If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#81
|
|||
|
|||
Uncovering the Atkins diet secret
Matti Narkia wrote:
Mon, 26 Jan 2004 12:31:33 -0500 in article Sun & Mun_ wrote: On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 10:39:30 +0200, Matti Narkia wrote: Do diabetics have healthy kidneys, Matti? Your comment was not restricted to diabetics, neither is this thread. In fact there has been hardly any reference to diabetes in this thread. Therefore your comment was inaccurate and needed to be corrected. Answer the question, Matti. Between 30 and 50 % of people with diabetes are at risk of kidney disease, but that was not an issue here. Chung's comment about protein and kidneys was general and as such also and mostly aimed at the large majority of general population with no kidney disease and no diabetes. Chung's attempts to change the subject (the next twist would probably be totally off-topic religious mantras) when caught answering inaccurately (or otherwise challenged) should be resisted. A citation from the recently posted "Dr. Chung FAQ, Issue 1" (URL:http://groups.google.fi/groups?selm=chungfaq-8E35A7.05173026012004%40library.airnews.net): "o When challenged, he answers with evasions, non sequiturs, dissembling, rhetorical questions, quotes from the bible, religious mantras, thinly veiled death threats, ad hominem arguments, and other such disreputable, unethical, and unprofessional tactics. See also the chapters dealing with Mu. ;-) -- Matti Narkia Is the source you cite a reliable source by your usual "vitamin-counter" standards, Matti? FYI Note: I am aware that I am responding to a cross-posted message. Because the author of the message to which I am responding did not request that the header be trimmed, I have not trimmed it. If you are upset about reading this message, a few suggestions: (1) Yell at Matti Narkia (2) Report Matti Narkia to his ISP (3) Killfile this thread. (4) Killfile me. (5) Read about free speech. This discussion(s) is related to the 2 pound diet approach (2PD) which is described completely at: http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtloss.asp Though Dr. Chung invented this approach, he did not initiate the Usenet discussion(s). His participation in this discussion(s) has been voluntary and has been conducted in the spirit of community service. His motivation has been entirely altruistic and has arisen from his religious beliefs as a Christian. Jesus freely gave of Himself to better the health of folks He touched: http://www.heartmdphd.com/healer.asp From the outset, it has been clear that there are those who are vehemently opposed to the 2 pound diet approach. They have debated Dr. Chung on every perceived weakness of the 2 pound diet approach and have lost the argument soundly at every point: http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtlossfaqs.asp These debates are archived on Google in their entirety within this discussion thread(s). However, instead of conceding gracefully that they've lost the argument(s), certain parties have redirected their hatred of the 2 pound diet approach toward its author. The rationale appears to be "if you can not discredit the message then try to discredit the messenger." Initially, these folks accused the messenger of "trolling." A "troll" is someone who posts under the cloak of anonymity messages with no redeeming discussion value and with the sole purpose of starting "flame" wars. These hateful folks lost credibility with this accusation when the following observations were made: (1) Dr. Chung has not been posting anonymously. (2) The 2PD has been on-topic for the Usenet discussion groups hosting the discussion(s). (a) Those who are failing low-carbing can dovetail LC with the 2PD to achieve near-ideal weight. (b) Obese diabetics improve their blood glucose control when their weight becomes near-ideal. (c) For (b) see: http://tinyurl.com/levc (3) Dr. Chung did not start the discussion(s). (4) The 2 pound diet approach is 100% free (no profit motive). (5) Dr. Chung's credentials are real and easily verified on-line (including jpegs of the actual diplomas). Full of hatred, frustration, and desperation, certain individuals have tried to attack Dr. Chung's credentials knowing full well that they were attempting to libel him. One notable example is Mr. Pastorio: http://www.heartmdphd.com/libel.asp When the full light was cast on Mr. Pastorio's libelous statements, the hateful folks hiding in the darkness of anonymity only hissed louder in support of their fallen hero. Fortunately, those who have been following this discussion(s) either actively or as lurkers can easily dismiss the hisses, for what they are, using the on-line third-party resources at: http://www.heartmdphd.com/profile.asp where Dr. Chung's credentials can be verified many times over and libelous claims that credentials were bought are easily and summarily debunked. Moreover, readers need only make the following observations concerning the anon posters who continue to hiss (ie JC Der Koenig and Mack): (1) They are anonymous and thus they expect to have no credibility (or accountability). (2) They are by their Usenet history courtesy of Google, unsavory characters. (3) They have not added anything to the discussion(s) except to deliver one-sided insults. (4) They complain about alleged cross-posts from Dr. Chung by cross-posting. (5) They do not complain about cross-posts from folks who attack the 2PD or its author. and conclude that these anon posters deserve only their kill file. It is my hope that the above brings new readers of this thread up to speed. It will remain my pleasure to continue the discussion(s) about the 2PD above the din of hissing from the peanut gallery. God's humble bond-servant, Andrew -- Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD Board-Certified Cardiologist http://www.heartmdphd.com |
