Without evidence of benefit, an intervention should not be presumed to be beneficial or safe.

- Rogue Medic

The Boy Who Cried Terrorist

 
This is the latest comment from Frederick Blum in response to what I wrote about his absurd defense of Dr. Tobinick.[1].[2] As you can see, in labeling appropriate respect for patients as terrorism, Frederick Blum completely lacks perspective.
 

I think a more apt description of what you are is ” Rogue Terrorist ” . Forget ” Rogue Medic. ” It’s not really you. Think about it.[3]

 

Think like Frederick Blum?

That might be torture.

If you honestly think that I am a terrorist, turn me in.

Go ahead.

It may be even worse to not turn in a terrorist, than to treat patients with inadequately tested medications.
 

If you see something, say something 1
 

“War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.”[4]

 

What do terrorists do?
 

You hide behind a cowardly mask exactly as terrorists do.[3]

 

Cowardly?

I have allowed Frederick Blum a forum to make baseless accusations.

I have responded with evidence.

I have not made threats.

Frederick Blum calls this cowardly?
 

You fabricate lies about people and assault them with ad hominem attacks, also exactly as terrorists do.[3]

 

Frederick Blum, provide some sort of evidence to support your imaginative accusations.

I have stated that Dr. Tobinick has failed to produce valid evidence of safety.

Do you have any evidence to show that this is not completely true?

I have stated that Dr. Tobinick has failed to produce valid evidence of efficacy.

Do you have any evidence to show that this is not completely true?

I have not lied.

I have criticized Dr. Tobinick for a failure to provide evidence of safety and efficacy. Using safe and effective treatments is an important part of what separates ethical medical practice from alternative medicine.

If people conclude that Dr. Tobinick is unethical because of what I have written, that is only reasonable.

Neither of you have provided even an iota to suggest any other conclusion.

By the way, have terrorists switched from killing people to using honest criticism? I wish it were so.
 

Really, you’re just another unremarkable terrorist.[3]

 

Is your unremarkable remark intentionally ironic?
 

You should change your anonymous cowardly handle to ” Rogue Terrorist. ” At least in doing so you would be honest about yourself.[1]

 

Without valid evidence of safety, we must conclude that Dr. Tobinick cannot honestly demonstrate safety.

Without valid evidence of benefit, we must conclude that Dr. Tobinick cannot honestly demonstrate any benefit.

If Dr. Tobinick’s treatment is safe and effective, why hide the evidence?

Footnotes:

[1] Dr. Edward Tobinick Sues Barbara Streisand – or something equally foolish
Thu, 24 Jul 2014
Rogue Medic
Article

[2] When Minions Attack
Sun, 26 Feb 2017
Rogue Medic
Article

[3] The comment where Blum cried Terrorist
comment on Dr. Edward Tobinick Sues Barbara Streisand – or something equally foolish
Frederick Blum
Comment

[4] 1984
George Orwell
Free Full Text from The University of Adelaide Library

.

When Minions Attack

Minion vampire 1a
Image credit.
 

In the comments to Dr. Edward Tobinick Sues Barbara Streisand – or something equally foolish,[1] Frederick Blum (sometimes Frederick S. Blum) states that he does not like my criticism of Dr. Edward Tobinick for using inadequately tested treatment, on patients.
 

The fact that you’ve censored my comments speaks volumes about the kind of person you are, ” Rogue Medic.”[2]

 

I have not censored Frederick Blum’s comments. All comments are moderated. Not all spam is caught by the spam filter.

Since Frederick Blum’s earlier, similarly absurd, comment was approved and appeared in the comments hours before this comment, what leads Frederick Blum to conclude that this is censorship?
 

What are you afraid of being found out for, that you’re no more than a charlatan ?[2]

 

You chose to use the word charlatan. Since the topic is Dr. Tobinick, is this use of charlatan a Freudian slip?
 

Frederick Blum also obsesses about my use of a pseudonym, although I provide links to valid evidence and Frederick Blum only makes excuses to distract from the absence of valid evidence for Dr. Tobinick’s treatment.

Frederick Blum complains that it is wrong to criticize Dr. Tobinick for his failure to post valid evidence, since Dr. Tobinick uses his real name.

Is valid evidence less valid when I use a pseudonym?

No.

This gullibility is one of the primary reasons scams are so successful.

