Once a Neevil Always a Neevil

So. I’m in one of those lovely Hell Week times when I’m under the gun of a big deadline at work, overstressed, and – of course – still enjoying all those lovely adjustment issues with diabetes and medication. I’m pretty sure I’m not responding in the typical way to any of them, but I’m staggering on.

Anyway, this is a dangerous combination, because it’s when things I’ve heard or read that have been percolating at the back of my mind start to connect and draw conclusions. And those conclusions are not pretty things.

Yes, this is writing-related. It’s also related to a whole lot of other things, and is probably going to upset a fair few people. Because I’m talking about what the furore over the concentration camp romance says about those who screamed loudest to disqualify it.

So I started with a bit of research. Lo and behold, a handful of Google searches later, I find that yes, there are documented cases of precisely this kind of romance, and not just at Theresienstadt – which was a labor camp, not a death camp like Auschwitz. And yet, a guard at the death camp, one who appears to be on record as among the more brutal and least likely to risk being ostracized (at best) and potentially internment or execution as a race traitor (if not shot on the spot), did in fact fall for a Jewish woman and took those risks to save both her and her sister from execution. So it’s not impossible, just very difficult and unlikely. Sounds about right for a romance.

I have not read the book – mainly because I’m not big on romance at the best of times – but what I’ve read about it suggests the resolution is a tad unrealistic (and where is this so terribly unusual about a romance? Or any other genre, for that matter). I’m not going to comment on the quality of the book either, since all the comments about its quality that I’ve seen have been a side note to the real problem in the mind of the commenter, namely that it exists at all.

So. Let’s consider this. Concentration camp guard, pretty much by definition Nazi to the core (although this is actually not historically the case – the labor camps would use local guards to supplement the SS management) falls for an attractive Jewish prisoner. Yes, the power dynamics mean its a compromised relationship. He does quite literally hold her life in his hands.

But – and this is where I start to get irritated – claiming that anyone lacks the right to write this story as a romance isn’t just censorship. It’s bigotry of the old school once-a-thing, always-a-thing. Bloody Marxist classification by groups yet again.

Let’s unwrap a little. Concentration camp guard, SS member. By definition a Nazi – you didn’t get that position without being in the National Socialist Party. Forget that by the time the concentration camps were established, you didn’t get anywhere without Party membership (kind of like Communism… funny that…). The hero of the book is young, and the Nazis have been in power most of his life. It’s just how things are.

But the screamers are effectively saying that because he was a Nazi he can’t possibly redeem himself in any way and become a better person because he fell for a Jew. They’re saying that evil – because the Nazi ideology was unquestionably evil and generated no shortage of evil from those who lived under it – will always be evil. It’s more than guilt by association, it’s permanent guilt that can never be erased and will be passed on to your descendants forevermore.

And these people call Christians – who mostly understand these strange concepts called repentance and forgiveness – intolerant religious nuts?

Let’s get this clear. Anyone who wants to write a romance set in a concentration camp is welcome to do so. If it’s good and sells boatloads, good for you. If it’s crap and sells boatloads, good for you. I don’t even care if the concentration camp is Nazi, Communist, or even the original British flavor.

The fact remains, any person can come to realize that they’ve done evil. Any person can repent. Out of these facts great stories can arise – and they, and their less well-written cousins will make people uncomfortable.

And maybe, just maybe, a few of those who’ve been brainwashed by the current wave of Marxist-with-kinder-gentler-packaging will see what’s underneath the surface, and learn something.


  1. Sadly, while modern Liberals are the biggest sinners in this area, there have always been people who see some wrong-doers as “unforgiveable” even when the wrong-doers seek forgiveness.

    Mind you, there is a reasonable skepticism about people who “ask forgiveness” after they’ve been caught and want the State (and those harmed) to be merciful.

    Christ said there is only one unforgiveable sin which if I understand it correctly is where the person is so “far gone” that he is unable to recognize that he has fallen into evil.

    Obviously, if a person does repent, then he has recognized the evil that he’s been part of or committed.

    Of course, there’s good Christian Theology that backs the idea that punishment by the State is allowed when the person has actually repented.

    1. Former concentration camp inmate Corrie ten Boom had just finished given a talk on God’s forgiveness in 1947 Germany, when she saw a heavy set man in a gray suit, his hat clutched in his hand. She immediately recognized him: He had been a guard at Ravensbruck, where her sister died. And her blood ran cold.