#82
|
|||
|
|||
Uncovering the Atkins diet secret
See there is your main problem. You do not even know what a low-carb
diet is. The mainstream recommends a 55 to 65% carb diet. Anything less than this is a low-carb diet. 40% carbs is a low carb diet. Now Another possible definition is anything less than 100g a day. Zone aims for 100g. Mirek |
#83
|
|||
|
|||
What a bunch of clowns ( Uncovering the Atkins diet secret - for Moosh)
kvs wrote:
tcomeau quoted: http://www.azdailysun.com/non_sec/na...?storyID=74896 Surprise: Low-carb dieters eat more calories, still lose weight By DANIEL Q. HANEY Others, though, found the data hard to swallow. When the data does not make sense, that is the time that a real scientific advance is in the works. Everyone with a good basic eduction in the scientific method should recognize this and understnad it's implication. "It doesn't make sense, does it?" said Barbara Rolls of Pennsylvania State University. "It violates the laws of thermodynamics. No one has ever found any miraculous metabolic effects." Thermodynamics is about energy flow not weight. So much for weight loss being explained by energy flow. As to the claim that no one has ever found any miraculous metabolic effects, the *miracle* is when a scientist says something like "It doesn't make sense, does it?". That's one of the best clues of a scientific discovery there is. It is THE classic mark of a discovery. Of course it isn't Barbara Rolls's discovery. She just ran an experiment to confirm someone else's discovery and proved to herslef that the discovery was true. She demonstrated a 'miraculous metabolic effect' in her experiment then refused to acknowledge that she had done so. This is not uttered by a scientist but a lemming. Exactly. Why is it so hard for these drones to understand that the action of insulin affects how glucose is metabolized? Diets which involve higher insulin output will involve more fat storage than those that do not. In addition, insulin resistance differentiates individuals in terms of fat storage rate. Right. The experiment did not reveal the mechanism that is well known at this point. What it did was demonstrate that a metabolic effect did in fact happen. Individuals with fewer insulin receptors in the membranes of their cells will convert more glucose to tryglicerides stored in adipose tissue than "normal" individuals who convert glucose to heat through higher levels of cellular respiration. Both types of individuals will get fat on sufficient excess food consumption for a given exercise level but the former will get fatter faster. No violations of energy conservation are involved. No violations of mass conservation either. Clearly Barbara Rolls doesn't know anything about thermodynamics. Nor the basic mechanism of how scientific discoveries work. One fell from the sky and hit her on the head and she didn't even recognize the classic "That doesn't make any sense, does it?" event. Thermodynamics is the aggregate behaviour of a system and derives from the microphysics of the system (in statistical mechanics everything flows from the system Hamiltonian, but good luck writing it down). That's physical lingo for saying "a calorie is a calorie is a calorie" is demonstrated false by this experiment. Greene said she can only guess why the people getting the extra calories did so well. Maybe they burned up more calories digesting their food. Whatever the mechanism, a metabolic advantage was factually demonstrated. It couldn't possibly be insulin related could it now...sheesh. Well it could. But it's still possible other mechanisms will be discovered. Insulin is the fat storage switch. It is obvious why the people that ate a diet which induced less insulin output could avoid fat storage at a higher calorie level. Okay. The only way that you can lose weight on a high carbohydrate diet is through the right level of exercise or calorie restriction. But this part doesn't automatically follow. Sure, the experiment demonstrated a metabolic edge for low carbers. But compared to, for lack of a better term mid-carbers/mid-fatters, low fat has a metabolic edge of its own. It's just that the low fat one comes with the less of continual hunger for so many people. If the additional 300 calories were given to the high carb group they would not have lost anywhere near the amount of weight that the low carb group did. This shows that the study is "fixed" against low carb. The only fair comparison is for identical calorie consumption on both types of diet. Right. But equal calories in the experiment would