Bernie Madoff, perhaps the biggest thief of all time, had people, like Frederick Blum, defending his business. A lot of people trusted that con man for the same reason.

What was Bernie Madoff’s motto?
 

Also to his advantage, Madoff was adept at both selfpromotion and client relations. His corporate slogan, “The Owner’s Name Is on the Door,” would reinforce his managerial image, as well as provide his growing list of wealthy clients with a reassuring declaration—a personal acknowledgement of his fiduciary responsibility to them.[3]

 

Is Dr. Tobinick a medical, and much more dangerous, version of Bernie Madoff? Is Dr. Tobinick’s name on the door just a confidence gimmick?
 

You can’t hide the truth about yourself forever. Eventually it is seen for what it really is – the truth.[2]

 

We would be able to determine the truth about Dr. Tobinick, if Dr. Tobinick would adequately test his treatment.

Is the treatment safe, as Dr. Tobinick uses it?

Is the treatment better than a placebo, as Dr. Tobinick uses it?

Is the treatment as good as any adequately tested treatments, as Dr. Tobinick uses it?

The only suppression of the truth is from Dr. Tobinick and his worshipers, such as Frederick Blum.

What is the treatment?
 

The list of conditions for which Tobinick claims or even has patented use of Enbrel include Alzheimer’s, stroke, traumatic brain injury, Parkinson’s disease, carpal tunnel syndrome, brain tumor, spinal cord injury, and back pain. That quite impressive for a doctor who isn’t even a neurologist. Tobinick is an internist who, prior to curing a long list of neurological diseases, specialized in laser hair removal.[4]

 

Why doesn’t everyone go to a laser hair removal specialist for inadequately tested treatments?

I am sure that the FDA and the insurance companies are being unreasonable in wanting evidence of safety and efficacy.
 

And, the truth is that you have devised a falsified and libelous campaign against someone who is not only innocent but a truly great medical scientist with a proven honest intelligence that surpasses almost everybody else in medicine today, Dr. Edward Tobinick, only to further your own loathsome self serving agenda.[2]

A proven honest intelligence? Where did you come up with that nonsense? If an intelligent person uses a dangerous treatment, the treatment is still dangerous.

Go ahead. I dare you, Frederick Blum. Stop making excuses and provide evidence to back up your unsupportable claims.

Footnotes:

[1] Dr. Edward Tobinick Sues Barbara Streisand – or something equally foolish
Thu, 24 Jul 2014
Rogue Medic
Article

[2] Censorship comment by Frederick Blum
comment

[3] Catastrophe: The Story of Bernard L. Madoff, the Man Who Swindled the World
Deborah Strober & Gerald Strober
Kindle Locations 1077-1079
Phoenix Books, Inc.

From the website of Bernie Madoff – http://www.madoff.com on December 15, 2008. In Appendix A (Kindle Locations 2760-2765)
 

The Owner’s Name is on the Door

In an era of faceless organizations owned by other equally faceless organizations, Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC harks back to an earlier era in the financial world: The owner’s name is on the door. Clients know that Bernard Madoff has a personal interest in maintaining the unblemished record of value, fair-dealing, and high ethical standards that has always been the firm’s hallmark.

 

[4] Enbrel for Stroke and Alzheimer’s
Science-Based Medicine
Steven Novella
May 8, 2013
Article

.

Happy Bill of Rights Day – 225 Years Old

bill-of-rights-hero-lg-1
 

The Bill of Rights was ratified on December 15, 1791, which makes today the 225th anniversary of being signed into law. The Bill of Rights protects the interests of minorities from oppression by tyrannical majorities. This is why we are not really a democracy, but a constitutional republic.

If a majority decides that a minority should not be entitled to the same rights as the majority, or promotes some rationalization of the difference as not being a valid difference, that minority can appeal to the courts for relief. On the other hand, there are no absolute rights, which would invalidate all other rights.

You can be executed for a crime you did not commit, even if you can prove that you are innocent. You have to appeal to the governor or president for intervention. As the Supreme Court decided –
 

Held: Herrera’s claim of actual innocence does not entitle him to federal habeas relief. Pp. 6-28.[1]

 

Due process of law does not require that the innocent be set free. Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness are not to be found in the American Constitution. Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness are not to be found in the Bill of Rights.

Rights also come with responsibilities. We need to respect the rights of others, no matter how much we might think that others cannot be trusted to make those decisions, while we claim to be able to make these same decisions, not just for ourselves, but for others.

