagnosis - even lay diagnosis - is not name-calling.
Your failure to grasp some of the very fundamentals of being a human
being are proof - not just evidence - that you are seriously fucked
up. That's the truth that is manifestly clear to anybody that isn't
totally fucked up.
It's why you lost your job in Ocala.
It's why you are unemployable in a normal clinical environment.
It's why you are lost in your own little prolapsed "reality".
It's why your efforts to form relationships with people degenerate
into cyberstalking.
It's why you are a complete and utter waste of space.
If you want to be useful to the human race, you need to remove
yourself from society, preferably with extreme prejudice.
The Rev Dr Hugh Jarse NLAHN
> "dsolo" <dalesolomon...@gmail.com> wrote in message
In order to dispose of some stale bread?
JESUS WAS A COCKSUCKER!
"The Rev Dr. Hugh Jarse NLAHN." <hugh....@heathens.org.uk> wrote in
message news:1191090225.6...@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
thousands-no-millions of us agree whole heartedly!
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
> > convicted neighbor Michael Gray wrote:
> > > satan via another sockpuppet hissed:
> > > > Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote
> > > >> satan via a sockpuppet (corporeal demon) hissed:
> > > >> > Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
> >
> > > >> > >http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/2efcee7dbc73a161?
> >
> > > >> > No, that wouldbe be your attempt to dissemble again for snipping the
> > > >> > first sentence above in your reply, now restored. He said if "not" then
> > > >> > "say so". For which answer you provide the dessembling response that
> > > >> > answers some other question but not his. This is a common cheap trick
> > > >> > polititions use.
> >
> > > >> It remains my choice to continue to write truthfully.
> >
> > > >Why should anybody believe you?
> >
> > > >Because you're a doctor?
> > > >http://www.guardian.co.uk/shipman/Story/0,,1517424,00.html
> >
**emphasis** added.
> > Your name-calling simply shows that the Holy Spirit is absolutely right to convict you:
> >
> > http://HeartMDPhD.com/Convicts
>
> Diagnosis - even lay diagnosis - is not name-calling.
**Fraud** is not a diagnosis (see above **emphasis**).
Bottom line:
You remain a liar, satan
Many thanks, much praise, and all the glory to GOD for HIS compelling
you to unwittingly demonstrate that lying remains your native
language.
In the awesome name of LORD Jesus Christ, my Messiah and my Savior, I
publicly rebuke you yet again.
The Rev Dr. Hugh Jarse NLAHN.
<heartdo...@emorycardiology.com> wrote:
> satan via another sockpuppet hissed angrily:
>
>
>
> > Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
> > > convicted neighbor Michael Gray wrote:
> > > > satan via another sockpuppet hissed:
> > > > > Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote
> > > > >> satan via a sockpuppet (corporeal demon) hissed:
> > > > >> > Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
>
> > > > >> > >http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/2efcee7dbc73a161?
>
> > > > >> > No, that wouldbe be your attempt to dissemble again for snipping the
> > > > >> > first sentence above in your reply, now restored. He said if "not" then
> > > > >> > "say so". For which answer you provide the dessembling response that
> > > > >> > answers some other question but not his. This is a common cheap trick
> > > > >> > polititions use.
>
> > > > >> It remains my choice to continue to write truthfully.
>
> > > > >Why should anybody believe you?
>
> > > > >Because you're a doctor?
> > > > >http://www.guardian.co.uk/shipman/Story/0,,1517424,00.html
>
> > > > Because he is an untreated florid schizophrenic **fraud**.
>
> **emphasis** added.
>
> > > Your name-calling simply shows that the Holy Spirit is absolutely right to convict you:
>
> > >http://HeartMDPhD.com/Convicts
>
> > Diagnosis - even lay diagnosis - is not name-calling.
>
> **Fraud** is not a diagnosis (see above **emphasis**).
>
Florid schizophrenic is, however, and the fraud bit was a statement of
fact, so it still isn't name calling, you're still a headfuck and a
waste of oxygen, and you still need to rid the world of yourself.