have resulted in a much larger difference. Say goodbye to a calorie being a calorie being a calories. Dr. Samuel Klein of Washington University, the obesity organization's president, called the results "hard to believe" and said perhaps the people eating more calories also got more exercise or they were less apt to cheat because they were less hungry. Twit. This joker is accusing the people on the high carb diet of cheating and spoiling the image of the rotten theory he adheres to. He should buy a clue instead of buying a phony internet M.D. certificate. Chuckle. When the results of an experiment are hard to believe a *good* scientist tries other experiments to duplicate teh trend, then works on an explanation. Of course in this case the explanation is already quite well known and Dr Klein is simply in denial that he's encountered what to him is a new discovery. |
#84
|
|||
|
|||
Uncovering the Atkins diet secret
Mon, 26 Jan 2004 14:20:00 -0500 in article
"Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" wrote: Matti Narkia wrote: Between 30 and 50 % of people with diabetes are at risk of kidney disease, but that was not an issue here. Chung's comment about protein and kidneys was general and as such also and mostly aimed at the large majority of general population with no kidney disease and no diabetes. Chung's attempts to change the subject (the next twist would probably be totally off-topic religious mantras) when caught answering inaccurately (or otherwise challenged) should be resisted. A citation from the recently posted "Dr. Chung FAQ, Issue 1" (URL:http://groups.google.fi/groups?selm=chungfaq-8E35A7.05173026012004%40library.airnews.net): "o When challenged, he answers with evasions, non sequiturs, dissembling, rhetorical questions, quotes from the bible, religious mantras, thinly veiled death threats, ad hominem arguments, and other such disreputable, unethical, and unprofessional tactics. See also the chapters dealing with Mu. ;-) Is the source you cite a reliable source by your usual "vitamin-counter" standards, Matti? Anyone who has followed this ng for a few weeks or longer and read the cited FAQ knows that the FAQ is highly accurate and hence reliable. -- Matti Narkia |
#85
|
|||
|
|||
Uncovering the Atkins diet secret
"Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" schrieb: Matti Narkia wrote: 25 Jan 2004 19:52:32 -0800 in article (Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD) wrote: Matti Narkia wrote in message . .. 25 Jan 2004 14:46:32 -0800 in article (Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD) wrote: High protein diets really load up the kidneys and run them into the ground. Not true for people with healthy kidneys. Do diabetics have healthy kidneys, Matti? Your comment was not restricted to diabetics, neither is this thread. Correct. In fact there has been hardly any reference to diabetes in this thread. Correct. Therefore your comment was inaccurate and needed to be corrected. My comment remains accurate. would suggest you be careful in your answer LOL. Looks like you took care not to answer the question. See above. If _anyone needs to be more careful with his/her answers it's you. Does BMI 21-25 still define "mild obesity" as one of your recent answers claimed? :-):-). Yes. Is 2 pounds of potatoes still about 3600 calories as one of your even more recent answers claimed? :-):-):-). Yes. Why can't you just admit that you made a mistake when you stated that 2 pounds of potatoes have 3600 calories? Even the best of us make mistakes. Thorsten -- "Nothing in biology makes sense, except in the light of evolution" (Theodosius Dobzhansky) |
#87
|
|||
|
|||
Uncovering the Atkins diet secret
On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 19:13:05 -0500, Thorsten Schier wrote
(in message ): "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" schrieb: snip Yes. Is 2 pounds of potatoes still about 3600 calories as one of your even more recent answers claimed? :-):-):-). Yes. Why can't you just admit that you made a mistake when you stated that 2 pounds of potatoes have 3600 calories? Even the best of us make mistakes. But the worst of us can't admit it :-) -- Steve Weeding the Lord's Vineyards Since 2003 |
#88
|
|||
|
|||
Uncovering the Atkins diet secret
Matti Narkia wrote:
Mon, 26 Jan 2004 14:20:00 -0500 in article "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" wrote: Matti Narkia wrote: Between 30 and 50 % of people with diabetes are at risk of kidney disease, but that was not an issue here. Chung's comment about protein and kidneys was general and as such also and mostly aimed at the large majority of general population with no kidney disease and no diabetes. Chung's attempts to change the subject (the next twist would probably be totally off-topic religious mantras) when caught answering inaccurately (or otherwise challenged) should be resisted. A citation from the recently posted "Dr. Chung FAQ, Issue 1" (URL:http://groups.google.fi/groups?selm=chungfaq-8E35A7.05173026012004%40library.airnews.net): "o When challenged, he answers with evasions, non sequiturs, dissembling, rhetorical questions, quotes from the bible, religious mantras, thinly veiled death threats, ad hominem