High-Flying, Inspired!


Mary Renault Quote

Mary Renault Quote

Mary Renault Quote

Mary Renault Quote

Biological Warfare Definition

Biological Warfare Definition

Biological Warfare Defence

Biological Warfare Defence

Biological Warfare

Biological Warfare

 

 

“In All Men is Evil Sleeping;

The good man is he who will not awaken it

in himself or in other men.”

 

  • MARY RENAULT

 

 ———————————————————-

Bio-Warfare

Bio-Warfare

Bio-Terrorism

Bio-Terrorism

Biological Warfare Agents

Biological Warfare Agents

Biological Warfare Agents

Biological Warfare Agents

Biological Warfare Agents

Biological Warfare Agents

Biological Warfare Agents

Biological Warfare Agents

Biological Warfare Agents

Biological Warfare Agents

Biological Warfare Agents

Biological Warfare Agents

Biological Warfare Agents

Biological Warfare Agents

Chemical Grenades

Chemical Grenades

Chemical Warfare Defence

Chemical Warfare Defence

 

 

Biological warfare (BW)—also known as germ warfare—is the use of biological toxins or infectious agents such as bacteria, viruses, and fungi with intent to kill or incapacitate humans, animals or plants as an act of war.

 

History of Biological Warfare

Source: http://www.emedicinehealth.

Chemical Warfare Agents

Chemical Warfare Agents

Chemical Warfare Agents

Chemical Warfare Agents

Chemical Warfare Agents

Chemical Warfare Agents

Chemical Warfare Agents

Chemical Warfare Agents

Genes and DNA

Genes and DNA

"Evil Genes" by Barbara Oakley

“Evil Genes” by Barbara Oakley

com/biological_warfare/article_em.htm

Cherokee Legend of Two Wolves

Cherokee Legend of Two Wolves

Cherokee Legend of Two Wolves

Cherokee Legend of Two Wolves

#history_of_biological_warfare

"The Science of Evil" By Simon Baron-Cohen

“The Science of Evil” By Simon Baron-Cohen

 

Biological weapons include any organism (such as bacteria, viruses, or fungi) or toxin found in nature that can be used to kill or injure people. (Toxins are poisonous compounds produced by organisms.)

 

The act of bioterrorism can range from a simple hoax to the actual use of these biological weapons, also referred to as agents. A number of nations have or are seeking to acquire biological warfare agents, and there are concerns that terrorist groups or individuals may acquire the technologies and expertise to use these destructive agents. Biological agents may be used for an isolated assassination, as well as to cause incapacitation or death to thousands. If the environment is contaminated, a long-term threat to the population could be created.

  • History: The use of biological agents is not a new concept, and historyis filled with examples of their use.
    • Attempts to use biological warfare agents date back to antiquity. Scythian archers infected their arrows by dipping them in decomposing bodies or in blood mixed with manure as far back as 400 BC. Persian, Greek, and Roman literature from 300 BC quotes examples of dead animals used to contaminate wells and other sources of water. In the Battle of Eurymedon in 190 BC, Hannibal won a naval victory over King Eumenes II of Pergamon by firing earthen vessels full of venomous snakes into the enemy ships.
    • During the battle of Tortona in the 12th century AD, Barbarossa used the bodies of dead and decomposing soldiers to poison wells. During the siege of Kaffa in the 14th century AD, the attacking Tatar forces hurled plague-infected corpses into the city in an attempt to cause an epidemic within enemy forces. This was repeated in 1710, when the Russians besieging Swedish forces at Reval in Estonia catapulted bodies of people who had died from plague.
    • During the French and Indian War in the 18th century AD, British forces under the direction of Sir Jeffrey Amherst gave blankets that had been used bysmallpox victims to the Native Americans in a plan to spread the disease.
    • Allegations were made during the American Civil War by both sides, but especially against the Confederate Army, of the attempted use of smallpox to cause disease among enemy forces.
  • Modern times: Biological warfare reached sophistication during the 1900s.
    • During World War I, the German Army developedanthraxglanders, cholera, and a wheat fungus specifically for use as biological weapons. They allegedly spread plague in Petersburg, Russia, infected mules with glanders in Mesopotamia, and attempted to do the same with the horses of the French Cavalry.
    • The Geneva Protocol of 1925 was signed by 108 nations. This was the first multilateral agreement that extended prohibition of chemical agents to biological agents. Unfortunately, no method for verification of compliance was addressed.
    • During World War II, Japanese forces operated a secret biological warfare research facility (Unit 731) in Manchuria that carried out human experiments on prisoners. They exposed more than 3,000 victims to plague, anthrax,syphilis, and other agents in an attempt to develop and observe the disease. Some victims were executed or died from their infections. Autopsies were also performed for greater understanding of the effects on the human body.
    • In 1942, the United States formed the War Research Service. Anthrax andbotulinum toxin initially were investigated for use as weapons. Sufficient quantities of botulinum toxin and anthrax were stockpiled by June 1944 to allow unlimited retaliation if the German forces first used biological agents. The British also tested anthrax bombs on Gruinard Island off the northwest coast of Scotland in 1942 and 1943 and then prepared and stockpiled anthrax-laced cattle cakes for the same reason.
    • The United States continued research on various offensive biological weapons during the 1950s and 1960s. From 1951-1954, harmless organisms were released off both coasts of the United States to demonstrate the vulnerability of American cities to biological attacks. This weakness was tested again in 1966 when a test substance was released in the New York City subway system.
    • During the Vietnam War, Viet Cong guerrillas used needle-sharp punji sticks dipped in feces to cause severe infections after an enemy soldier had been stabbed.
    • In 1979, an accidental release of anthrax from a weapons facility in Sverdlovsk, USSR, killed at least 66 people. The Russian government claimed these deaths were due to infected meat and maintained this position until 1992, when Russian President Boris Yeltsin finally admitted to the accident.

