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

- Rogue Medic

Happy Darwin Day 2018

 
Why do some people reject science? Evolution is just one aspect of science that some people claim, almost always without any scientific experience, is not real. The rest of the scientific community generally ignores these fringe dwellers, but politicians and the media love them.

The science deniers claim that scientists are arrogant, but science requires scientists to be transparent in their methods. Science requires scientists to invite criticism.

If you think that you can provide valid evidence to show that a scientific theory is wrong, you can expect to become rich and famous. Go ahead. Show the world that you know more than those arrogant scientists. I am sure that you will straighten those scientists out.
 


 

Science deniers are almost never open to criticism. Some even call for attacks on their critics. Mike Adams is one of the recent examples of these, but someone will probably do something more extreme before the decade is out.[1]

Flat Earthers, Creationists, anti-vaxers, climate change deniers, medicine deniers (alternative medicine quacks), anti-GMO activists, et cetera. They all lack credibility among scientists, because they all lack valid evidence. The same is true of Holocaust deniers, 9/11 Truthers, and others promoting revision of history without any valid evidence.

The most famous example of a victim of science deniers is probably Galileo, who was threatened with torture by the Inquisition (known as the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith since 1983), in order to coerce a recantation from Galileo for teaching the heretical idea of Nicolaus Copernicus that the Earth revolves around the Sun (helicentrism).
 

The proposition that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move from its place is absurd and false philosophically and formally heretical, because it is expressly contrary to Holy Scripture.[2]

 

In 1615, Galileo had been ordered to give up the said doctrine and not to teach it to others, not to defend it, nor even to discuss it;[2]

Don’t even discuss your ideas.

This time he was sentenced to house arrest for the rest of his life. His books, and other books on heliocentrism were prohibited by the Inquisition.

Ironically, many of the science deniers claim to be modern versions of Galileo, persecuted for their ideas. The reality is that they are ignored, because they do not produce valid evidence. Galileo was far from perfect, but he did produce valid evidence. Some of the evidence was misinterpreted by Galileo, but removing that evidence did not invalidate heliocentrism.

The scientific community does not prevent science deniers from publishing valid evidence.

The research presented by the science deniers has to meet the same standards as the rest of the research published in science journals.

The problem with the science deniers is that their research either does not meet the standards of publication in a science journal, does not contradict the existing research, or both.

What scientific evidence is there that Creationism is true?

Nothing.

The promotion of a claim as scientific, without any scientific evidence, is an excellent example of arrogance.

What scientific evidence is there that evolution is true?

Some people claim that evolution is anti-Christian, but this is not true. Most Christians accept that evolution is real. This is from BioLogos, a Christian science organization.

What does the fossil record show? [3]

The Smithsonian also has a lot of information specifically about human evolution.

Human Evolution Research [4]

DNA (DeoxyriboNucleic Acid) demonstrates how closely related any two living creatures are. You can see that we are related to other apes, as well as bananas and bacteria. Wikipedia’s primary rule for entries is that the information has to be supported by verifiable evidence. Here is the Wikipedia page on genetics, the science of examining DNA –

Genetics – Wikipedia [5]

Science is objective and has rules to eliminate, as much as possible, the role of prejudice.

As if that is not enough, science also takes all of its results and challenges people to find any flaws in the work.

Is there a problem with the way the evidence was obtained?

Is there a problem with the way the data were calculated?

Are there other valid interpretations that have not been considered (interpretations that are not ruled out by the evidence)?

DNA had not even been discovered at the time Darwin published On the Origin of Species.

DNA is probably most objective tool available for showing that all life on Earth has evolved from the same original species.

Footnotes:

[1] Mike Adams, Monsanto, Nazis, and a Very Disturbing Article
Discover Magazine
By Keith Kloor
July 22, 2014 5:05 pm
Article

[2] Papal Condemnation (Sentence) of Galileo
June 22, 1633
Trial of Galileo (1633)
Famous Trials
Professor Douglas O. Linder
Translation of Papal Condemnation

But whereas it was desired at that time to deal leniently with you, it was decreed at the Holy Congregation held before His Holiness on the twenty-fifth of February, 1616, that his Eminence the Lord Cardinal Bellarmine should order you to abandon altogether the said false doctrine and, in the event of your refusal, that an injunction should be imposed upon you by the Commissary of the Holy Office to give up the said doctrine and not to teach it to others, not to defend it, nor even to discuss it; and your failing your acquiescence in this injunction, that you should be imprisoned.

[3] What does the fossil record show?
BioLogos
Article

[4] Human Evolution Research
Smithsonian
Human Origins
Web page

[5] Genetics
Wikipedia
Web page

.

Baltimore Hospital Dumping Patients – Is it that simple?

 
You watch the video and wonder how could anyone be so callous and cold, to leave someone outside with only a hospital gown to wear – especially when it is so cold outside.