If people of different races want to marry, the state governments are not permitted to use their authority to sanction marriages to deprive citizens of their right to marry based on tradition. States rights have limitations, just as individual rights have limitations.

Discriminating against citizens of a politically incorrect group for decades, or even centuries, is not a justification for continuing to deprive them of equal treatment under the law.

Others may use their freedom, which always comes with responsibilities, in ways we do not like, but that is part of the price of freedom.

Even though slavery was legal at the time of ratification of the American Constitution and Bill of Rights, and is still endorsed by the Bible, we have recognized that slavery is bad. Our Constitution caught up with a lot of the rest of the world.

The Bible still endorses slavery and says that I can sell my daughter as a sex slave.

What progress we are making. In the Middle Ages they would have burned me. Now they are content with burning my books. – Sigmund Freud

The Bill of Rights is much better than the Bible. Go blaspheme in celebration of the Bill of Rights, which protects us from those who would burn us, or our writing, or otherwise punish us for being honest.

Footnotes:

[1] Herrera v. Collins (91-7328), 506 U.S. 390 (1993)
Argued October 7, 1992
Decided January 25, 1993
US Supreme Court
Decision

 

In criminal cases, thetrial is the paramount event for determining the defendant’s guilt or innocence. Where, as here, a defendant has been afforded a fair trial and convicted of the offense for which he was charged, the constitutional presumption of innocence disappears. Federal habeas courts do not sit to correct errors of fact, but to ensure that individuals are not imprisoned in violation of the Constitution. See, e.g., Moore v. Dempsey, 261 U.S. 86, 87-88. Thus, claims of actual innocence based on newly discovered evidence have never been held to state a ground for federal habeas relief absent an independent constitutional violation occurring in the course of the underlying state criminal proceedings.

 

.

Flag burning, patriotism, and reality

flagburningtrump2a

Tweet by President-elect Donald Trump on flag burning
 

Is appearance more important than reality?
 

Why do people burn the American flag?

There may be many reasons, but the essence appears to be an attempt to shock people to recognize what the flag burners see as hypocrisy.

What is the purpose of prohibiting burning of the American flag?

Some people place more value in this symbol of America (the flag), than they do in what makes America great (the Constitutional protections of the rights of Americans).

Is President-elect Trump an opponent of the American Constitution? Is President-elect Trump just engaging in a politically correct theatrical display for people who do not seem to understand that the American Constitution doesn’t care if their feelings get hurt?
 


 

In 1798, Congress passed, and President John Adams signed, the Alien and Sedition Acts.[1] These restricted eligibility to vote, restricted immigration, allowed for increased deportation of aliens considered dangerous, and made criticism of the federal government illegal. This is one example of Founding Fathers acting in a way that is contrary to what many consider their original intent.

Recently deceased Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia voted in the majority to protect flag burning in 1989.[2] Did Justice Scalia hate America, hate the American flag, or is it more complex than an early morning tweet can express?

In 1943, during World War II, the Supreme Court decided on a variation of this concept. Is it Constitutional to force people to demonstrate patriotism?
 

To believe that patriotism will not flourish if patriotic ceremonies are voluntary and spontaneous instead of a compulsory routine is to make an unflattering estimate of the appeal of our institutions to free minds.[3]

 

Real patriotism is not a politically correct compulsory display.
 

But freedom to differ is not limited to things that do not matter much. That would be a mere shadow of freedom. The test of its substance is the right to differ as to things that touch the heart of the existing order.[3]

 

The American Constitution does not authorize thought crimes.
 

If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein. If there are any circumstances which permit an exception, they do not now occur to us.[3]

 

What about those who claim that Americans have risked their lives, and even died, to protect the sanctity of the American flag? Does service in any branch of the American military contain any oath to protect the American flag?
 

(a) Enlistment Oath .-Each person enlisting in an armed force shall take the following oath:
“I, ____________________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.”
[4]

 

The So help me God is optional, since there is no truth to the myth that there are no atheists in foxholes and the American Constitution prohibits all religious requirements for service.

The oath is to protect the American Constitution, which protects flag burning. The oath is not to protect the American flag.

Even Jesus stated opposition to this kind of political theater.
 