Medical Author: Edmond Hooker, MD, DrPH

Medical Editor: William C. Shiel Jr., MD, FACP, FACR

 

Bioterrorism and Biowarfare Today

Source: http://www.emedicinehealth.com/biological_warfare/page2_em.htm#bioterrorism_and_biowarfare_today

  • Bioterrorism andbiowarfare today: A number of countries have continued offensive biological weapons research and use. Additionally, since the 1980s, terrorist organizations have become users of biological agents. Usually, these cases amount only to hoaxes. However, the following exceptionshave been noted:
    • In 1985, Iraq began an offensive biological weapons program producing anthrax, botulinum toxin, andaflatoxin. During Operation Desert Storm, the coalition of allied forces faced the threat of chemical and biological agents. Following the Persian Gulf War, Iraq disclosed that it had bombs, Scud missiles, 122-mm rockets, and artillery shells armed with botulinum toxin, anthrax, and aflatoxin. They also had spray tanks fitted to aircraft that could distribute agents over a specific target.
    • In September and October of 1984, 751 people were intentionally infected withSalmonella, an agent that causes foodpoisoning, when followers of the Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh contaminated restaurant salad bars in Oregon.
    • In 1994, a Japanese sect of the Aum Shinrikyo cult attempted an aerosolized (sprayed into the air) release of anthrax from the tops of buildings in Tokyo.
    • In 1995, two members of a Minnesota militia group were convicted of possession ofricin, which they had produced themselves for use in retaliation against local government officials.
    • In 1996, an Ohio man attempted to obtainbubonic plague cultures through the mail.
    • In 2001, anthrax was delivered by mail to S. media and government offices. There were four deaths.
    • In December 2002, six terrorist suspects were arrested in Manchester, England; their apartment was serving as a “ricin laboratory.” Among them was a 27-year-old chemist who was producing the toxin. Later, on 5, 2003, British police raided two residences around London and found traces of ricin, which led to an investigation of a possible Chechen separatist plan to attack the Russian embassy with the toxin; several arrests were made.
    • On 3, 2004, three U.S. Senate office buildings were closed after the toxin ricin was found in a mailroom that serves Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist’s office.

 

The threat that biological agents will be used on both military forces and civilian populations is now more likely than it was at any other point in history.

Medical Author: Edmond Hooker, MD, DrPH

Medical Editor: William C. Shiel Jr., MD, FACP, FACR

 

—————————————————————————–

 

 

Chemical warfare (CW) involves using the toxic properties of chemical substances as weapons.

 

Brief History of Chemical Weapons Use

Source: http://www.opcw.org/about-chemical-weapons/history-of-cw-use/

 

Although chemicals had been used as tools of war for thousands of years—e.g. poisoned arrows, boiling tar, arsenic smoke and noxious fumes, etc.—modern chemical warfare has its genesis on the battlefields of World War I.

 

 

During World War I, chlorine and phosgene gases were released from canisters on the battlefield and dispersed by the wind. These chemicals were manufactured in large quantities by the turn of the century and were deployed as weapons during the protracted period of trench warfare. The first large-scale attack with chlorine gas occurred 22 April 1915 at Ieper in Belgium. The use of several different types of chemical weapons, including mustard gas (yperite), resulted in 90,000 deaths and over one million casualties during the war. Those injured in chemical warfare suffered from the effects for the rest of their lives; thus the events at Ieper during World War I scarred a generation. By the end of World War I, 124,000 tonnes of chemical agent had been expended. The means of delivery for chemical agent evolved over the first half of the twentieth century, increasing these weapons’ already frightening capacity to kill and maim through the development of chemical munitions in the form of artillery shells, mortar projectiles, aerial bombs, spray tanks and landmines.

 

 

After witnessing the effects of such weapons in World War I, it appeared that few countries wanted to be the first to introduce even deadlier chemical weapons onto the World War II battlefields. However, preparations were made by many countries to retaliate in kind should chemical weapons be used in warfare. Chemical weapons were deployed on a large scale in almost all theatres in the First and Second World Wars, leaving behind a legacy of old and abandoned chemical weapons, which still presents a problem for many countries.

 

 

During the Cold War, the United States and the Soviet Union both maintained enormous stockpiles of chemical weapons, amounting to tens of thousands of tonnes. The amount of chemical weapons held by these two countries was enough to destroy much of the human and animal life on Earth.

 

 

Iraq used chemical weapons in Iran during the war in the 1980s, and Iraq also used mustard gas and nerve agents against Kurdish residents of Halabja, in Northern Iraq, in 1988. The horrific pictures of Halabja victims shocked the world at the time of the negotiations in Geneva on the Chemical Weapons Convention. The two most recent examples of the use of chemical weapons were the sarin poisoning incident in Matsumoto, a Japanese residential community, in 1994, and the sarin attack on the Tokyo subway in 1995, both perpetrated by the Aum Shinrikyu doomsday cult. These two attacks re-focussed international attention on the potential use of chemical weapons by terrorists, and on the dangers posed by chemical weapons.