      He did not recognize her, but she had told of being at Ravensbruck. He told her he had been a guard there, but now was a Christian. He knew that God had forgiven him, but wanted her forgiveness at well. He put out his hand.

      Corrie ten Boom stared at his hand, and, in her own words, she who had just spoke on forgiveness could not forgive. How could she? Her sister had died there. Asking for forgiveness could not erase that.
      She knew that to forgive is a command from God, had seen it heal the scars of Nazi brutality. And could not.

      Yet she knew as well that forgiveness was not an emotion, but an act of will. So she prayed that she could lift her hand, but God would have to supply the feeling.

      She went through the motion of raising her hand, took his, and in that moment felt what she described as “a healing warmth.” And in that moment she was able to forgive, with all her heart. She would write that she had never felt God’s love as intensely as in that moment.

      A happy ending, but forgiveness was not an automatic response. A few years earlier, a dying soldier confessed to Simon Weisenthal an atrocity that weighed heavy on his soul, and asked for his forgiveness. Weisenthal said nothing, but was bothered by the experience. I’ve not read The Sunflower, but it came out of that, with Weisenthal posing the question, should I have forgiven him?

      Speaking as someone who has found it hard to forgive considerably less than watching a loved one die in a concentration camp, a snag is the sense that there should be justice. The Christian take is that we, who have been forgiven much, are required to forgive as well, for God Himself says He takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather the wicked repent. Yet that feeling is still there, expressed so well by Boom that mere words would not bring back her sister. To wipe the books clean, particularly a debt owed to us, isn’t easy. I’d say it’s not a natural response at all.

      Being that it’s not a natural act, I’m not surprised the non-religious find the concept alien, especially since it’s hard even for Christians.

      1. To me, justice—and where that is unavailable, vengeance—is a religious value as well. I greatly respect the moral courage it takes for Christians to forgive under such circumstances, but I find outrageous the moral calculus that calls for such forgiveness.

        (After the Holocaust, one of his congregants asked my great-uncle something to the effect of, “What should I do about the Lithuanian collaborator who murdered my family but whom the authorities are uninterested in bringing to justice?” In his Responsa from the Holocaust my uncle records that he told the man his religious obligation was to avenge his family, and then [because the authorities were interested in punishing Jews who took private vengeance] to leave the country.)

        1. Forgiveness should never mean the culprit does not have to make appropriate restitution up to and including being executed for whatever crimes were committed. Nor should it be required.

          Encouraged, certainly, because without forgiveness the victim is haunted by the perpetrator (hmm… I’d suggest the SJWs are for this except they dont’ think that deeply) even if that person is long dead. But if someone can’t, they can’t.

        2. You must remember that the Christian calculus is not that you owe the person who sinned against you forgiveness in any way.

          It’s that God doesn’t owe you forgiveness, either.

      2. Forgiveness is hard, especially for things like this. At the same time, without people being willing to do just that, societies get caught in an endless round of reprisals and blood feuds.

    2. Repentance doesn’t necessarily mean “no punishment” – nor does it mean that asking forgiveness goes hand in hand with reducing the punishment.

      Personally, I think that someone willing to accept the due punishment is showing more repentance than someone trying to get it reduced. But that’s jmust me.

  2. Oh, C. S. Lewis in “The Great Divorce” had a person in Hell because he/she didn’t like that a person who did harm to him/her had been forgiven by God and wasn’t punished by God.

    1. At least, that was the issue he had to overcome if he wanted a chance to make his way into the mountain that was the visual metaphor for heaven. I suspect his damning sin in general was about harshly judging everyone but himself.

    2. Actually, I think it was because he had harmed, in fact murdered, someone else. This man was the one who greeted him, and he’s not going to go Heaven if they won’t let him in by right. It’s all right to forgive a murderer, but this particular soul will not accept it because it involves admitting he’s wrong.

      “I’m only telling you the sort of chap I am. I only want my rights. I’m not asking for anybody’s bleeding charity.”

      “Then do. At once. Ask for the Bleeding Charity. Everything is here for the asking and nothing can be bought.”

  3. Given that the story of Paul/Saul is integral to 3/4 of the New Testament I don’t see how anyone with pretensions to being Christian can fail to believe in the redemption of the most heinous sinner.