arguments, and other such disreputable, unethical, and unprofessional tactics. See also the chapters dealing with Mu. ;-) Is the source you cite a reliable source by your usual "vitamin-counter" standards, Matti? Anyone who has followed this ng for a few weeks or longer and read the cited FAQ knows that the FAQ is highly accurate and hence reliable. -- Matti Narkia What happened to your search for the truth, Matti? FYI Note: I am aware that I am responding to a cross-posted message. Because the author of the message to which I am responding did not request that the header be trimmed, I have not trimmed it. If you are upset about reading this message, a few suggestions: (1) Yell at Matti Narkia (2) Report Mattie Narkia to his ISP (3) Killfile this thread. (4) Killfile me. (5) Read about free speech. This discussion(s) is related to the 2 pound diet approach (2PD) which is described completely at: http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtloss.asp Though Dr. Chung invented this approach, he did not initiate the Usenet discussion(s). His participation in this discussion(s) has been voluntary and has been conducted in the spirit of community service. His motivation has been entirely altruistic and has arisen from his religious beliefs as a Christian. Jesus freely gave of Himself to better the health of folks He touched: http://www.heartmdphd.com/healer.asp From the outset, it has been clear that there are those who are vehemently opposed to the 2 pound diet approach. They have debated Dr. Chung on every perceived weakness of the 2 pound diet approach and have lost the argument soundly at every point: http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtlossfaqs.asp These debates are archived on Google in their entirety within this discussion thread(s). However, instead of conceding gracefully that they've lost the argument(s), certain parties have redirected their hatred of the 2 pound diet approach toward its author. The rationale appears to be "if you can not discredit the message then try to discredit the messenger." Initially, these folks accused the messenger of "trolling." A "troll" is someone who posts under the cloak of anonymity messages with no redeeming discussion value and with the sole purpose of starting "flame" wars. These hateful folks lost credibility with this accusation when the following observations were made: (1) Dr. Chung has not been posting anonymously. (2) The 2PD has been on-topic for the Usenet discussion groups hosting the discussion(s). (a) Those who are failing low-carbing can dovetail LC with the 2PD to achieve near-ideal weight. (b) Obese diabetics improve their blood glucose control when their weight becomes near-ideal. (c) For (b) see: http://tinyurl.com/levc (3) Dr. Chung did not start the discussion(s). (4) The 2 pound diet approach is 100% free (no profit motive). (5) Dr. Chung's credentials are real and easily verified on-line (including jpegs of the actual diplomas). Full of hatred, frustration, and desperation, certain individuals have tried to attack Dr. Chung's credentials knowing full well that they were attempting to libel him. One notable example is Mr. Pastorio: http://www.heartmdphd.com/libel.asp When the full light was cast on Mr. Pastorio's libelous statements, the hateful folks hiding in the darkness of anonymity only hissed louder in support of their fallen hero. Fortunately, those who have been following this discussion(s) either actively or as lurkers can easily dismiss the hisses, for what they are, using the on-line third-party resources at: http://www.heartmdphd.com/profile.asp where Dr. Chung's credentials can be verified many times over and libelous claims that credentials were bought are easily and summarily debunked. Moreover, readers need only make the following observations concerning the anon posters who continue to hiss (ie JC Der Koenig and Mack): (1) They are anonymous and thus they expect to have no credibility (or accountability). (2) They are by their Usenet history courtesy of Google, unsavory characters. (3) They have not added anything to the discussion(s) except to deliver one-sided insults. (4) They complain about alleged cross-posts from Dr. Chung by cross-posting. (5) They do not complain about cross-posts from folks who attack the 2PD or its author. and conclude that these anon posters deserve only their kill file. It is my hope that the above brings new readers of this thread up to speed. It will remain my pleasure to continue the discussion(s) about the 2PD above the din of hissing from the peanut gallery. Humbly, Andrew -- Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD Board-Certified Cardiologist http://www.heartmdphd.com |
#89
|
|||
|
|||
Uncovering the Atkins diet secret
On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 20:42:12 -0500, Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote
