No Good and Evil for WHO, hence Thalidomide
Posted by Ivo Cerckel on August 4th, 2009
For the World Health Organisation, the concept of right and wrong has to be eradicated.
Hence, the WHO did nothing to prevent thalidomide from staying 18 months on the market after its dangers had been pointed out on 1st May 1960.
In an 18 July 2009 post, I argued that I am a thalidomide monster because of the World Health Organisation. (1)
My argument ran as follows:
I was born in February 1962.
The dangers of thalidomide were known since at least 1st May 1960.
The World Health Organisation only recommended banning thalidomide in 1961.
(Thalidomide was eventually taken from the market by its manufacturer on 27 November 1961.)
Now,
Dr. George Brock Chisholm CC (1896-05-18 – 1971-02-04) was the first director-general of the WHO. (2)
His term ran from 1948 to 1953. (3)
The guy was a psycho-analyst who advocated no less that the eradication of the concept of right and wrong. He maintained that it is the task of the psychiatrist to free the human race from the crippling burden of good and evil. (4)
This guy said
“Instead of bringing our children up according to our own preconceived rules of good and bad we must teach them to question everything. Tell your child you believe in God, point out that some people don’t” (2, again)
+
“The re-interpretation and eventually eradication of the concept of right and wrong which has been the basis of child training, the substitution of intelligent and rational thinking for faith in the certainties of the old people, these are the belated objectives of practically all effective psychotherapy.” (2 again)
Now, I understand why the WHO did nothing against thalidomide.
There is no right and wrong for the WHO.
Ivo Cerckel
honestmoney@maktoob.com
http://twitter.com/ivocerckel/
NOTES
(1)
I am a thalidomide monster because of WHO
Posted by Ivo Cerckel on July 18th, 2009
http://bphouse.com/honest_money/2009/07/18/i-am-thalidomide-monster-because-of-who/
[if the link does not work, try to copy it and to paste it in your browser.]
(2)
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Brock_Chisholm
Dr. George Brock Chisholm CC (1896-05-18 – 1971-02-04) was a Canadian First World War veteran, medical practitioner and the first Director-General of the World Health Organization (WHO).
(3)
Dr B. Chisholm
Canada
Term of office: 1948-1953
Former Directors-General
http://www.who.int/dg/former/en/
(4)
F.A. Hayek, (W.W. Bartley III, ed.), “The Fatal Conceit – The Errors of Socialism”, The University of Chicago Press, 1989 (originally published 1988, paperback edition 1991), p. 58
No related posts.
August 4th, 2009 at 15:15
From The Times
August 4, 2009
Posturing cannot disguise reality
David Wighton: Business Editor’s commentary
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/columnists/article6737931.ece
PUBLISHED HIS COMMENT
Ivo Cerckel wrote:
“In private, many concede that the banks are behaving quite reasonably.”
How could banksters possibly behave quite reasonably?
Irredeemable, at least unbacked, paper money and fractional-reserve banking are opposed to reason.
But then again, as Hayek said in “The Fatal Conceit”, custom and tradition stand between INSTINCT and reason – logically, psychologically and temporally.
August 4, 2009 3:06 AM BST
PUBLISHED ALSO THIS COMMENT
David Chambers wrote:
A very few people work in the top end of banking, although banks employ huge numbers of people. Banks are what capitalism is built on and scientists and entrepreneurs invent and manufacture the fantastic things we have today, the doctors make the WONDER DRUGS, [capitalisation mine] the the unsexy end of the chain are the bankers who make it all posible by ensuring the cash is there to make it all work.
Yes its very misunderstood in general and I suspect by most politicians who really should be more educated and know better.
Sure, there has been a breakdown, but I do believe history will show the ineptitude and and corruption of politicians was the root cause of the crisis.
Leave the bankers to get on with it, after all, if you want to see an end to recession and all those jobs return then you need bankers now far more than sleezy politicians
August 4, 2009 4:58 AM BST
I HAVE SENT THIS
David compares banksters to doctors and wonder drugs. Right banksters and doctors have no concept of good and evil. That’s why we are in this crisis. That’s why the wonder drug of the late fifties stayed on the market until 27 November 1961, although its dangers were known since at least 1st May 1960 and although the World Health Organisation was already in existence.
No Good and Evil for WHO, hence Thalidomide
http://bphouse.com/honest_money/2009/08/04/no-good-and-evil-for-who-hence-thalidomide/
I suppose David wants a repeat of this all.
Yes, we’re almost at it.
Thank you, very much! (Got gold?)
August 4th, 2009 at 15:46
From a friend;
the combination of increasing unemployment, escalating government deficits and a financial system still full of toxic debt is a sufficiently lethal mixture for money printing to continue for a very long time.
August 5th, 2009 at 06:57
From a friend:
Against my better judgement Ivo, I am asking you where you have the evidence that the WHO knew about the dangers of Thaldomide in 1960. – end of quote from message
Ivo replies:
Everybody knew in 1960, that’s SIX ZERO, that the wonder drug caused malformations.
Why does the taxpayer support those bureaucrats of the WHO?
But guv’mint can do no wrong, of course.
The guv’mints of the planet also knew.