Is what we are seeing callous, or uncaring?

In the video farther down, there is a nice discussion of the problems, which are much more complicated than somebody being refused care for some bad reason.

I found a site that did mention her clothes being with her, but stated with her clothes and belongings scattered on the sidewalk. Here is the picture they posted. The clothes are in plastic patient belongs bags.
 


 

Psychotherapist Imamu Baraka was walking near the University of Maryland Medical Center’s midtown campus location when he saw a woman being dropped off by security at a bus stop with her clothes and belongings scattered on the sidewalk.[1]

 

Why didn’t she put her clothes on?

One of the first things discharged patients will do, if they can, is put their own clothes on.

There is no evidence that anyone was refused care. That would be an EMTALA (Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act) violation, resulting in a very big fine, which would be reported. Maybe I am wrong, but I do not expect that an investigation will end with any finding of any refusal to provide care.

But we saw it on the video!

No. I think that you saw someone being removed from private property for bad behavior in a hospital gown, and she refused to put on her own clothes on (the clothes in her bag) for reasons of her own.

Here is a video explaining this in more detail, but a couple of notes about people mentioned in the video.

Charlie Gard was an infant with irreversible MDDS (Mitochondrial DNA Depletion Syndrome). The doctors and nurses seem to have understood this, but parents, politicians, preachers, and the press thought that it would be a good idea to torture Charlie Gard with an experimental treatment with no expectation of a better outcome.

How would Solomon decide? To torture, on the ridiculously small chance of a better outcome, or to do not further harm?

Peter Gallogly is a doctor, who was selectively recorded on video to make it seem as if his unprofessional behavior was unprovoked. If you watch the video of Dr. Gallogly, realize that it is edited to distort reality. If you watch the ironically named Project Veritas videos of abortion clinics, they are similarly edited to distort reality, which is why they have been rejected as evidence in court. You might as well watch a Michael Moore film, if you want a highly edited distortion of reality.

The Delnor nurse protected staff from an escaped prisoner, when the corrections officer apparently fled. The nurse ended up being abducted for hours, grazed by a bullet, pistol whipped, and raped, but was reported as being unharmed after the inmate was killed.

 


 

We need to learn how to find out accurate information for ourselves, rather than blindly accept propaganda from far left or far right news sources. Even the mainstream news will often get information in specialized fields wrong and not realize it. When the story is from a specialized field, such as medicine, we should obtain our information from trustworthy people in that field.

More information on Charlie Gard.

More information on Peter Gallogly.

More information on the Delnor nurse.

All of the videos are from ZDoggMD.com

Footnotes:

[1] Video shows Baltimore hospital discharging half-naked woman into cold winter night
Ana Valens
Jan 11 at 7:27AM | Last updated Jan 12 at 3:36AM
The Daily Dot
Article

.

Honoring a Do Not Resuscitate tattoo in an unconscious patient

Also to be posted on ResearchBlogging.org when they relaunch the site.
 

The DNR (Do Not Resuscitate) tattoo is the kind of problem that leads doctors, nurses, and EMS to pretend to be lawyers, lawyers to pretend to be ethical, and patients to be treated against their wishes.

EMS transports a patient to the emergency department. The patient has a chest tattoo of Do Not Resuscitate and what appears to be a signature.
 

Paramedics brought an unconscious 70-year-old man with a history of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, diabetes mellitus, and atrial fibrillation to the emergency department, where he was found to have an elevated blood alcohol level.[1]

 

It appears that they have access to the patient’s history, but they do not have information about a DNR in the history.
 

Because he presented without identification or family, the social work department was called to assist in contacting next of kin. All efforts at treating reversible causes of his decreased level of consciousness failed to produce a mental status adequate for discussing goals of care.[1]

 


 

The patient does not currently appear to need an invasive airway, or anything else that would be prohibited by a DNR, so there is time to consult with others.
 

This decision left us conflicted owing to the patient’s extraordinary effort to make his presumed advance directive known; therefore, an ethics consultation was requested.[1]

 

Do we honor the stated, although perhaps not letter of the law until after a court decision, DNR?

If you want to be resuscitated, do not tattoo DNR, or Do Not Resuscitate, on your chest.

But what if he did it while drunk?

There was a case of a patient doing that.
 

When asked why his tattoo conflicted with his wishes to be resuscitated, he explained that he had lost a bet playing poker with fellow ancillary hospital staffers while inebriated in his younger years; the loser had to tattoo “D.N.R.” across his chest.[2]

 


 

They are called Darwin awards for a reason.

Hold my beer and watch this is not usually the start of a tale of wisdom, but of providing a learning opportunity for others.
 

It was suggested that he consider tattoo removal to circumvent future confusion about his code status. He stated he did not think anyone would take his tattoo seriously and declined tattoo removal.[2]

 

After driving to the bar, while sober, an individual decided to drive home, while drunk.