    1. Paul was not a “heinous sinner” so much as someone who genuinely believed Christians were an evil cult and sought to eradicate them with all his zeal up until the moment he had a vision from Heaven informing him otherwise. His was not a case of willful malice so much as ignorance of the truth. And unlike other Pharisees who witnessed some quite startling miracles, the moment he realized he was in the wrong, he dedicated all his considerable energy to trying and make things right.

      (I’m speaking from the POV of a believer, of course.)

      1. Except that this couches evil as only that which is done with malice. But good intentions can fuel horrific evil and in most cases people convince themselves that they have good reasons for what they do. Saul pursued Christians with zeal but many many other people who viewed Christians as an evil cult did not. We’re taught that the word “sin” means missing the mark… it is in fact making a mistake. Mistakes don’t require malice. Mistakes can be made earnestly. Evil really can’t be limited to only those bad things that are done by people who are purposely being bad. Even something as awful as eugenics was sourced from a desire to improve the human race. (To bring this back to the Nazi guard romance.)

        And I realize that if I say “eugenics was sourced from a desire to improfe the human race” that a good percentage of people will receive that as approval and it’s nothing of the sort. In fact, if we *can’t* understand that good intentions lead to evil… up to and including understanding that someone really could grow up in that environment and not question the ideology or the noble goals… then we’re left with “but I’m a good person with good goals, my ideology simply can’t be hurting anyone” and that’s a serious problem today. We’ve relegated “evil” to motivation only and never ever to objective effect.

        1. “Because you said a certain thing applied to Saul, you must also think there is no such thing as doing bad things for what one thinks are good reasons.”

          No. That’s not what I said. I made a point that the moment Saul realized he was serving the cause of wickedness, he reversed course and tried to make things right. If I didn’t think Saul was doing anything wrong, would I have brought that up?

          My point was since he was taught and raised as a pharisee, until he got that vision, he didn’t have the framework to comprehend he -was- setting himself against God’s will. Once he did have that knowledge, he made no excuses for himself and did not attempt to justify himself or cling to a residual amount of the behavior.

          The Savior made a point that (at least in Heaven’s view) those who sin out of ignorance instead of knowing rebellion are not seen as “heinous”, rather “lost”…hence why Saul/Paul was able to receive and accept the vision rather than hardening his heart and rejecting it, like so many others did.

          Again, I’m speaking from a believer’s viewpoint.

              1. Yes, but vincible ignorance does not remove all guilt.

                Given that Paul himself states that his persecution was evil, I think that he was not acting in a state of invincible ignorancde.

  4. Obviously, Kate, the Nazi guard should have been female. That would have made everything all right.

  5. I’m not capable of it – don’t have the sexual mindset or the background in that period of history – but I am sorely tempted to write a story about a guard and a prisoner having a romance. In Andersonville.

    I obviously enjoy watching dogs chasing their own tails.

    1. According to Wirz’s daughter, he had found a drummer boy in Camp Sumter, and, due to his young age, had him paroled and he stayed in his home (Grant had ended prisoner exchanges). Alas, Cora Wirz would have been between five and ten at the time, so there would have been no romance between the two. For a historical fiction writer, it might make an controversial juvenile story, told from Cora’s point of view.

      1. Had to do a little more research. Wirz second wife already had two girls, so this led me to the 1860 census for Madison Parish, Louisiana, where we find:

        Henry Wirz: 35
        Elizabeth Wirz: 34
        Corelia Wirz: 12
        Ida Wirz: 11/12
        Cora Wirz: 5

        Wirz was commandant in 1864, which would make:
        Corelia: 16
        Ida: 15/16
        Cora: 9

        Cora was Henry and Elizabeth’s child, and Corelia and Ida was by Elizabeth’s first husband.

        Since Corelia and Ida were in Madison Parish with their mother and stepfather, they likely were in Andersonville as well. Corelia and Ida were apparently in Tennessee when they wed in 1867.

        This means it’s possible to have a historic romance novel with the Union drummer boy and either Corelia or Ida as the love interest. If anyone does:

        1. Do some in-depth research into Wirz. He was a profane man with a checkered past, and few liked him, but he also lobbied hard for better conditions at Camp Sumter. The letters still exist, IIRC.

