2 heads up, a food and a book

convicted friend Mike (em) wrote:

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:

http://TruthRUS.org/Guarantee

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
--
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Lawful steward of http://EmoryCardiology.com
Bondservant to the KING of kings and LORD of lords.

"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

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.

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

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.

In article . com "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" writes:
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.

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.


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

"Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" wrote in message
ups.com...
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.

http://tinyurl.com/3bwvkx

Mike

In alt.support.diabetes on Wed, 26 Sep 2007 01:42:37 GMT in Msg.#
, Alex Frottenheimer
wrote:

Also, I've just discovered pork rinds - yes, ew, except most brands are
so well done there's no hint it's pig skin.

Ewwwwwwww. Nope, not gonna go there. Tasted a few in my younger wilder days.
Didn't like them even then.

--
DonnaB shallotpeel
Do you live in a Purple state? http://www.purplestates.org/

"Writing is not like painting where you add. It is not what you put on the
canvas that the reader sees. Writing is more like a sculpture where you
remove, you eliminate in order to make the work visible. Even those pages
you remove somehow remain." - Elie Wiesel

"Cary Kittrell" wrote in message
...
In article . com "Andrew
B. Chung, MD/PhD" writes:
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.

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.


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"?

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

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

Be hungry... be healthy... be hungrier... be blessed:

http://HeartMDPhD.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.

In article "em" writes:

"Cary Kittrell" wrote in message
...
In article . com "Andrew
B. Chung, MD/PhD" writes:
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.

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.


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"?

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?


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

"Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" wrote in message
ups.com...
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