The person should clearly not be held accountable for a decision made while drunk.

A person puts a mask on and uses a cap gun to hold up a store where a friend works, because that kind of thing is funny. Someone calls 911, or . . ., and the humor loses something in translation to reality.

I can be very silly, but I take the wishes of the patient seriously.

If a DNR tattoo was a joke, well, that was may be a bad decision, because you don’t know who is going to be deciding how to treat you when you are not capable of expressing your wishes competently.

The EMS laws tell me that I should always start CPR (CardioPulmonary Resuscitation), while calling a doctor for permission to stop, because the wishes of the patient are less important than the wishes of the doctor on the other end of the phone.

I know too many immoral doctors, nurses, and EMS personnel.

For example, a patient who has a clear DNR, clearly states that intubation is not wanted, but is deteriorating. The doctor occasionally returns to ask the hypoxic patient, Do you want to breathe? The patient keeps indicating that intubation is not wanted. Finally, the patient, through surrender to the harassment or disorientation secondary to hypoxia, says, Yes.

The doctor gets to perform a procedure and satisfy himself that the right thing was done, because it is what the doctor wanted.

Is that an extreme example? It was not seen as extreme a couple of decades ago. Maybe today it is recognized as abuse, because we recognize that the purpose of patient care is to take care of the patient, not the doctor, not the nurse, not EMS, not the supervisors, and definitely not the lawyers.

But you have to obey orders. If the military did not obey orders, we would have chaos.

Even the military does not require that anyone obey any unlawful order.
 

Any person subject to this chapter who–

(1) violates or fails to obey any lawful general order or regulation;
(2) having knowledge of any other lawful order issued by any member of the armed forces, which it is his duty to obey, fails to obey the order; or
(3) is derelict in the performance of his duties;

shall be punished as a court-martial may dire(ct.)[3]

 

Refusing to follow unlawful orders is not easy.

People in EMS will often state that the reason they did something wrong (as in something bad for the patient) is that they did not want to get yelled at by the doctor and/or nurse.

Clearly, our integrity is not what it should be.

Should we only go out of our way for the patients we like? No. My objection to using the guy who obtained the tattoo while drunk, abd does not want to remove it is nothing to do with his drinking or his bad decision, but with his lack of concern for others. My concern is for people who do care what is done to them, regardless of the lack of concern of this uncaring patient.

Of course, the uncaring patient has had the opportunity to have this explained to him and he has decided to live with that risk. He may not have made the best decision, but it is his decision and it probably will not affect him.

But the person with just a tattoo does not have a legal tattoo!

Maybe it is not legal.

Maybe it is legal.

That is for a lawyer to decide.

As the article states, this patient has gone to extraordinary effort to make a statement with this tattoo.

In the absence of something to show that the tattoo does not express the patient’s informed decision, I accept it as expressing the patient’s wishes.

If I am there it is to take care of the patient, not the medical command physician, not the protocol, not the quality control department, not the legal department, not the supervisors, not the doctors, or nurses, in the emergency department, . . . .

When our medical and legal systems are so broken that we feel that we are forced to harm our patients to be able to do our jobs, we need to stop making excuses and start to change things.

Footnotes:

[1] An Unconscious Patient with a DNR Tattoo.
Holt GE, Sarmento B, Kett D, Goodman KW.
N Engl J Med. 2017 Nov 30;377(22):2192-2193. doi: 10.1056/NEJMc1713344. No abstract available.
PMID: 29171810

Free Full Text from NEJM.

[2] DNR tattoos: a cautionary tale.
Cooper L, Aronowitz P.
J Gen Intern Med. 2012 Oct;27(10):1383. Epub 2012 May 2. No abstract available.
PMID: 22549297

Free Full Text from J Gen Intern Med.

[3] UCMJ 892. Article 92—Failure to obey order or regulation.
Uniform Code of Military Justice
Subchapter 10
Punitive Article

.

The March for Science is a March for Honesty and Accountability


 

There were some great signs at the March for Science because the march was about truth and it is difficult to go wrong defending the search for truth. The only time people seem to oppose the search for truth is when truth is seen as a threat to their ideology and/or income.

It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it! – Upton Sinclair.

Scientists are accused of being arrogant, apparently because scientists don’t waste their time on ideas that cannot be tested or on ideas that repeatedly fail objective testing. Scientists learn by providing the most honest way of assessing the truth – they do everything they can to eliminate bias and to eliminate the effects of anything that is not being tested.

Is that arrogant?

Arrogance would be refusing to allow everyone to criticize your work, but science requires that scientists be open about their work and invite their harshest critics to poke holes in their work.

This means that nonsense will not survive for long. The better hypotheses will survive. Logical fallacies are eventually exposed and we learn the truth.
 