        2. Check out a topo map of the Andersonville area. You will see something interesting. It’s well known that the creek flowed (when it flowed) from the guard’s quarters into the prison, but *not* that it flowed through the town’s water shed first. That would have added to the pollution.

        3. Visit Andersonville, on a hot day, if possible, and walk just inside where the deadline stood. I did that years ago, and it gave an interesting perspective. Especially at the creek, which was more of a mire even then. That’s the problem with perennial streams: They can flood, but drop down nothing.

      2. Urm. Actually, Kevin, there’s a story idea there that I would not touch with a ten foot pole – and insulated gloves.

        I am going to hope that some of the File 770 regulars don’t notice this…

  6. I’m assuming many of the same people who have a problem with this embrace socialism and/or communism (in places where they don’t actually want it named), but conveniently forget how many people Stalin killed during the same war. And I say to them: Like with anything, read it or don’t read it, but quit griping if other people read it. It’s not a freakin’ thought crime to read books that don’t play along with your private philosophies.

    1. Of course. “Uncle Joe” couldn’t possibly have been a megalomaniacal mass murderer (by proxy). All those millions of people must have done something to deserve it.

  7. I can only imagine the response of the File 770 crowd when they find this article and skim it until they find something to be offended by.

  8. Forgiveness is difficult. I’m still working on forgiving someone who hurt me deeply but I hope to meet the deadline I set for myself.

    1. It is difficult. Being unable to forgive someone still acknowledges the possibility that people can redeem themselves, though – where being unwilling to allow that forgiveness is an option does not. I can accept the former. Not the latter.

      1. I can forgive when somebody says they are sorry, even if I doubt that the ‘sorry’ was more for show. But it’s nearly impossible when dealing with somebody who seems to think they are fully in the right, and perhaps even the victim, no matter what they do.

        And I think that when it’s somebody who thought they were in the right and a good person, but comes to realize they were doing something bad and are in fact the villain, well, that realization can perhaps be big enough a punishment by itself. Then forgiveness or even letting them go without a formal punishment would not be that difficult, or wrong. Most people prefer to think they are good, and whatever they do is for the best, or at least forced on them by circumstances, not really their fault. Having to face that they were wrong, and more, being able to do that without any excuses, is not something easy.

        With the latter case, when it comes to whether they should also face legal or other types of punishment from others of course the problem for those others is to figure out if that conversion is genuine, or just pretending in order to get away with whatever they did.

        And the double standard of modern PC is probably in work with that Nazi/Jew love story. If it had been something like, maybe, ISIS fighter (or Afghan Taliban, maybe a bit easier sell as they seem to be a bit more “moderate” when it comes to atrocities, although as long as the villain turning hero looking for redemption is not white western or Israeli seems to be enough for some people) and a western relief worker sex slave I think it would have been received differently. But Nazi – white supremacist, and, er, “right wing” one too so supreme evil, nothing can come close to that (I know, but no matter what, I guess that Nazis will always remain “right wing” even if they called themselves a socialist party. I think it’s the “national” that comes before “socialism” in that name. National = right wing, add that “white supremacists” part and that combination trumps “socialism” no matter how many times it is pointed out that yes, their actual politics were pretty left and no, white supremacy – or any other breed or whatever supremacy – is not exactly a “Right wing” specialty).

        I don’t know how that story goes, and I am not interested enough to find out (doesn’t sound like my type of story), but, hypothetically, if the Nazi guard would start acting like few of the acknowledged WW II heroes, Schindler for one, which is he didn’t just try to save that one woman and her family but stayed on his job so that he could try to save a few others too and maybe ease the lot of those he couldn’t save at least a little bit while still having to pretend to be a good little Nazi I think I would be cool with it (because realistically, leaving would not have helped anyone but him, and if he had stayed he could have perhaps done some good, but he could NOT have stayed without doing bad too because if he hadn’t, or had protested out loud at any point, that would have been the end of that and he would not have helped anyone after that – catch-22?)

        1. Oh well. Too many people go by the labels, not interested in looking at the actual content. Using Brad Torgersen’s Nutty Nuggets comparison: these are the people who don’t really care what’s inside the packet that much. As long as it reads Nutty Nuggets they treat it as Nutty Nuggets, because if it says that it has to be that, right?