5 “When you pray, you are not to be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and on the street corners [a]so that they may be seen by men. Truly I say to you, they have their reward in full. 6 But you, when you pray, go into your inner room, close your door and pray to your Father who is in secret, and your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you.[5]

 

What does it say about America that we reward theatrical patriotism, rather than respect for the Constitution which makes America great?

Or is President-elect Trump taking initial steps to try to get Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission[6] overturned by expressing that not everything is protected expression? Who can tell with someone who expresses himself in such a vague manner?

Is appearance more important than reality?

Footnotes:

[1] Alien and Sedition Acts
1798
Primary Documents in American History
Library of Congress page

[2] Texas v. Johnson, (1989)
No. 88-155
Argued: March 21, 1989
Decided: June 21, 1989
United States Supreme Court
case

[3] West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (No. 591)
Argued: March 11, 1943
Decided: June 14, 1943
case

[4] §502. Enlistment oath: who may administer
Text contains those laws in effect on November 28, 2016
US Code page

Amended in 1962 – inserted “So help me God” in the oath, and “or affirmation” in text.

[5] Matthew 6:5-6
New American Standard Bible (NASB)
You can go to the site and look up all of the other versions of the Bible or just pick up a Bible and read this.
Bible Gateway
Bible

[6] Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission
2009
case

.

The Prehospital 12-Lead ECG blog receives its first hate mail

There is a post titled, The Prehospital 12-Lead ECG blog receives its first hate mail. I could provide some explanation, but the title pretty much says it all. However, Tom B. does an excellent job of using the heckler to provide personal entertainment for his readers. I provide some commentary of my own, but go read what Tom B. wrote.

Third, it is academically dishonest and even perhaps illegal to directly quote from an article without a proper citation.

Academically dishonest? I guess I will have to call Tom, Professor Tom.

Please provide a citation for the improper citation being illegal.

There is a link to the article that appears to have inspired this tirade. The link seems to be to an article by the same Mr. Matthew Paulus, BME, EMT-P, MS-S NP-S/Cardiopulmonary CNS-S, who seems to have ignored the link. I guess that he only acknowledges a certain style of citation. A link is a citation, even if it is not in the form that Letter Man might prefer. My link to Prehospital 12-Lead ECG could result in my arrest for not being a proper citation? Oh, my!

It is equally dishonest and professionally unethical to make criticisms of published materials using nothing more than mere opinion.

Mere opinion?

I am insulted!

My opinion is scattered throughout my posts, but describing it as mere opinion is a mistake. And probably illegal!

OK. It isn’t illegal.

So, I should expect a visit from Letter Man?

The entire concept of publishing a paper is to put it out there for your peers to criticize. It’s one of the hallmarks of science.

Amen!

Furthermore, I found your opinions unfounded, misguided, inaccurate, unkind, irresponsible, and lacking an academic foundation.

What? No proof of some communist conspiracy? Alien abduction? That’s all you’ve got?

I advise you to use caution, sound judgement, graciousness, sound ethics and humility when publicly critiquing published materials.

Good gracious!

If you’re attacking me on style points, then point taken. I can be a bit brash sometimes.

Let’s hope that this guy doesn’t decide to actually work in EMS, rather than just write about EMS. Brash doesn’t even begin to describe the vocabulary of some of the patients. Then, assuming he cavalierly dispenses calcium channel blockers to wide complex tachycardia patients, he may be find the plaintiff’s attorney to be more than a bit unpleasant.

Though I do not know the person’s background, it forces one to wonder whether this blogger is educated beyond what his own intelligence permits.

It doesn’t force me to consider that, at all. However, Letter Man is consistent in his misinformation.

I will avoid this site and advise others to do so until it can be based on a solid foundation of knowledge.

He will avoid this until things change?

If he avoids the site, how would he know if things change?

Personal opinion does not cut it.

Please provide some evidence to support this personal opinion.

Thank you,
Matthew Paulus, BME, EMT-P, MS-S NP-S/Cardiopulmonary CNS-S

I love the Thank you, after all of the failed attempts at insults. They would need to have some substance to not fail.

BME? Bloviating Medic Emeritus?

I wonder about all of the MS-S NP-S/Cardiopulmonary CNS-S. Does the -S mean student?

Rogue Medic, FUBAR, SNAFU, TARFU, WTF, LMAO, EIEIO, AEIOU TIPS, GIGO, YADA YADA YADA, ETC.

Maybe I should list the books that I am reading with -R after the title. Maybe a movie that I am watching with -W. Of course, maybe -S does not mean student. Clearly, he knows it all.