(in message ): snip What happened to your search for the truth, Matti? He found it in the reference below. You should read it. Oh, and Chung... when you respond, please trim your headers to only sci.med.cardiology. Thanks ever so much. On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 5:17:30 -0500, A. B. Chung FAQ wrote (in message ): --------------------------------- | The Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD FAQ | | Version 1.0, January, 2004 | --------------------------------- Introduction ------------ New people arriving in sci.med.cardiology (s.m.c.) are often puzzled and troubled by the controversy surrounding the poster who posts as Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD (Dr. Chung) and want to know what the controversy is about. This FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions) attempts to provide an answer. The FAQ is arranged in typical FAQ form, i.e. a series of questions and answers. For those who don=B9t wish to read the whole FAQ, the following summary is provided. Summary ------- Dr. Chung represents himself to be a licensed physician specializing in cardiology. In this capacity he responds to medical questions on s.m.c.. If that were all he did, there would probably be no controversy. The controversy arises from Dr. Chung=B9s other behaviors on s.m.c., in particular: o He uses s.m.c. to not only proselytize his particular interpretation of Christianity, but also to disparage and attack anyone with a different interpretation or different religion. o He uses s.m.c. to promote his unscientific Two Pound Diet (2PD) and, in fact, cross posts this information to other groups in order to gain more exposure. o When challenged on the above issues, or one of his medical opinions, he attacks his challengers as "obsessive anti-Christians", "libelers", "homosexuals", "people who can=B9t understand English", etc. o When challenged he performs Internet searches on his challengers in order to "get the dirt" on them and smear their reputations. o When challenged, he answers with evasions, non sequiturs, dissembling, rhetorical questions, quotes from the bible, religious mantras, thinly veiled death threats, ad hominem arguments, and other such disreputable, unethical, and unprofessional tactics. o He is insufferably full of himself, claiming to have "the gift of Truth Discernment" and to be "Humble" while behaving anything but humbly. o He uses a foil who posts under variations of the name "Mu" to avoid killfiles. Mu=B9s job is to troll other newsgroups and, when he gets a reaction, to cross post the reaction to s.m.c. so that Dr. Chung can disingenuously claim to be "only responding" to a cross post. Whereas Dr. Chung has to be somewhat careful what he says and so attacks primarily through insinuation and innuendo, Mu=B9s tactics are blunt and direct like those of a playground bully. The above lists only the highlights of Dr. Chung=B9s egregious behavior on s.m.c.. If anything, it understates it. Everything can be verified in the Google archives. The issue then arises: so what? As long as Dr. Chung provides free medical advice on s.m.c., who cares what else he does? Many people provide free medical advice on the internet. How does one know whether it is good advice or bad advice? If the person giving the advice is, or represents himself to be, a doctor shouldn=B9t that be enough? Unfortunately, no. Medical education alone is not enough to guarantee good advice. Knowledge must be tempered with judgment, impartiality, integrity, ethics, and professionalism. If someone consistently demonstrates by their behavior that they lack these qualities, how much credence should be given to their medical advice? People arrive in this group looking for help. For their own protection, they deserve to know the quality of the person purporting to dispense that help and not be lulled into a false sense of security simply because someone displays an MD after their name. It is the intention of this FAQ to provide people with enough information to allow them to make an informed decision. List of Questions Answered -------------------------- 1. Who is Dr. Andrew B Chung, MD/PhD? 2. What is the Charter of s.m.c.? 3. Aren=B9t Religious Discussions Covered by the Charter? 4. So Dr. Chung is Religious... What=B9s the Problem With That? 5. But it=B9s Just a Little "Tag Line" in His Signature. 6. But I=B9m a Christian Too! 7. Well, Why Not Just Ignore His Religious Rants? 8. But Isn=B9t It Wonderful That Dr. Chung Offers This Free Medical Advice Out of the Goodness of His Heart? 9. How Does a Practicing Physician Find so Much Time to Spend on Usenet? 10. Won=B9t Challenging Dr. Chung Drive People Away? 11. Doesn't the "Fault" for all Those Posts Lay With Those Who Challenge Dr. Chung? 12. Why Do I see So Many "Ad Hominem" Attacks? 13. I'm Sick of Seeing All This! 14. What is the Two Pound Diet? 15. Is Discussion of the Two Pound Diet "On Topic"? 16. Who is Mu? 17. What is Mu=B9s Role? 1. Who is Dr. Andrew B Chung, MD/PhD? -------------------------------------- The poster who posts as Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD claims to be a licensed physician, practicing internal medicine in Atlanta, Georgia, USA and specializing in cardiology. His signature contains a link to a website which is consistent with his posts. It should be noted that anyone can claim to be anyone on Usenet and so caution is always advised. Indeed there are those who claim that the poster in question is not Dr. Andrew B. Chung, or is not the Dr. Andrew B. Chung listed in the Atlanta telephone directory, and/or has lost his license and/or hospital privileges for misconduct. This FAQ does not attempt to address those claims one way or the other. The reader with an interest in these matters can easily find the relevant discussions archived in Google Groups. This FAQ deals with the poster who posts as Dr. Chung and restricts itself to issues demonstrated by those posts. No position is taken on his "true" identity. 