<snip Chungs snivelling semantics>
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Not when used in name-calling, satan.
Bottom line:
You remain a liar.
As it is written, lying is your native language, satan.
You can't help yourself.
Many thanks, much praise, and all the glory to GOD for HIS compelling
you to unwittingly demonstrate how you can't be truthful.
In the awesome name of LORD Jesus Christ, my Messiah and my Savior, I
publicly rebuke you for all to witness, satan.
Archie Leach
BAWK!!!!!!!!! BAWK!!!!!!!!! BAWK!!!!!!!!! BAWK!!!!!!!!! BAWK!!!!!!!!!
BAWK!!!!!!!!! BAWK!!!!!!!!! BAWK!!!!!!!!! BAWK!!!!!!!!! BAWK!!!!!!!!!
BAWK!!!!!!!!! BAWK!!!!!!!!! BAWK!!!!!!!!! BAWK!!!!!!!!! BAWK!!!!!!!!!
BAWK!!!!!!!!! BAWK!!!!!!!!! BAWK!!!!!!!!! BAWK!!!!!!!!! BAWK!!!!!!!!!
BAWK!!!!!!!!! BAWK!!!!!!!!! BAWK!!!!!!!!! BAWK!!!!!!!!! BAWK!!!!!!!!!
BAWK!!!!!!!!! BAWK!!!!!!!!! BAWK!!!!!!!!! BAWK!!!!!!!!! BAWK!!!!!!!!!
BAWK!!!!!!!!! BAWK!!!!!!!!! BAWK!!!!!!!!! BAWK!!!!!!!!! BAWK!!!!!!!!!
BAWK!!!!!!!!! BAWK!!!!!!!!! BAWK!!!!!!!!! BAWK!!!!!!!!! BAWK!!!!!!!!!
BAWK!!!!!!!!! BAWK!!!!!!!!! BAWK!!!!!!!!! BAWK!!!!!!!!! BAWK!!!!!!!!!
BAWK!!!!!!!!! BAWK!!!!!!!!! BAWK!!!!!!!!! BAWK!!!!!!!!! BAWK!!!!!!!!!
BAWK!!!!!!!!! BAWK!!!!!!!!! BAWK!!!!!!!!! BAWK!!!!!!!!! BAWK!!!!!!!!!
BAWK!!!!!!!!! BAWK!!!!!!!!! BAWK!!!!!!!!! BAWK!!!!!!!!! BAWK!!!!!!!!!
BAWK!!!!!!!!! BAWK!!!!!!!!! BAWK!!!!!!!!! BAWK!!!!!!!!! BAWK!!!!!!!!!
BAWK!!!!!!!!! BAWK!!!!!!!!! BAWK!!!!!!!!! BAWK!!!!!!!!! BAWK!!!!!!!!!
BAWK!!!!!!!!! BAWK!!!!!!!!! BAWK!!!!!!!!! BAWK!!!!!!!!! BAWK!!!!!!!!!
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
>
> Dr. Chung,
>
> Regarding the 2PD-OMER Approach, involving 625,500 people:
That would be **more** than 625,550 people for a period of more than 5
years.
> Have you submitted your research to the scrutiny of others who are
> experts in the same field?
Yes.
The universal success of the 2PD-OMER Approach in helping the obese
achieve sustained weight loss has since been validated by other
physicians world wide in their own patients.
Thus, you will not find any practicing physician with verifiable
credentials publicly stating that the 2PD-OMER Approach does not work
for his/her obese patients towards helping them achieve sustained
weight loss.
Indeed, the unprecedented million-dollar guarantee whose details have
been freely posted and discussed in sci.med.cardiology as archived in
Google remains in force for the 2PD-OMER Approach:
> Without peer review, it is prudent to regard any such assertions with
> suspicion.
Thankfully, the 2PD-OMER Approach has been peer-reviewed and
validated.
There would be no million-dollar guarantee had this not been done.
Truth is simple.
> Thank you
Thanks be to GOD, Who has provided the money for the guarantee along
with the inspiration for the 2PD-OMER Approach.