 

 

The devastating impact chemical weapons have had in the past, and the potential for the use of modern—even more deadly—chemical agents not only by States at war but in other violent conflicts and by non-State actors, provide the imperative for the international effort to uphold the ban on such weapons and to work towards the complete, global elimination of chemical weapons.

 

——————————————————————————–

 

 

[Science Solitaire] Is evil in our genes?

We still have no way of knowing with pinpoint precision how much of our genes and our environment make us mean-minded

Maria Isabel Garcia

Published 8:00 AM, Aug 16, 2013

Updated 1:10 PM, Aug 16, 2013

 

 

Humans have demonstrated that we are ambidextrous in our morality. We can do great acts of compassion as well as evil.

 

It is a lot easier to see how the spheres of “nurture,” if horrible, starting with family, school, and community can make people mean. But do we really start out “good?” If not, how much of our meanness could be blamed on our genes?

 

“Meanness” mainly springs from a lack of empathy – of failing to understand what another would feel if certain things happen to them and thus, not give value to the other. If you do not give value to another, you do not care about the consequences of what you do to them.

 

Meanness could range from small, consistent acts of selfishness like always wanting to be the center of attention aware that you are doing this at the expense of others, to patently evil acts like the rape of a child.

 

To answer our question, we have to look at what science has found out so far about the nature of our morality. Some of them start with a niche of the population which we used to largely dismiss as “blank slates:” babies.

 

Wired for good?

 

A few centers for cognition of these very young humans have uncovered something remarkable about babies. Through their ingeniously designed experiments, babies as early as 3 months old, when shown a puppet scene with characters, were found to prefer the puppet that did “good” over the one who did not. This means that we are wired, before any significant moral shaping is done by the parents, to recognize and prefer a good deed.

 

Another body of research we can look to in order to answer our question has to do with brain scans of adults. Neuroscientists have been studying the brain activity and speech patterns when we make moral choices including those of convicted sociopaths.

 

They indeed found that these individuals do register reduced activity in the brain region that lights up when empathy is felt and as it connects to the decision-making region of our brains. This tells us that there are brain cells that correspond to empathy and these cells are not talking to each other as they should and thus fail to “inform” our choices.

 

While it may be reasonable to assume that genes could be at least partly responsible for this brain behavior, it will be more difficult to trace since these are adults who have already been “nurtured” before they reached the point of imprisonment for a crime.

 

Self control

 

I think the landmark research on “self control” among children and the effects it has on criminal record (effect on wealth and health were also investigated in the same study) also bears on “meanness.”

 

Their study, conducted on the same 1,000 individuals for over 30 years, showed that “self-control” as a trait, when exhibited or learned as a child, especially between 3-5 years old, would least likely get these same individuals into trouble in criminal proportions as adults.

 

The parenting “techniques” were not examined in the study mentioned so that the self control demonstrated by the subjects when they were kids may not be wholly attributed to “nurture.”

 

Study after study show that babies are not “blank slates.” We are born predisposed to certain traits. To know this, you only need to look at siblings who are not very far apart in age, who have been raised the same way but exhibit fundamentally different behavior even as infants.

 

Before you jump and conclude that the experiment on babies I cited is incontrovertible proof that we are all born good, don’t. In the other related studies that the center conducted, they also found that babies have a strong sense of siding with the ones more similar to them rather than it springing from even a most basic sense of “fairness.”

 

Thus, while babies seem to innately recognize “cooperation” and prefer it, they are also ingrained with a sense of “competition.” This is the beginning of the “us” and “them” in the life of a human being. A sense of “us” and “them” innately resides in each of us.

 

Meanies

 

Like a Tale of Two Cities, we each tell a tale of two natures: the worst and best of us. Our biology is not exclusively predisposed to “goodness” and messed up later by “sin.” We are born with tendencies to go either way because the traits associated with both like cooperation, sacrifice, envy and aggression, all helped us survive.

 

Every time we make a choice, it is a tug-o-war. That is so far, how science can enlighten, if not answer, the question. How we choose between doing good and otherwise is a struggle we are all familiar with in each junction of our personal and collective lives. We still have no way of knowing with pinpoint precision how much of our genes and our environment make us mean.

 

But it has not stopped people like comedian Baba Brinkman to launch a campaign to weed out meanies from the gene people by urging people to avoid sleeping with meanies or to be more precise, not have babies with them. He aims to raise money to fund a video educating people about genetics and evolution.

 

This obviously acknowledges that some part of meanness could be blamed on genes. Whether it will really diminish the proportion of “meanies” in the gene pool or not, I think it is a fun, “science may be able to do something about evil” campaign. Besides, who would want to sleep with a meanie? – Rappler.com

 

Maria Isabel Garcia is a science writer. She has written two books, “Science Solitaire” and “Twenty One Grams of Spirit and Seven Ounces of Desire.” Her column appears every Friday and you can reach her at sciencesolitaire@gmail.com.

 

———————————————————————-

‘MIND READING’

Q&A: Psychologist Simon Baron-Cohen on Empathy and the Science of Evil

By Maia Szalavitz

 

Source: http://healthland.time.com/2011/05/30/mind-reading-psychologist-simon-baron-cohen-on-empathy-and-the-science-of-evil/

 

Cambridge psychology professor and leading autism expert Simon Baron-Cohen is best known for studying the theory that a key problem in autistic disorders is “mind blindness,” difficulty understanding the thoughts, feelings and intentions of others.He’s also known for positing the “extreme male brain” concept of autism, which suggests that exposure to high levels of testosterone in the womb can cause the brain to focus on systematic knowledge and patterns more than on emotions and connection with others. (Oh, and yes, he’s also the cousin of British comedian Sacha “Borat” Baron Cohen.)