2. What is the Charter of s.m.c.? ---------------------------------- The purpose of this newsgroup is to establish electronic media for communication between health care providers, scientists and other individuals with interest in the cardiovascular field. Such communications will provide quick and efficacious means to exchange information and knowledge, and offer problems to solutions. The sci.med.cardiology newsgroup will welcome participants who are health care providers, trainees, researchers, students or recipients with interest in the field of cardiovascular problems." (ftp://ftp.uu.net/usenet/news.announc...med.cardiology) 3. Aren=B9t Religious Discussions Covered by the Charter? -------------------------------------------------------- What do you think? 4. So Dr. Chung is Religious... What=B9s the Problem With That? -------------------------------------------------------------- There is no problem with that. Most of the people who participate in s.m.c. are probably religious. However no one but Dr. Chung feels compelled to characterize themselves as the "Humble Servant of God" in their signatures, continually thank God for the opportunity to "witness", question others about their religious beliefs, claim the "Gift of Truth Discernment", etc. When one person insists on introducing his personal religious interpretations into the discussions, it naturally generates responses from others who feel just as strongly that their viewpoints are correct. The resulting debate easily swirls out of control, especially given Dr. Chung=B9s intolerant and dismissive attitude towards beliefs which differ from his. The situation is further exacerbated by Mu=B9s rabble raising from the sidelines. There are over 160 Usenet groups dedicated to the discussion of religion. Dr. Chung should take his beliefs to one of these and stick to cardiology in s.m.c. It is a simple matter of respect for others. 5. But it=B9s Just a Little "Tag Line" in His Signature. ------------------------------------------------------- No, it is not. He has even gone so far as to "investigate" someone asking for advice about stents and accuse her of being anti-Christian. 6. But I=B9m a Christian Too! ---------------------------- Lots of people are Christians. There is a time and a place for everything. s.m.c. isn=B9t the place to "witness" or recruit. In addition, lots of other people are Jews, Moslems, Buddhists, Taoists, Hindus, etc. Would s.m.c. be better or worse if they all emulated Dr. Chung in their proselytizing and recruiting? Furthermore, if you are a Christian, you should be appalled by Dr. Chung=B9s pharisaical, cynical, and manipulative use of Christianity. He is truly a "whitened sepulcher", loudly proclaiming his adherence to Christian values while overtly lying, carrying on smear campaigns against others, making false accusations, dissembling, and marketing his web site under the guise of altruism. He is "bearing false witness" and true Christians should be concerned. As an example, when John Ritter recently died unexpectedly, Dr. Chung rushed to use this unfortunate event to market his web site. He showed a total lack of Christian compassion for Mr. Ritter and his family, even when challenged to do so. As another example, he recently choreographed a smear campaign against a poster who had criticized him. Dr. Chung found a homosexual author with the same first name and then insinuated that the poster and anyone who agreed with him were engaged in a homosexual relationship. Ask yourself if this the brand of Christianity you identify with. 7. Well, Why Not Just Ignore His Religious Rants? -------------------------------------------------- Why should one individual be given carte blanche to violate the rights of everyone else? Usenet is a community. It is up to the community to sanction its members. There is nothing "ad hominem" about challenging inappropriate and antisocial behavior. 8. But Isn=B9t It Wonderful That Dr. Chung Offers This Free Medical Advice Out of the Goodness of His Heart? ---------------------------------------------------------- First, it is only of value if it is good advice. Medical education alone is not enough to guarantee good advice. Knowledge must be tempered with judgment, impartiality, integrity, ethics, and professionalism. If someone consistently demonstrates by their behavior that they lack these qualities, how much credence should be given to their medical advice? Secondly, despite his protestations to the contrary, Dr. Chung is not simply motivated by altruism. Every post of Dr. Chung's contains a link to a website with the following quote: "If you are looking for a cardiologist and reside in Georgia, please consider me your best option for a personal heart advocate. Check out my credentials and my background. Additional information is available in the protected sections of this web site. Email me at to me of your interest and I may send you a temporary username and password to allow a preview. The more information you email, the more likely my decision to send you a temporary username and password. If you like what you see and learn from this website and wish to confer with me about your heart, you or your doctor should email me privately or call my voicemail at 404-699-2780 to schedule an appointment to see me at my *real* office." (http://www.heartmdphd.com/office.asp) Thirdly, Dr. Chung has repeatedly stated that one of his key motivations for participating is s.m.c. is to "witness" and win converts to his religious beliefs. 