I am surprised that there was no accusation of libel. Libel is the adult version of, You can’t say that! With all of the accusations of libel directed at me, no lawyer has yet contacted me. Thank you for the giggles, Mr. Paulus.

.

Whistle-Blowing Nurse Is Acquitted in Texas

Much has been written about the fanatics criminals trying to get Anne Mitchell, RN locked up. I will only give a brief summary.

A quack – Rolando G. Arafiles Jr., who for some odd reason has not yet been stripped of his medical license, had the sheriff investigate anonymous reports to the Texas Medical Board about his abuse of patients. The sheriff arrested Nurse Mitchell and charged her with a felony that could put her in jail for 10 years and could include a $10,000 fine. The fraudulent investigation probably did contribute to her being wrongfully fired. The county prosecutor, who works for the charlatan, decided to prosecute.

All of these frauds belong in jail.

The case was investigated by Sheriff Robert L. Roberts Jr., a friend and admiring patient of Dr. Arafiles, and tried by the county attorney, Scott M. Tidwell, a political ally of the sheriff and, according to testimony, Dr. Arafiles’s personal lawyer.[1]

In case you are thinking that this is a misrepresentation of their criminal abuse of power, the jury did not have to deliberate for long.

The jury foreman said the panel of six men and six women voted unanimously on the first ballot, and questioned why Mrs. Mitchell had ever been arrested.[1]

Where would a good story about fraud be without a bunch of cognitive dissonance?

Sheriff Roberts said he was disappointed in the verdict but did not regret the prosecution.[1]

The next jury should arrange for these frauds to be bunkmates in a prison where they do not have any friends.

We want nurses and others to feel comfortable reporting potential problem doctors to state medical boards. The medical board should be the ones determining if the complaint is valid.

After the verdict, the nurses’ lawyers pivoted quickly to the lawsuit[2] they have filed in federal court against the county, the hospital and various officials, charging that the firings and indictments amounted to a violation of due process and their First Amendment rights.[1]

Texas, it turns out, has laws that protect whistle-blowers — but only from civil suits. Criminal prosecution is another matter entirely. After the medical board received the nurses’ anonymous complaint, its investigators gave a copy to Dr. Arafiles. That complaint alleged that he’d given patients inappropriate care, including sewing a rubber tip not intended to be attached to humans onto a patient’s crushed finger (a case that the Texas Department of State Health Services had red-flagged). Too, the complaint noted, Arafiles urged patients to buy Zrii, a questionable nutrition supplement sold via a pyramid-marketing structure.[3]

Last month Andrew Wakefield was publicly humiliated for his fraud. Let’s hope they follow that up with criminal charges.

This month another scam artist, Rolando G. Arafiles Jr., is publicly humiliated for endangering patients, as well. Likewise, let’s hope that after the civil trial, there are criminal charges filed against this witch doctor and his minions.

White Coat has written about this –

Nurse Acquitted

Respectful Insolence has written a lot about this –

Report a bad doctor to the authorities, go to jail? It might really happen for Anne Mitchell, RN in Winkler County, Texas

Dr. Rolando Arafiles: Antivaccine rhetoric topped off with colloidal silver for the flu and Morgellons disease

Report a bad doctor to the authorities, go to jail? The trial, day two

Report a bad doctor to the authorities, go to jail? The cranks weigh in

Winkler County Nurse Anne Mitchell is not guilty, not guilty, not guilty, not guilty!

Footnotes:

^ 1 Whistle-Blowing Nurse Is Acquitted in Texas
By Kevin Sack
Published: February 11, 2010
New York Times
Article

^ 2 Anne Mitchell and Vickilyn Galle, plaintiffs, vs. Winkler County Memorial Hospital; Stan Wiley, individually and in his official capacity as administrator of the Winkler County Memorial Hospital; Robert L. Roberts, Jr., individually and as Sheriff of Winkler County, Texas; Rolando G. Arafiles, Jr., individually; Scott M. Tidwell, individually and in his official capacity as County Attorney; and Mike Fostell, individually and in his official capacity as District Attorney, defendants.
US District Court for the Western District of Texas, Pecos Division.
Free Full Text PDF

^ 3 Medical emergency – In reporting a doctor’s mistakes, a West Texas nurse risked going to prison
Houston Chronicle Editorial
Feb. 11, 2010, 7:53PM
Article

.