Baron-Cohen’s new book, The Science of Evil: On Empathy and the Origins of Cruelty, examines the role of empathy, the ability to understand and care about the emotions of others, not only in autism but in conditions like psychopathy in which lack of care for others leads to antisocial and destructive behavior.

What do you mean when you write about “zero negative” empathy?

Zero empathy refers to people at the extremely low end of the scale. They tend to be people with personality disorders, particularly antisocial personality disorder (ASPD). I focus quite a lot on psychopathy [the extreme form of ASPD] and also on two other personality disorders, borderline personality disorder and narcissistic personality disorder.

The ‘negative’ is meant to be shorthand for this being negative for the individual but also for the people around them. It’s meant to contrast with what I call ‘zero positive’ empathy, which effectively describes the autistic spectrum.

[Autistic people] struggle with empathy just like zero negatives but it seems to be for very different reasons. I’m arguing that their low empathy is a result of a particular cognitive style, which is attentive to details and patterns or rules, which in shorthand, I call systemizing.

If we think about the autism spectrum as involving a very strong drive to systemize, that can have very positive consequences for the individual and for society. The downside is that when you try to systemize certain parts of the world like people and emotions, those sorts of phenomena are less lawful and harder to systemize. That can lead to having low empathy, almost like a byproduct of strong systemizing.

How do you account for people who are both highly empathetic and highly systematic, such as some of those with Asperger’s who are actually oversensitive to the emotions of others?

I’ve certainly come across subgroups like that. There are people with Asperger’s whom I’ve met who certainly would be very upset to learn they’d hurt another person’s feelings. They often have very strong moral consciences and moral codes. They care about not hurting people. They may not always be aware [that they've said something rude or hurtful], but if it’s pointed out, they would want to do something about it.

The other side of their moral sense is that they often have a strong sense of justice or fairness. They may have arrived at it through looking for logical patterns rather than necessarily because they can easily identify with someone, however.

People often think that autistic people are dangerous, like psychopaths, when they hear this idea that they have “no empathy.”

In a way, that was one of my motivations for writing the book. Low empathy is a characteristic of many different conditions or disorders. Often books are written where they either focus on psychopathy or autism but [not both].

We have to look at them side by side, and when we do that, we see that they are very different and it’s important to bring that out.

Is it the case, then, that autistic people are not good at the “mind reading” part of empathy, in terms of predicting people’s behavior and feelings, while psychopaths are able to do that but are not able to care?

I think the contrast between these two conditions provides some evidence for that dissociation within empathy. People with psychopathy are very good at reading the minds of their victims. That’s probably most clearly seen in deception. You have to be good at mind reading before it would even occur to you want [to deceive someone]. So you can see the cognitive part of empathy as functioning very well, but the fact that they don’t have the appropriate emotional response to someone else’s state of mind, the feeling of wanting to alleviate distress if someone’s in pain, [that suggests that] the affective part of empathy is not functioning normally.

What stunts the development of empathy in personality disorders?

In the book, I explore both early environmental factors and biological and genetic factors. I think it’s particularly clear in borderline personality disorder (BPD) that there’s a strong association between early environmental deprivation and neglect and abuse and later outcome of BPD. There’s an association [with abuse and trauma early in life] in psychopathy, but it’s not strong as in BPD.

What defines borderline personality disorder?

There seems to be quite a lot of difficulty in self-regulation, in the regulation of their own emotional state. A lot of people with BPD also have depression. Many are suicidal. Many have had a history of feeling attacked or uncared for’ they are almost hypersensitive to possible threats from others.

They react almost with a hair trigger — if they perceive they are being attacked, they go on the attack. People with BPD can be so preoccupied by their own sense of not being cared for and not being understood that they can become blind to the impact of their own behavior on others.

So how would you address increasing empathy in these conditions?

There are interesting and imaginative new approaches to treatment for empathy. Some are medications like oxytocin. Some are psychological treatments like Peter Fonagy’s work on mentalization therapy. I haven’t ever watched it done but the idea is to encourage the patient to stop and think about others’ thoughts and feelings. It’s particularly useful for BPD. When someone with that condition is mostly focusing on themselves, the therapist prompts them to take other people’s perspectives. And just through repetition and practice, people get better and better.

I don’t see how that would work with psychopaths.

People are doing some clinical approaches with psychopaths too, like getting them to meet their victims. That’s obviously got lots of traumatic risk attached to it [for the victim], but again, it’s an exercise in perspective-taking.

I think if we take seriously the idea that behavior is the result of the brain — that having low empathy [is] the result of the way the empathy circuit is functioning or has developed — it does raise moral questions. When someone is acting with low empathy, why do we judge them as bad and punish them? It does shift the locus of where [they should be treated] philosophically, from the criminal justice system to health care.

Don’t you think there are people who are actually evil, who know what they’re doing is wrong and harmful but choose to do it anyway?

I argue in the book that I don’t find the term evil very useful. Once you are down at zero degrees of empathy, all kinds of behavior become possible. I don’t find it scientifically useful to use that term. Empathy is a scientific term in a way that evil isn’t. You can try to localize it in the brain; you can look for which part of brain is activated. It’s normative behavior. Evil is kind of the opposite of good, I guess, but empathy, as we were talking earlier, is quantifiable and normal. You can measure it and look for it, whereas you don’t see evil in the brain.

It’s argued that humans were able to evolve cooperation and altruism only by having a way to detect and punish those who didn’t cooperate.