Laus Deo ! ! !
Be hungry... be healthy... be hungrier... be blessed:
http://HeartMDPhD.com/PressRelease
Prayerfully in the infinite power and might of the Holy Spirit,
Archie Leach
>Thankfully, the 2PD-OMER Approach has been peer-reviewed and
>validated.
It's notable and damning that you use the passive voice everytime you
bust out that cliche.
Exactly who has reviewed it, and in what publication(s)?
Of course, the cowardly Chung will dodge these questions and hide
behind his "satan's sockpuppet" / corporeal demon schtick.
Ferd Farkel
<heartdo...@emorycardiology.com> wrote:
> convicted friend Dale Solomonson (dsolo) wrote:
>
> > Dr. Chung,
>
> > Regarding the 2PD-OMER Approach, involving 625,500 people:
>
> That would be **more** than 625,550 people for a period of more than 5
> years.
>
>
So you're saying you have $625,550,000,000.00 squirreled away
somewhere, just in case?
Archie Leach
He will once he sells off emorycardiology.com !!!!!!!!!!!!!
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
tr...@is-best.com
Snip
Just recycle all the previous points showing the two pound diet,aka 2 pd
etc., is not valid scientifically etc. etc. etc. and the logic pasted
unto it equaly void and without merit.
The truth is simple, and the two pound diet is full of untruths and the
author, well let's be charatible on his behalf.
One small point worth reminding, the "universal" success is not true.
At least one person on this very newsgroup said they tried it and it
failed for them and they gave up on it. Like other diet plans, who will
be saying anyway they found it did not work for them?
God bless.
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
> > convicted friend Dale Solomonson (dsolo) wrote:
> >
> > > Dr. Chung,
> >
> > > Regarding the 2PD-OMER Approach, involving 625,500 people:
> >
> > That would be **more** than 625,550 people for a period of more than 5
> > years.
> >
> > There would be no million-dollar guarantee had this not been done.
>
> So you're saying you have $625,550,000,000.00 squirreled away
> somewhere, just in case?
No.
It is because we do not have hundreds of billions of US dollars to
back a million-dollar guarantee that we needed to be certain that we
can anticipate that the 2PD-OMER Approach will work to achieve
sustained weight loss in all who are obese.
We believe that if there ever were an exceptional case of on obese
person not achieving sustained weight loss by eating less per the 2PD-
OMER Approach, that such a case would disprove the first law of
thermodynamics and would be worth the million dollars to discover.
Ferd Farkel
<heartdo...@emorycardiology.com> wrote:
> convicted neighbor Ferd Farkel wrote:
>
> > Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
> > > convicted friend Dale Solomonson (dsolo) wrote:
>
> > > > Dr. Chung,
>
> > > > Regarding the 2PD-OMER Approach, involving 625,500 people:
>
> > > That would be **more** than 625,550 people for a period of more than 5
> > > years.
>
> > > There would be no million-dollar guarantee had this not been done.
>
> > So you're saying you have $625,550,000,000.00 squirreled away
> > somewhere, just in case?
>
> No.
>
> It is because we do not have hundreds of billions of US dollars to
> back a million-dollar guarantee that we needed to be certain that we
> can anticipate that the 2PD-OMER Approach will work to achieve
> sustained weight loss in all who are obese.
>
> We believe that if there ever were an exceptional case of on obese
> person not achieving sustained weight loss by eating less per the 2PD-
> OMER Approach, that such a case would disprove the first law of
> thermodynamics and would be worth the million dollars to discover.
IOW, you can't be sued because you're broke.
Fuck, but you're clever.
Global Warming
Can you see your finger?
Message from NeibelHiem, all fingers must be cut off, message comes from
the latest News, a worldwide broadcasting network, and when every citizen,
every player, and every last breathing child has been properly instructed,
then may the business of the state and the business of this new world
order' progress.
Sorry Christians, for demanding so much participation, regarding that
finger, and the pointing, there, where, off, what's that over your
shoulder?
Did you forget something?
