In case you were wondering WHY did the Georgia Composite Medical Board REVOKE Andrew B. Chung's medical license

The Georgia Composite Medical Board took action against Dr. Andrew
Ben-Hua Chung's medical license due to long-standing concerns about
his mental fitness and ability to practice safely, which culminated in
his failure to comply with mandatory evaluation orders.The primary
factors leading to his multi-year disciplinary battle and eventual
final board decisions include:

1. Refusal to Comply with Medical Evaluations

Dr. Chung's license was initially suspended after he failed to comply
with a board order requiring him to complete a comprehensive mental
and physical examination. The board explicitly warned that a failure
to submit the psychiatric evaluation results within a set timeframe
would trigger a license revocation.

2. Erratic Behavior and "Wonderfully Hungry" Mandate

The board launched an investigation after receiving complaints from
local attorneys regarding erratic behavior that raised severe patient
care concerns. Investigative findings and public hearing testimonies
revealed that Dr. Chung refused to converse or interact with patients,
board members, or witnesses unless they explicitly stated they were
"wonderfully hungry".

3. Controversial Dietary Teachings

The board's scrutiny was intensified by Dr. Chung's public promotion
of his "Be Hungry" diet book, which instructed individuals to strictly
limit their intake to 32 ounces of food per day. His unorthodox
practices and social media presence further drew negative attention
due to a tenuous connection to a high-profile 2012 starvation case
involving a teenager, though criminal culpability was limited to the
child's mother.

4. Failure to Reverse Board Suspensions

Dr. Chung repeatedly contested the state's actions through
administrative agency reviews and hearings. However, because his
behavior persisted during live hearings and he failed to successfully
fulfill the board's standard medical prerequisites for safe practice,
the state consistently upheld its restrictions—ultimately solidifying
his disciplinary status in the March 2025 Final Decision