I could see an evolutionary benefit for both empathy and lack of empathy too. Low empathy allows you to act selfishly, which could be in your interest, but high empathy fosters social cohesion and it’s good for the individual to end up as part of a social network.

I speculate that maybe most people end up in the middle, which may be the optimal position. It’s good to have some empathy, so at the very least you avoid offending or inadvertently hurting someone, but too much empathy might mean never completing your own projects.

How does your cousin Sacha Baron Cohen, creator of Borat, rate on empathy? His work can really make you cringe, but he must be excellent at mind reading to do it.

First of all, he and I have a family agreement that we don’t talk about each other. I respect his work. I think that sometimes that kind of comedy can create what you called a “cringe reaction,” cringing with embarrassment, but that has a purpose.

Why does empathy seem especially lacking in the teen years?

It’s kind of interesting that parents comment on adolescence as being a low point in empathy. But there’s still quite a lot of maturation going on in the part of the brain that involves empathy during that period. There could also be hormonal factors, particularly in males with the increase in testosterone. That could change empathy levels.

I’m struck that if you look at the “terrible two’s,” kids who have tantrums when they don’t get their way, and teens, at one level it looks like very little development has gone on. There’s a transition at around age four to becoming able to apprehend that others have different perspectives. You would imagine that empathy would almost reach a peak in early childhood, but it seems to have a long protracted development.

It seems to me that the terrible twos and adolescence are both the most intense periods of brain development. Could that be why empathy is impaired then?

That’s really interesting. I think brain maturation is one thing and also just the experience of relationships. I think that empathy has to have an environment in which to work, and that environment is relationships. Making mistakes in relationships is all part of learning to empathize.

There was an interesting study I was part of. Women who took extra testosterone were given the ‘reading the mind in eyes test.’ [The test measures how well people can read others' emotions by looking at their eyes.] A dose of testosterone lowered scores on this test. It was one of the first demonstrations that changing testosterone levels affects your empathy.

If you’re taking an evolutionary approach, it might be very adaptive if you have to use aggression for self-defense. You’d be more effective if you didn’t have empathy getting in the way.

A U.S. doctor tried to treat autism by lowering testosterone levels, citing your work as justification, although he actually didn’t get the research right. He just lost his license because he was using a “chemical castration” drug on kids to do this.

We haven’t considering [lowering testosterone] as a treatment to study for autism. I’m not comfortable with it ethically in terms of side effects. They misquoted [our research], and cited it as evidence that there was elevated testosterone in autism when, in fact, we haven’t shown that. They presented it as if we’re endorsing it, which I’m certainly not.

 

—————————————————————-

A CHEROKEE LEGEND OF TWO WOLVES

Source: http://howleadersmanage.com/2013/02/05/a-cherokee-legend-of-two-wolves/

 

An old Cherokee is teaching his grandson about life. “A fight is going on inside me,” he said to the boy.

“It is a terrible fight and it is between two wolves. One is evil – he is anger, envy, sorrow, regret, greed, arrogance, self-pity, guilt, resentment, inferiority, lies, false pride, superiority, and ego.” He continued, “The other is good – he is joy, peace, love, hope, serenity, humility, kindness, benevolence, empathy, generosity, truth, compassion, and faith. The same fight is going on inside you – and inside every other person, too.”

The grandson thought about it for a minute and then asked his grandfather, “Which wolf will win?”

The old Cherokee simply replied, “The one you feed.”

 

Today, more than ever, you have a multitude of negativity competing for your attention; television showing commercials of how you can’t be happy without their newest products, news media telling about the doom and gloom of the world, the internet and the drama of what is social media, talk radio, and personal acquaintances. Everything you take in effects the way you perceive the world. You become the average of the input you take in and the people you spend your time with.

 

Believe it or not, that’s good news. All of that information you take in is in your control. You can control the amount (if any) of negative television you take in. You can control the destructive news you absorb. You can control the radio station you listen to. You can even determine who you spend your time with. There’s an easy way to select who or what gets your attention. After spending time with that person or doing that activity ask yourself, “Do I feel drained or do I feel energized?” If it drains you…….DON’T WASTE YOUR TIME WITH IT. If you feel energized, it’s probably adding value to your life and making you better.

 

Your mind is an empty glass. When you fill it with dirty water that is the lens you see the world through. The only thing you can see is negativity, doom and gloom. When you begin to pour clean water into it, the dirty water begins to overflow and leave the glass. Soon, if enough clean clear water is poured into the glass container, it will flush out all the murky water and you will be left with a glass of clean beautiful water, and that how you will see the world.

 

Are you taking in more clean water that dirty?
Which wolf are you feeding?

 

Error of Judgment


Henry Denker

"Error of Judgment" by Henry Denker

“Error of Judgment” by Henry Denker

"Error of Judgment" by Henry Denker

“Error of Judgment” by Henry Denker

 

Henry Denker

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Henry Denker (November 25, 1912 – May 15, 2012) was an American novelist and playwright.

 

Denker was admitted to the New York Bar in 1935, at the height of the Depression, and he soon left law practice to earn his living by writing. His legal training was reflected in many of his works. During Denker’s brief legal career, he won a Workmen’s Compensation case which,

"Learn to stand up for what you strongly believe in, even if it means standing alone."

“Learn to stand up for what you strongly believe in, even if it means standing alone.”

"Standing Alone"

“Standing Alone”

"Learn to stand up for what you strongly believe in, even if it means standing alone."

“Learn to stand up for what you strongly believe in, even if it means standing alone.”