9. How Does a Practicing Physician Find so Much Time to Spend on Usenet? ------------------------------------------------------------------ An interesting question. 10. Won=B9t Challenging Dr. Chung Drive People Away? -------------------------------------------------- Perhaps. But not challenging him will drive others away. s.m.c. is historically a "low traffic" group. Therefore, when Dr. Chung misbehaves, he generates an apparently large response. This is compounded by Dr. Chung=B9s need to "get in the last word" and Mu=B9s provocations. In spite of this, if someone has a question it will usually be answered. Dr. Chung is not the only participant who offers advice in s.m.c. He is not even the only doctor who participates in s.m.c. However, the controversy he generates and sustains often makes it appear that he is the "only game in town". Finally, Dr. Chung himself drives others away including other physicians who leave in disgust after being verbally assaulted by him, and other knowledgeable posters who point out where Dr. Chung=B9s medical opinion might be in error or at least not the only one generally held. Anyone disagreeing with Dr. Chung on any subject can expect a series of increasingly vitriolic attacks, including threats of libel suits. 11. Doesn't the "Fault" for all Those Posts Lay With Those Who Challenge Dr. Chung? -------------------------------------------------------------- An interesting perspective: blame the victim. No other poster (with the exception of Mu, of course) introduces religion or the Two Pound Diet. How can it be acceptable for Dr. Chung to introduce these topics, but not acceptable for others to respond? In any thread, someone must, of necessity "get the last word". Dr. Chung has amply demonstrated that he will not be outdone in this respect. 12. Why Do I see So Many "Ad Hominem" Attacks? ---------------------------------------------- You are probably referring to an "Ad Hominem" _argument_, which attempts to disprove an adversary's fact by personal attack on the adversary. An example would be "You are opposed to the Two Pound Diet because you are anti-Christian". When someone misbehaves, for example lies or distorts what someone else is saying, it is not an "ad hominem attack" to call them on it. It is a legitimate social sanction. There are also, unfortunately too often, simple personal attacks and insults on both sides. While we can all wish it weren't so, it is simply human nature when an argument becomes heated or the other person is obviously not arguing in good faith. If you are distressed by this, see the next question. 13. I'm Sick of Seeing All This! -------------------------------- There is no reason why you have to see it. Just as you can change the TV channel if you don't like a show, you can killfile a poster or thread you don't want to see. See the manual that came with your Usenet reader for directions on how to do it. Before you do this, however, you may wish to consider if a truer picture of the world is not gained by seeing all that goes on - both the good and the bad. 14. What is the Two Pound Diet? ------------------------------- The Two pound Diet is a diet which Dr. Chung "invented". It=B9s only rule is to restrict yourself to two pounds of food per day. That=B9s it. Doesn=B9t matter if you are a 16 year old girl or an 80 year old man; a 5=B9 2" woman or a 7=B9 man; a weight lifter or a mattress tester. Two pounds. That=B9s it. No more, less if you want. One size fits all. Oh, and the food? Whatever you want: two pounds of lettuce, two pounds of ice cream, two pounds of celery, two pounds of bacon, two pounds of chocolate, two pounds of peanuts... doesn=B9t matter. Mix and match. Just keep it under two pounds. Dr. Chung=B9s claim is that this magical weight of food, this universal gustatory constant will cause everyone to arrive at and maintain their ideal weight. His scientific basis for this claim: none. The proof he offers: none. Studies supporting this claim: none. Nutritional explanation: none. Metabolic explanation: none. And this from a doctor who expects people to take him seriously on other issues. 