          A package with a label that has been branded bad has to have bad content, doesn’t matter if the label got attached because the content was bad or because the rival company managed a good advertising campaign. Good label, has to be good stuff inside, even if it often kind of tastes stale or bland or gives them heartburn they still keep buying because, hey, everybody they know agrees this is the good stuff so maybe they just happened to get a few products done on a bad day, most of that stuff had to be good because everybody says it’s good. And if the content is sometimes bad, sometimes good and lots of times in between… well, of course you then always go by label anyway, what else could you go by? Now when it is something they actually have to deal with in their daily life they might drift away from the more consistently bad stuff with a good label with time, even sometimes after a long enough time admit that it wasn’t that good after all, but even in this case the bad label stuff (bad label in their circles…) is most likely going to be something they will never look at unless the consensus changes first.

          And when it comes to something like historical or even contemporary movements or systems or other things like that, once the label is in then everything even slightly associated with that is going to be it forever and after, amen. Everybody who ever joined the Nazi party is a monster, no matter what their motivations or what they did or whether they changed their minds at some point (unless it’s Oskar Schindler or a few others with similar visibility. Fictional characters usually need not apply even then). And communists and socialists… sure, bad things happened, but most of them meant well and wanted to do good so excuses can be made, so not monsters (omelet and eggs comparison applies too, even if the omelet didn’t quite come out as intended. Maybe something wrong with the stove). See Che and others. Fictional characters welcome.

          Makes life and making choices so much easier, that.

  9. I suspect what some of the “always evil” crowd also forget is that forgiving someone does NOT mean pretending that the evil never happened. For a much milder example, if someone robs me, I will forgive them (eventually. Or at least I’ll try). I will still expect, nay demand, restitution, and I’ll keep my wallet locked away when the individual is around.

    1. As an agnostic, the reason that forgiveness is imperative is that until you forgive him, you are emotionally tied to the person that has harmed you. I am not willing to remain emotionally tied to scum, it is not healthy. (In the approxomate words of one of John Ringo’s characters “You must forgive the evildoers. That does not mean that you have to let them live however.”

    2. Precisely. I forgave a close relative for a number of things done to me long ago – but I do not trust that relative and will not unless I see trustworthy behavior.

  10. If Romance is not allowed to be creepy, not allowed to step outside of the bounds of the good and the wise, and must be certified proper by a panel of moralists, then it is not allowed to exist at all. It is like mysteries without crime, horror not being permitted anything fearful, or a thrillers which must be restful.

    1. Or pap. Pre-digested pre-approved pap.

      Gee. I wonder why the SJW set would want that?

  11. A leader of our church once said, “It is required that we forgive the sinner, but there are sinners who I would not associate with. I would rather clutch a viper to my bosom.”

    1. As I said up thread aways, forgiveness does not equate to trust or stupidity. You can forgive the sinner, but until said sinner actively repents and starts acting in a trustworthy fashion, you’re a lot better off not associating with them. Or trusting them.

      1. Isn’t there something about innocent as doves and wise as serpents… I have no idea what the verse is though.

        1. “Behold, I am sending you out as sheep in the midst of wolves, so be wise as serpents and innocent as doves.”

          Matthew 10:16

  12. I’m not sure that it’s as much a case of thinking people can’t repent as it is that most of us like our villains neatly categorized, like something from central casting, instead of complex like they are in real life. Such as a refusal to believe one’s enemy is capable of both courage and compassion, because we consider this positive attributes and that doesn’t square with how we see a villain. Even Hitler’s housekeeper said he was the best boss she ever had, which either meant that she had some horrible bosses, or that Hitler was more complex that how we might see him. Doesn’t that, though, make a greater monster to know someone is capable of good but chooses otherwise?

    Yes, it’s possible for someone to repent, and many have. But what of a tale where a camp guard falls in love with an inmate but does not change? What he does is for the love of the inmate, maybe classifying her as a “good [insert whatever here]” without changing his overall view in the least.

    Say, a camp guard, initially driven by lust and because he can, singles out an inmate. The inmate, seeing how some of her own sell out to become quasi-guards, cultivates his interest to gain better conditions for herself and her family. The guard falls in love with her, and she fall in love with him. Call it the Stockholm Syndrome or whatever. But she genuinely loves him, and bears the hostility of others in the camp who consider her less than a harlot. Knowing that she and her family are in a group scheduled for liquidation, he arranges their escape as they’re marched to a trench in the woods to be shot, and for them to make their way to Allied lines. This they do as he continues on and slaughters the rest of the prisoners.