That’s why my father Henri (since 16 months when I started studying thalidomide and reporting on the web, Hendrik) Cerckel, a medical quack who of course also knew it, is so, not ashamed, but screwed.
In 1987, a guy at the office was even angry at me/my father for that reason.
If only at that time, I had known about Düsseldorf …
Unfortunately, I was taught in law school that thalidomide shows that guv’mint needs to regulate medicines. (Screw Jacques H. Herbots!)
But once guv’mint gives its authorisation, nothing can convince the guv’mint to withdraw it.
Proof; it was Grünenthal who withdraw thalidomide on 27 November 1961.
Guv’mint is the problem, always, everywhere …
August 5th, 2009 at 07:15
Even when liars tell the truth …
The Boy Who Cried Wolf
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Boy_Who_Cried_Wolf
SNIP
The Boy Who Cried Wolf, also known as The Shepherd Boy and the Wolf, is a fable attributed to Aesop (210 in Perry’s numbering system[1]). The protagonist of the fable is a bored shepherd boy who entertained himself by calling out “Wolf!”. Nearby villagers who came to his rescue found that the alarms were false and that they had wasted their time. When the boy was actually confronted by a wolf, the villagers did not believe his cries for help and the wolf ate the flock (and in some versions the boy). The moral is stated at the end of the fable as:
Even when liars tell the truth, they are never believed. The liar will lie once, twice, and then perish when he tells the truth.
August 5th, 2009 at 08:03
Guv’mint is omniscient and omnipotent.
“banks are holding back funds from struggling companies even as they rack up jumps in their own profits”, says The Times.
The guns of guv’mint know how to deal with that, without it even being necessary to inquire as to the causes of this “holding back of funds”.
From The Times August 5, 2009
Pressure mounts on Bank of England to ‘print more money’
Gary Duncan, Economics
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/economics/article6739361.ece
SNIP
Pressure mounted on the Bank of England on Tuesday to expand its radical scheme to jump-start growth by “printing money” after its own figures revealed that a continued lending drought is blighting businesses and jeopardising recovery prospects.
Hopes that the ground-breaking quantitative easing (QE) scheme would boost credit flows to businesses and consumers were dealt another blow by the stark figures, which came as the Bank’s Monetary Policy Committee (MPC) meets today and tomorrow to consider its next move.
Banks’ outstanding lending to businesses outside the financial industries plunged by a record £14.7 billion in the second quarter from the previous three months, emphasising the danger that constricted credit could stifle any economic upturn.
The news came after Alistair Darling met banking chiefs last week to demand that they boost lending flows, and is bound to inflame anger that banks are holding back funds from struggling companies even as they rack up jumps in their own profits.
August 5th, 2009 at 11:54
Should the bureaucrats of the WHO not have been on the look-out for statements such as those of the 30 April – 01 May 1960 Düsseldorf congress of neurologists?
But of course, if,
as Chisholm, the first director-general of the WHO, argued,
there is no concept of right and wrong …
Chronik des Conterganfalls
Tragödie – Katastrophe – Skandal?
http://www.wdr.de/themen/gesundheit/pharmazie/contergan/chronik.jhtml?rubrikenstyle=contergan
30. April/1. Mai 1960:
Auf einem Neurologen-Kongress in Düsseldorf berichtet der Neurologe Ralf Voss über die Nervenschädigungen, die seinen
Beobachtungen zufolge durch Thalidomid verursacht werden. Die Forschungsabteilung von Grünenthal versucht daraufhin, die Nervenschädigungen an Ratten zu reproduzieren – ohne Erfolg. Grünenthal-Forschungsleiter Mückter schließt daraus, dass es sich um besondere Situationen handelt, für die Contergan nur selten als Ursache infrage kommt.
August 5th, 2009 at 12:37
http://twitter.com/IvoCerckel/status/3139182983
Should World Health Organization WHO not have been on look-out for statements eg thalidomide warning May 1960 Düsseldorf congress neurology?
https://twitter.com/IvoCerckel/status/3139143470
Should World Health Organisation WHO not have been on look-out for statements eg thalidomide warning May 1960 Düsseldorf congress neurology?
August 5th, 2009 at 14:19
The question is not “Did the WHO know?”
The question is “Should the WHO have known?”
August 5th, 2009 at 14:30
http://twitter.com/IvoCerckel/status/3140857228
The question is not whether the World Health Organization knew about thalidomide but whether WHO should have known from May 1960 onwards.
http://twitter.com/IvoCerckel/status/3139143470
The question is not whether the World Health Organisation knew about thalidomide but whether WHO should have known from May 1960 onwards.
August 5th, 2009 at 17:28
The bonus pater familias legal doctrine asks what would good citizen do in this case? Dangers of thalidomide known since May 1960. World Health Organisation let it on market until 27 Nov 1961.
https://twitter.com/IvoCerckel/status/3142319126
Bonus pater familias doctrine what would good citizen do Thalidomide effects known V 1960 World Health Organisation let marketed unt XI 1961
https://twitter.com/IvoCerckel/status/3142345996
Bonus pater familias doctrine what would good citizen do Thalidomide effects known V 1960 World Health Organization let marketed unt XI 1961
August 24th, 2009 at 22:06
[...] Honest Money ” Blog Archive ” No Good and Evil for WHO, hence Thalidomide [...]