"Learn to stand up for what you strongly believe in, even if it means standing alone."

“Learn to stand up for what you strongly believe in, even if it means standing alone.”

"Learn to stand up for what you strongly believe in, even if it means standing alone."

“Learn to stand up for what you strongly believe in, even if it means standing alone.”

"Learn to stand up for what you strongly believe in, even if it means standing alone."

“Learn to stand up for what you strongly believe in, even if it means standing alone.”

"Learn to stand up for what you strongly believe in, even if it means standing alone."

“Learn to stand up for what you strongly believe in, even if it means standing alone.”

"Learn to stand up for what you strongly believe in, even if it means standing alone."

“Learn to stand up for what you strongly believe in, even if it means standing alone.”

according to Denker, for the first time established that a physical trauma can induce a mental disease. In another case, Denker served a summons on heavyweight champion Jack Johnson.

 

Denker was married for 61 years to Edith Heckman, whom he met when he was a patient and she was a nurse in Mt. Sinai Hospital in New York City.

 

Denker was the originator and writer of what he describes as the “first television series ever produced,” False Witness, on NBC-TV in 1939. Despite its success, the series was discontinued when the nascent medium of television was converted into an instruction tool for the mass training of Air Raid Wardens in anticipation of the U.S. entry into World War II.

 

Denker started writing for radio with three productions on CBS Radio’s Columbia Workshop: “Me? I Drive a Hack,” starring Richard Widmark, “Emile, the Seal,” a fantasy, and “Laughter for the Leader,” a political drama in which CBS, without explanation, forbade the character of Hitler to be played with a German accent. During the War World II, Denker worked as a writer on the English Desk of the Office of War Information.

 

In 1945, Denker began his full-time writing career as the writer of the Radio Readers Digest on CBS. One of his scripts, he says, was the first radio drama about a physical transplant, a corneal transplant of a human eye to restore sight.

 

In 1947, Denker wrote the first script for the religious radio series The Greatest Story Ever Told, which, in its first year, won the Peabody Award, the Christopher Award, the CCNY Outstanding Program of the Year Award, the Variety Award of the Year 1947, and others. Denker was to write every script in the series, which ran from 1947 to 1957.

 

Later, on television, Denker wrote, and David Susskind produced, the first dramatic treatment of a heart transplant, “The Choice,” which anticipated the challenge of so many patients in need and so few hearts to give. With a cast including Melvyn Douglas, George Grizzard and Frank Langella, the TV drama included film of an actual surgery provided by Dr. Michael E. DeBakey. Denker recalls that CBS allowed only 30 seconds of the surgical film for fear that the audience would shrink from seeing a beating heart in an open chest cavity.

 

While writing for radio and television, Denker branched out into the theater, which he describes as “my first love.” Later he began writing novels. Of his 34 published novels, 17—more than any other author’s—have been selected and published by Reader’s Digest Condensed Books.

 

Six plays by Denker have been produced on Broadway, two in the Kenne

"Learn to stand up for what you strongly believe in, even if it means standing alone."

“Learn to stand up for what you strongly believe in, even if it means standing alone.”

"Learn to stand up for what you strongly believe in, even if it means standing alone."

“Learn to stand up for what you strongly believe in, even if it means standing alone.”

"Learn to stand up for what you strongly believe in, even if it means standing alone."

“Learn to stand up for what you strongly believe in, even if it means standing alone.”

Pride - one of the seven deadly sins.

Pride – one of the seven deadly sins.

Pride - one of the seven deadly sins.

Pride – one of the seven deadly sins.

Pride - one of the seven deadly sins.

Pride – one of the seven deadly sins.

False Pride always has a fall.

False Pride always has a fall.

dy Center in Washington, D.C., and two in other venues.

Denker died of lung cancer on May 15, 2012.

 

———————————————————

 

 

“Error of Judgment” is probably one of the finest medical-suspense, fictional novels penned by Henry Denker. While the entire novel is ensconced in a medical background, it

The Truth shall always triumph in the end!

The Truth shall always triumph in the end!

The Truth shall always triumph in the end!

The Truth shall always triumph in the end!

The Truth shall always triumph in the end!

The Truth shall always triumph in the end!

The Truth shall always triumph in the end!

The Truth shall always triumph in the end!

The Truth 5

The Truth shall always triumph in the end!

The Truth shall always triumph in the end!

is a very apt description of true love on the one hand and human frailties on the other – it captures the very essence of avarice, greed, selfishness, manipulation and vindictiveness that form part and parcel of human nature. It is a story of intrigue and how Truth shall always triumph despite many odds to the contrary; it is equally a story of how false pride and arrogance shall inevitably have their fall.

 

 

Dr. Harvey Price, M.D. was one of the top-notch, senior attending surgeons of State University Hospital, in its Obstetric-Gynecology (Ob-Gyn) department, since the last eleven years. He had had an excellent reputation in the Northeast, having been affiliated with a most prestigious hospital there. His reason for leaving had hardly been unique in itself – he had grown weary of the hassle of life in the large old city. Instead, he preferred a newer community where he and his wife, Margaret – of long standing – could live graciously in the pleasant suburbs, only ten minutes away from the hospital. Dr. Harvey Prince was tall, handsome, with a commanding presence and was a veritable genius with a scalpel. He prided himself on being a highly influential personality – one who held a position of power and prestige in the hospital.