First Amendment and Holocaust Denial

At Respectful Insolence is a post, Holocaust denier and neo-Nazi sympathizer David Irving slithers his way through the western U.S., that riled up one of the commenters. Hardly a first on that blog. This commenter is not disagreeing with Orac on the evils of the Holocaust. No peter has his own solution way to deal with the nasty problem of the Jews Holocaust deniers.

It appears that someone has made the statement, What’s good for the goose is good for the gander, just a few times too many within earshot of this ZioNAZI. He is not happy with the idea that Holocaust deniers should be allowed to speak. His conclusion is that once you forbid discussion of bad ideas, the ideas cease to exist. The way he writes, I get the feeling that he would go much farther than that.

Holocaust deniers are people who claim that the NAZIs did not do all of the bad things that they really did do. David Irving has come up with the bizarre tactic of claiming that the NAZIs only killed 1.74 million Jews, not the commonly accepted number of 6 million Jews. This makes little sense.

Your honor,

I am innocent! I did not murder Millions of Jews. I only murdered millions of Jews.

Many people have wondered what might cause some people to follow these orders to round up, torture, and kill millions of people. Well, if you want an example of someone demonstrating rabid hatred that might be manipulated into this kind of behavior, read what peter has written here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. The links are to peter’s individual comments on the same post. Or you can just read through the comments from the top.

A more rational approach to the problem of what can get a seemingly ordinary person to behave as a sadistic murderer was put forward by Stanley Milgram.

The results as seen and felt in the laboratory are disturbing. They raise the possibility that human nature, or more specifically the kind of character produced in American democratic society, cannot be counted on to insulate its citizens from brutality and inhumane treatment at the direction of a malevolent authority. A substantial proportion of people do what they are told to do, irrespective of the content of the act and without limitations of conscience, so long as they perceive that the command comes from a legitimate authority. If, in this experiment, an anonymous experimenter can successfully command adults to subdue a fifty-year-old man and force on him painful electric shocks against his protests, one can only wonder what government with its vastly greater authority and prestige, can command of its subjects.
(S. Milgram. Quoted in ‘Encyclopedia of Genocide’. Ed. Israel W. Charney. Pub. ABC-CLIO. Volume 1, page 333.)

Is it impossible to repeat these experiments, now?

Apparently not.

Part I:

Part II:

Part III:

One thing peter mentions that is true is the need for responsibility for one’s actions. He does not seem to feel that there is any responsibility for his actions, because he believes that, the misbehavior of others automatically relieves him of responsibility for his actions.

The evil of others does not excuse evil on our part.

p. 98 Man’s Search for Meaning by Dr. Viktor Frankl.

Only slowly could these men be guided back to the commonplace truth that no one has a right to do wrong not even if wrong has been done to them. I can still see the prisoner who rolled up his shirtsleeves, thrust his right hand under my nose and shouted, “May this hand be cut off if I do not stain it with blood on the day when I get home!” I want to emphasize that the man who said these words was not a bad fellow. He has been the best of comrades in the camp and afterwards.

Viktor Frankl wrote this after he learned that his wife, mother, father, other relatives, and many of his friends had been killed murdered in concentration camps.

Dr. Frankl did not see being a victim as an excuse to victimize others.

p. 93

It is apparent that the near knowledge that a man was either a camp guard or prisoner tells us almost nothing. Human kindness can be found in all groups, even those which as a whole it would be easy to condemn.

p. 94

From all this one may learn that there are two races of men in the world, but only these two—the “race” of the decent man and the “race” of the indecent man. Both are found everywhere. They penetrate into all groups of society. No group consists entirely of decent or indecent people.

Some people rejoice in knowing that they are not evil, while others seem to be of the opinion that, if used by good people, evil is not evil. For them, the concept of a lesser of two evils is important. The definition of evil is important. Distinctions among degrees of evil are only important at sentencing hearings.

Another way, perhaps the best way to deal with the people susceptible to these behaviors is with ridicule. Mitchell and Webb do a great job of providing ridicule.

“Being tolerant does not mean that I share another one’s belief. But it does mean that I acknowledge another one’s right to believe, and obey, his own conscience.” Viktor Frankl

Tyranny cannot defeat the power of ideas.

Helen Keller As quoted in the Fighting the Fires of Hate: America and the Nazi Book Burnings exhibit at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum (13 April 2003)

.