 

This is why science rejects claims that fail experimentation and claims that cannot be tested. These claims are not science.
 

Flat Earth claims are rejected. There is abundant evidence that the Earth is not flat, but people still claim that the Earth is flat. There is no scientific controversy about whether the Earth is roughly spherical in shape.[1]
 

Creationism claims are rejected. Creationism contradicts almost all of the sciences (geology, astronomy, physics, biology, . . .), so Creationism would need to be supported by some very well tested evidence. Creationism is not supported by scientific evidence, but that does not stop Creationists from claiming to be scientists.

The clearest evidence that evolution is real is provided by DNA (DeoxyriboNucleic Acid). When we want to confirm the relationship among different people, we use DNA, because it works. DNA confirms that we are related to baboons, bananas, and bacteria. DNA is able to show how close those relationships are. There is no scientific controversy about whether humans evolved along with the rest of life on Earth.[2]

 

I did not get a clear picture of the sign, but I have not changed the words.

 

Anti-GMO claims are rejected. GMOs (Genetically Modified Organisms) are recognized to be safe, nutritious, important in the prevention of widespread famine, overall much more beneficial than their critics claim, and dramatically better organic foods. Those opposed to GMOs claim that organic foods would not produce a famine, if everyone were to eat organic foods. Those opposed to GMOs claim that modification is bad, even though humans have been modifying crops for over 10,000 years. We even use chemicals and radiation to cause mutations to crops that are still considered organic.
 

From 1930 to 2014 more than 3200 mutagenic plant varieties have been released[1][2] that have been derived either as direct mutants (70%) or from their progeny (30%).[3] [3]

 

There is no scientific controversy about the benefits of GMOs.
 


 

Climate change denial is rejected. Climate change is real and harmful. Some people (not scientists) claim that natural factors are causing the unnatural warming. Some people (not scientists) claim that the unnatural warming is a good thing. Some people (not scientists) claim that the unnatural warming isn’t happening. There is no scientific controversy about the reality of climate change.
 


This chart[4] does not include 2016.

If you are a climate change denier, you were counting on 2016 being something other than the hottest year on record. Three years in a row would be unprecedented. 2017 was hotter than 2016, which contradicts the denier arguments.[5] If you are a climate change denier, you should realize that denying science is not going your way. You have had some political successes, but you can’t deny reality forever. There is no scientific controversy about the reality of climate change.
 

Anti-vaccine claims are rejected. Anti-vaxers claim that vaccines are dangerous and that vaccines do not work. Do vaccines work? We should have eradicated polio by now, but anti-vaxers have discouraged vaccination. If you don’t like your children getting the polio vaccine, blame the anti-vaxers. We did eradicate smallpox in the 1970s. We stopped vaccinating against smallpox. Smallpox was killing 2 million people a year. If you don’t worry about smallpox, thank a scientist. There is no scientific controversy about the safety and efficacy of vaccines.
 

Historical Comparisons of Morbidity and Mortality for Vaccine-Preventable Diseases in the United States – Table 1


 

In response to the evidence in Table 1,[6] anti-vaxers claim that improved sanitation and hygiene. The decrease in cases and deaths due to the various vaccine-preventable illnesses should be the same for all of these diseases, but that is not the case. The diseases have also produced epidemics when the vaccination level drops below herd immunity levels.[7] There is no scientific controversy about the safety and efficacy of vaccines.
 

Science is not perfect, but science is better than all other means of learning the truth.

When science produces mistakes, we learn about it from scientists, not from politicians, not from preachers, not from placebo pushers, not from psychics, and not from any other deniers of science.

Maybe the message of science got through.

Maybe we won’t need another March for Science.
 


??Gaby Mérida ??‏ @ThatSpanishLady Twitter
Click on the image to make it larger.

Footnotes:

[1] Flat Earth Rising
by Steven Novella
Neurologica
April 6, 2017
Article

[2] Objections to evolution
Wikipedia
Article

[3] Mutation breeding
Wikipedia
Article

[4] The 10 Hottest Years on Record
January 20th, 2016
By Climate Central
Article

[5] 2016 Was the Hottest Year on Record
Both NASA and NOAA declare that our planet is experiencing record-breaking warming for the third year in a row
By Andrea Thompson
January 18, 2017
Scientific American
Article

[6] Historical comparisons of morbidity and mortality for vaccine-preventable diseases in the United States.
Roush SW, Murphy TV; Vaccine-Preventable Disease Table Working Group..
JAMA. 2007 Nov 14;298(18):2155-63.
PMID: 18000199

Free Full Text from JAMA.

[7] “Vaccines didn’t save us” (a.k.a. “vaccines don’t work”): Intellectual dishonesty at its most naked
by David Gorski
March 29, 2010
Science-Based Medicine
Article

.

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

.