 

 

Dr. Prince tended to pretend great affability and pleasantness, towards his patients, to hide his basic aloofness. He rarely – if ever – took the time to listen to his patients’ worries or complaints. Dr. Prince tended to leave such ‘menial jobs’ to his underlings. His patients became more and more suspicious when he laughed too much or when he tended to smile too much – they invariably felt he was hiding some vital detail from them and most of the time, the patient was sadly right.

 

 

It came as no great surprise, when the resident doctors of the hospital nicknamed him, “Goldfingers” – his skill and economy of time, whilst in surgery, were legendary and all that he seemed to touch turned to gold. He commanded a six-figure tax shelter himself. He was known to give long, drawn-out speeches to the attending resident doctors on how they should think of building up a substantial income for themselves by investing in blue- chip companies and energy stocks – he continually advised residents on how they ought to concentrate on piling up equity, till the day that they retired from private practice. He seemed to be obsessed with money and kept thinking of ways and means by which an already rich man could get richer.

 

 

On the downside, he was known to perform a lot more hysterectomies than most of his other colleagues in the Ob-Gyn department of the hospital – he was known to make swift – and often impulsive – decisions in the operating theatre, without any true concern for the well-being of his patients. It soon became obvious to many other attending doctors that a lot of his operational procedures were unnecessary and that they were more a result of his self-serving ways and callousness. Since Dr. Prince was notorious for his vengeful ways and vindictive personality, most of his colleagues and junior attendings remained willfully silent in the face of gross injustice to his patients. Meanwhile, Dr. Prince continued heartlessly on this self-same “operating rampage,” as long as the dollars kept flowing in.

 

 

It is true that Dr. Prince was one of the finest and most skillful technicians in the operating room – his incisions were akin to cosmetic gems and his sutures were like works of art. However, he had a tendency to get carried away with his own skill. He worshipped technique to the exclusion of his patients’ total welfare. The surgery became more important than the patient herself. He seemed to court difficult, even dangerous surgery, to prove that he could accomplish it. He reveled in the praise, admiration and even in the envy of his colleagues. He was in love with his own ability. He became like an actor – a star – who needed fame, praise and applause all the time. He entered the operating room thinking that he was about to give a great show. He did give a great show – most of the time and overdid, in the bargain too. Perfectly healthy uteruses were removed; ovaries that other surgeons would have hesitated to remove, he removed without a qualm or second thought. The statistics seemed to fade away in the face of the ruthless, if elegant, butchery practiced on the patient.

 

 

Rita Hallen had sharp, neat features which were accented by the severe headdress that she was required to wear in the operating room, where she presided as chief scrub nurse. She was dark-haired and tall and when she was not attired in her required hospital garb, she was apt to be pleasing and attractive. She had turned forty recently and impressed strangers as being in her mid-thirties. A tyrant in the O.R., Rita had proved to be most inept in her private life. She had met Dr. Prince when she was twenty-nine and he was forty-four. Rita was the essence of professionalism – she avoided cultivating friendships and sought no personal attachments in the hospital or outside. Soon, she found herself falling prey to the wily charms and seduction of Dr. Prince. They started having a torrid, if unfulfilling, sexual affair. There were times when Rita could barely hide her pent-up resentment against the handsome man who seemed bent on “using” her to satisfy his own self-serving ways. There were days when Dr. Prince spoke avidly of the day when he would be free of his wife, Margaret – he spoke of the day when he would be free to marry Rita. He always talked that way but over the years his reasons had subtly changed. Whereas earlier, possible damage to his professional reputation stood in the way, in more recent times his problem had become how to divorce Margaret without giving her legal grounds to take most of his substantial holdings. Since Dr. Prince had proved time and again, as being an unscrupulous liar and vengeful manipulator, Rita found herself growing to hate the man to whom she had unstintingly given so many years of her life – at the crux of this story, she was already on the threshold of menopause herself. At this stage in her life, she needed love, concern and consideration – yet, Prince, being the self-centered man that he was, had little or no understanding or consideration to offer her. Instead, he resented her moody silences and mood swings. Since, she knew Prince to be a potent adversary, she dared not speak out in her own defense and bore her lot in quiet – if intolerant – silence.

 

 

Dr. Craig Pearson, M.D. was a dedicated and talented second-year resident doctor at State University Hospital. Pearson was well-liked by all his colleagues and especially by the Head of the Ob-Gyn department of the hospital, for his fair-minded and honest ways. He was a man of conscience and held values and morality in high stead. One of the reasons why Dr. Pearson would make a fine doctor and surgeon was the fact that he was a caring and understanding man who took the time to listen to his patients’ woes and took the time to reassure them. He equally tended to be a stubborn, self-willed, obstinate and principled young man and was willing to put his own career on the line when he found that a certain patient had been gravely wronged by Prince’s rashness and callousness in the operating theater.

 

 

Dr. Katherine (Kate) Lindstrom, M.D. was a practicing consultant psychiatrist at the State University Hospital. She was a disarmingly small blonde young woman of twenty-nine years. Standing at a little over five feet tall, with a slender and quite feminine body, she was destined to be taken for a college junior for the next five years of her life. Actually, she had graduated from a Midwestern university “cum laude;” had been accepted by its medical school and had broken off her relationship with a law student to concentrate on her own career. Actually, Dr. Lindstrom was driven by a strong sense of morality, integrity and justice herself – it was her boldness, her fair-mindedness and honesty that endeared her to Dr. Craig Pearson. Their relationship had crossed the boundaries of friendship a long time ago and they had become lovers, over time. She remained a true and sincere friend to Dr. Pearson, till the bitter end, even in his most troubled and angry moments.