    She is anxious for his well being, and hopes he’s escaped the advancing Soviets. But then she learns that he has been captured and will stand trial in Nuremberg. She leaves her family and goes there, but is unable to even see him. She learns he is convicted and is to be executed, and resolves to be there with him one last time. She does not know that the executions are held in secret, with only a few witnesses and reporters.

    She returns to her family, devastated, only to find they consider her as one dead to them. It is one thing, a friend of the family says, do so what she did for them to survive; quite another to run after a monster who just as soon would have killed them all. The novel ends with her sitting on rubble, gazing up at one of the few mostly intact buildings, and wondering how many steps there are to the top. She decides to find out.

    Okay, so Harlequin and Hallmark it ain’t, but I don’t do Harlequin and Hallmark.

    1. What is is… wait for it… literature. It has all the right “vile human nature” parts and the proper non-redemptive ending of sad futility.

      Romance has to have redemption, after that moment of “black night of the soul” where it all could go either way, then it tips over to the good…

      In a romance the guard gets them away and risks his life to save the others, perhaps even goes back to work and continues to sneak out the children as he can. The woman he loves never knows if he’s alive or dead but for the children who arrive at her doorstep in New York until one day she opens the door and there he is.

    2. An awesome story is what that sounds like, with a core of honesty and morality to it. This fantasy she wove around him and herself might have been necessary to save some lives, but she had to understand the truth and realize no: he’s a monster and what they had wasn’t real. It was a glamour she had to use, and now she should sweep it away with the rubble. I’d argue you could make it a little less bleak at the end by having someone reach out with understanding about what she’s going through, what she had to do and the emotional toll it took, and help her get her life together, or otherwise end on a note that she’ll rebuild her life wiser. Maybe have her come to a concrete understanding about the guy, that she did what she had to do and now it was time to move on in a healthy direction.

      1. Oh, it would be real. That’s the tragedy. He genuinely loves her, and she him, but he hasn’t changed. He could easily go “If she is not how I thought they were, and her family is not how I thought they were, then maybe none are like how I thought they were. He doesn’t. And though she knows exactly what he is, she still loves him.

        A nasty thought before drifting off to sleep: call him the Beast of [Insert German place name here] , and for her to have a Hebrew name meaning beauty.

    3. It’s been done. ISLAND AT WAR, where Lt. Walker realizes that “a Jew” can be courageous…. but goes on exploiting her.

  13. I’d heard about this book through the criticism. Haven’t read it and don’t really intend to, but I found myself nodded in agreement with the critics a few times then mostly forgot about it. Just a step in the same direction as the sort of sparkly vampire/sadist billionaire stuff was my impression. But hey, if people are willing to pay money to read this stuff, these authors must be doing something right.

    On a side note, redemption figures in quite a few of my stories, but it’s a little more difficult that how I feel it’s portrayed there, and my characters usually come to that realization independent of finding a significant other, or they’re on the cusp but get a little push by the sig other. None of this ‘my love will magically change him/her’ stuff.

    And yeah, ‘her,’ I’ve got some females that screw up and realize they’ve got to do something about it.

  14. There is at least one documented case of this occurring in Auschwitz. At least according to testimony offered by a survivor. I don’t think love was involved in the case of the woman, but certainly in that of the guard, who secured a ‘safe’ work duty for the woman and her sister.

  15. New person reading the last couple of posts. Cannot figure out where else to post this.

    1] Bought Vlad the Impaler for several reasons:
    a] I went to Romania this summer.
    b] Historically, Vlad is really interesting
    c] Your book got good reviews
    d] You are heading up Sad Puppies 4

    2] Diabetes – yes it stinks. I was told I would get type 2 when I was 19 years old, 6’2″ and 145 pounds. I’ve now had it for 5-6 years. It gets easier once they figure out which drugs work and the dosage you need. You need to go to “diabetes camp” to learn about the basics of how this works. My health care plan sent me to 5 sessions of about 1:30 long with a group of people. Just reading/learning what can trigger it is a pain.

    I am still very thin, have not had a sweet drink in 45 years, but still have to take the drugs. It is something that will never go away if you have it severely enough. It can be managed. Learning what and when to eat is critical as are the drugs.

    I hope you learn to manage it. It is something that you have to be very organized about and live a systematic life.

Comments are closed.