15. Is Discussion of the Two Pound Diet "On Topic"? --------------------------------------------------- Dr. Chung says it is because being overweight is a risk factor for heart problems and therefore discussion of the Two Pound Diet is On Topic. However criticism of the Two Pound Diet is Off Topic as is discussion of any other diet. As with religion, Dr. Chung takes every opportunity to introduce the Two Pound Diet (2PD) into any other thread. In addition Mu trolls other newsgroups, particularly the diet groups looking for opportunities to introduce the 2PD in these groups and then cross post the resulting discussion back to s.m.c so that Dr. Chung can disingenuously claim to be "only responding" to a cross post. Since Dr. Chung and Mu have been laughed off of these other groups and have been asked repeatedly not to bring up the 2PD in them, participants of these groups are understandably angered when it happens yet again=8A and, because of Mu=B9s cross-posting, all their anger spills back into s.m.c. Another reason for ongoing 2PD discussions is Dr. Chung=B9s habit of researching anyone who criticizes the 2PD and then cross-posting his responses back to other groups which the critic has been found to frequent. He disingenuously claims that he does this as a "convenience" to the critic, but his true reasons are transparent. Once again, the cross-post generates a firestorm in s.m.c. The bottom line is that if the Two Pound Diet is "On Topic" for anyone, it is "On Topic" for everyone... including it's critics. If it is "Off Topic", it should not be continually re-introduced by Dr. Chung. 16. Who is Mu? -------------- Mu is a longtime Usenet Troll who has even merited his own FAQ. He postures as some kind of personal physical trainer, but who really knows? He has allied himself with Dr. Chung and serves as the "Bad Cop" in the Chung - Mu "Good Cop - Bad Cop" routine. He specializes in the short, nasty one-liner and, because unlike Dr. Chung, he has no reputation to protect, he can afford to be much more direct and offensive. Mu parrots an even meaner-spirited version of Dr. Chung=B9s "Christianity" and does not hesitate to employ anti-Semitism and homophobia in his attacks. Naturally, most people would have long ago killfiled Mu, so he changes his handle on an almost daily basis. 17. What is Mu=B9s Role? ---------------------- Mu=B9s role is to troll other newsgroups and, when he gets a reaction, to cross post the reaction to s.m.c. so that Dr. Chung can disingenuously claim to be "only responding" to a cross post. Mu is also responsible for pitching softballs to Dr. Chung so he can hit them out of the park, and for re-introducing religion and the Two Pound Diet should the discussion flag. Finally, Mu=B9s role is to tirelessly wear down unsuspecting Dr. Chung critics, deflecting the blows that would otherwise be aimed at Dr. Chung. He is Dr. Chung=B9s Internet equivalent of the "rope-a-dope". Insults roll off him like water off a duck as do attempts to reason with him or even have a civil discussion. Most people have learned to ignore him and his comment is usually the last one in any thread sub-tree where it appears. Comments and/or corrections to this FAQ will be taken under advisement. -- Steve Weeding the Lord's Vineyards Since 2003 |
#90
|
|||
|
|||
Uncovering the Atkins diet secret
Thorsten Schier wrote:
"Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" schrieb: Matti Narkia wrote: 25 Jan 2004 19:52:32 -0800 in article (Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD) wrote: Matti Narkia wrote in message . .. 25 Jan 2004 14:46:32 -0800 in article (Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD) wrote: High protein diets really load up the kidneys and run them into the ground. Not true for people with healthy kidneys. Do diabetics have healthy kidneys, Matti? Your comment was not restricted to diabetics, neither is this thread. Correct. In fact there has been hardly any reference to diabetes in this thread. Correct. Therefore your comment was inaccurate and needed to be corrected. My comment remains accurate. would suggest you be careful in your answer LOL. Looks like you took care not to answer the question. See above. If _anyone needs to be more careful with his/her answers it's you. Does BMI 21-25 still define "mild obesity" as one of your recent answers claimed? :-):-). Yes. Is 2 pounds of potatoes still about 3600 calories as one of your even more recent answers claimed? :-):-):-). Yes. Why can't you just admit that you made a mistake when you stated that 2 pounds of potatoes have 3600 calories? It is not a mistake to guestimate 3600 calories per 2 lbs of potatoes (especially if one is trying to lose weight). Even the best of us make mistakes. Correct. Humbly, Andrew -- Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD Board-Certified Cardiologist http://www.heartmdphd.com/ |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Uncovering the Atkins diet secret | Diarmid Logan | General Discussion | 135 | February 14th, 2004 04:56 PM |
NYT Atkins Article Untrue - Per Atkins | J Costello | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 11 | January 22nd, 2004 03:27 AM |
Atkins diet may reduce seizures in children with epilepsy | Diarmid Logan | General Discussion | 23 | December 14th, 2003 11:39 AM |
Was Atkins Right After All? | Ken Kubos | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 5 | November 22nd, 2003 11:01 PM |
Atkins diet fires up the beef industry | poohbear | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 4 | September 30th, 2003 12:42 AM |