 

 

Cynthia Horton was the young, troubled patient from Room 442 of State University Hospital. She was barely twenty-two years old and on the threshold of marriage, within a matter of one month, from the date of her admission to the hospital. She was admitted for an exploratory laparotomy – surgery performed through the abdomen for the purpose of doing a biopsy on her right ovary. She had signed an informed consent form to this effect, on the intervention of Dr. Lindstrom who was treating Cynthia for certain psychiatric issues that she was facing.

 

 

When Dr. Prince performed the procedure on Cynthia, it was soon discovered that the right ovary presented itself with a tumour exhibiting borderline carcinoma/malignancy. Dr. Prince wasted no time in performing a bilateral salpingoophorectomy, as he thought was clearly indicated in such a case. In simple language, Dr. Prince performed an unnecessary hysterectomy on a young woman; he removed both of her ovaries and removed her uterus, in the name of saving her life. It was true that there was no malignancy involvement of her left ovary, uterus, nodes, liver, diaphragm, omentum and other organs. Dr. Craig Pearson objected in the strongest terms, against such a drastic action – a matter that was not taken to at all kindly by Dr. Prince. Dr. Pearson was of the opinion that since the patient presented carcinoma in her right ovary of low malignant potential, that the patient be closed up to await the definitive pathology report, due in five days time. He was most definitely strongly opposed to the bilateral procedure – as advocated by Dr. Prince – when a more conservative procedure could have worked just as well. As Dr. Pearson argued, it was not as if the patient’s life was in danger; the cancer was “in situ” and could be treated adequately without as much haste and impatience – such as that exhibited by Dr. Prince.

 

 

As a result of Dr. Prince’s erroneous lapse of judgment, Cynthia started exhibiting a host of serious complications – in a medical case, such as hers, that could have turned out to be relatively simple. She developed thrombophlebitis and was in danger of developing a pulmonary embolism (a fatal condition where a blood clot travels up to the lungs and heart and causes a painful death). As a result of this complication, the doctors were unable to prescribe the artificial estrogen hormone that would aid in preventing a full-blown, premature menopause. Cynthia became severely depressed, cried incessantly, became exceedingly nervous, got unpleasant hot flushes and started exhibiting all the symptoms of menopause, such as those seen in middle-aged women. One evening, Dr. Craig Pearson was paged urgently to prevent her from committing suicide. Dr. Pearson was overcome with rage and helplessness and he started making the strongest recommendations that Cynthia’s medical case be presented during the Pathology Conference; at the Morbidity and Mortality Conference and at Grand Rounds. For all his efforts, to gain maximum awareness and some sense of justice for Cynthia and her family, obstacles of all kinds were constantly thrown in his path by the hospital management, administrators and by Dr. Prince in particular.

 

 

Dr. Prince went on to exhibit his vengeful and manipulative best and Dr. Pearson faced humiliation and angry recriminations, every step of the way. Finally, the hospital convened an official hearing to address the eventual dismissal of Dr. Pearson from the hospital for his alleged insubordination, arrogance and breach of conduct amounting to basically unethical behavior. Dr. Pearson stood not a chance of winning, in the hearing – he was, after all, only a young doctor, on the threshold of his career, up against some of the most influential members of the Medical Board. After a host of witnesses were presented and lengthy arguments from both parties were heard, the panel of judges declared that Dr. Pearson be immediately dismissed from service.

 

 

In the meanwhile, Dr. Lindstrom was playing sleuth to an anonymous note that she had received: the writer requested that she probe into Dr. Prince’s previous employment, especially his conduct with other young, resident doctors. In the course of her investigation, Dr. Lindstrom found another young doctor – Dr. Stiehl – whose career had been destroyed by Dr. Prince’s arrogance and vindictiveness. Dr. Stiehl – like Dr. Pearson – had been accused of insubordination, arrogance and unethical conduct – just because he had dared to speak out in favour of the truth. Dr. Lindstrom brought in sufficient pressure on the Medical Board to reconvene and re-open the hearing, for another four hours so that she could present her witness to them. When the panel of judges heard damning testimony from this new witness, they were forced to reinstate Dr. Pearson and all his privileges at the State University Hospital.

 

 

Dr. Prince was dismissed from years of service and was forced to leave the hospital in a cloud of disgrace. It was much later that Dr. Pearson realized that the anonymous letter writer must be Rita Hallen – chief scrub nurse and Dr. Prince’s long-time, neglected mistress.

 

 

Rita must have undoubtedly realized the hidden reason for the sincere thanks that Dr. Pearson offered her soon after in the O.R.

 

 

————————————————————————-

 

There will come many times in your life when you need to stand up for what you strongly believe to be right and true. Don’t be afraid to stand up for what you strongly believe in, even if it means that you are the only one left standing. After all, what is the sense of being driven by the strength of one’s beliefs and one’s convictions, if one either cannot – or will not – stand up to protect them?

  

May it also teach you to know that False Pride and Arrogance inevitably have their fall.

 

Despite many odds to the contrary, Truth shall always Triumph.

 

An unfortunate patient is forced to pay the price of a rash and erroneous lapse of judgment - till one doctor decides to risk his entire career for the sake of furthering his own sense of justice and fair-play.

An unfortunate patient is forced to pay the price of a rash and erroneous lapse of judgment – till one doctor decides to risk his entire career for the sake of furthering his own sense of justice and fair-play.

That is the Law of Nature and it shall forever be so!

 

Tag Cloud

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 338 other followers

%d bloggers like this: