Thalidomide was created by the Nazis. This means the German federal republic is liable for it. (1)

Outside Ireland and a few other countries where Chemie Grünenthal GmbH, the manufacturer, sold the drug directly it has refused compensation, arguing it is the responsibility of the licence holders. (2)

In Germany, the federal republic has instituted the Conterganstiftung on 19 December 1971. (3)

By instituting that foundation, the federal republic said German thalidomide monsters could only file claims against the foundation, no longer against Grünenthal.

On 01 July 2009, the German Bundestag or parliament denied that thalidomide was created by the Nazis. (4)

Of course, if thalidomide was created by the Nazis, the guv’mint of the federal republic of Germany is liable. Did you expect the said republic to recognise its liability?

It would appear that on the same 01 July 2009, the Bundestag also adopted its second revision of the law relating to the Conterganstiftung  (”Zweite Änderungsgesetz zum Conterganstiftungs- gezetz”).

This revision allows non-German thalidomide monsters, of whom I am one (5), to claim “Leistungen”
(”Leistungen”- I can’t find the correct translation – maybe “prestations” in French –
“performances”, “achievements”, says Collins Pocket German Dictionary),
from  … Grünenthal through the Conterganstiftung,
although the said Stiftung was instituted to stop the filing of claims by German and Irish thalidomide monsters against Grünenthal.

All of a sudden, the Conterganstiftung and Grünenthal are thus prepared to pay to non-Germans.

BUT

The claims which can be filed against Grünenthal, through the foundation, are only claims for “Leistungen”, not for compensation for the damage suffered.

And if the claim is granted by the Stiftung (and paid by Grünenthal), the claimant has no more claim against …  Grünenthal.

Against Grünenthal?
Yes, to that effect, the claimant has to sign a “Verzichtserkläring”  (declaration of renunciation) to  … the foundation.

But outside Ireland and a few other countries where Grünenthal sold the drug directly it has refused compensation, arguing it is the responsibility of the licence holders.

If the Sunday Times reveals this autumn more details about thalidomide, the argument of Grünenthal’s lawyers will be that the submission, not only the granting, of this new application, will bar the claimant from invoking these newly revealed elements.

And the “Leistungen” are only paid from the date of the 2009 application onwards. They are not about compensation of the damage, but only about the ability to remain alive.

And when you file the application, you do not have only to prove your thalidomide monstrosity by submitting X-rays, but you have also to indicate in the “Hintergrundbericht” (background message) which brand of thalidomide your mother took. Perhaps, they also want the prescriptions, like they did in Spain (6)?

And it is Grünenthal (or the Conterganstiftung – what is the relationship between them?) which unilaterally will determine the amount of the “Leistungen”.

And then in the “Angaben zu Conterganschäden”, you have to indicate what damage you have suffered by thalidomide, but the medical profession is still so “terrified by” or “under the shock of” thalidomide that it does not dare to link anything to thalidomide.

As I said, developing …

Ivo Cerckel
honestmoney@maktoob.com
http://twitter.com/ivocerckel/

NOTES

(1)
From The Sunday Times
February 8, 2009
Thalidomide ‘was created by the Nazis’
The damaging drug may have been developed as an antidote to nerve gas
Daniel Foggo
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article5683577.ece

(2)
Thalidomide victims in new compensation call
By Andrew Jack in London
Financial Times April 3 2008 03:00 | Last updated: April 3 2008 03:00
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/6c825e5c-0117-11dd-a0c5-000077b07658.html

(3)
http://www.conterganstiftung.de/stiftung/index.htm
Die Conterganstiftung für behinderte Menschen
wurde 1972 durch Bundesgesetz vom 19. Dezember 1971 (BGBl. I, S. 2018) zunächst unter dem

(4)
Datum: 01.07.2009
heute im Bundestag – 01.07.2009
http://www.bundestag.de/aktuell/hib/2009/2009_205/05.html
SNIP
Im Bundestag notiert: Contergan-Tabletten
- Familie/Antwort
Berlin: (hib/SKE) Die Bundesregierung geht nicht davon aus, dass der in den Contergan-Tabletten enthaltene Wirkstoff Thalidomid von den Nationalsozialisten entwickelt wurde. Das geht aus einer Antwort der Bundesregierung (16/13308) auf eine Kleine Anfrage der Fraktion Die Linke (16/13086) hervor. Nach Angaben der Firma Grünenthal, die Contergan herstellte, sei der Wirkstoff 1954 von der Firma entwickelt worden. Es gebe keinen Anlass, die Aussage zu bezweifeln.
UNSNIP

I REPEAT
Es gebe keinen Anlass, die Aussage [that’s the staterment from Grünenthal] zu bezweifeln.
There is no reason to put into doubt the statement of Grünenthal that it developed thalidomide itself from 1954 onwards.

I REMIND ALSO
If, as [...] research suggests, thalidomide was first developed by scientists working in wartime Germany, it could have implications for the liability of the German government.
(From The Sunday Times
February 8, 2009
Thalidomide ‘was created by the Nazis’
The damaging drug may have been developed as an antidote to nerve gas
Daniel Foggo
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article5683577.ece

Of course, if Grünenthal’s statement is put into doubt by the Bundestag , the guv’mint of the federal republic of Germany is liable. Did you expect the said republic to recognise its liability?

(5)
I am a thalidomide monster myself. I didn’t yet yet receive any compensation. I thus did nothing wrong by asking the Conterganstiftung to send me the documents.

(6)
From The Sunday Times February 15, 2009
Forced to beg: new scandal of thalidomide
Thalidomide victims beg in Spain
Daniel Foggo
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article5734068.ece

The Islamic-finance industry is lacking in the uncertainty that is generated when scholars contradict each other, or cannot comprehend the more complex tools of the advancement in the sector,
says a 31 August 2009 column “The Sharia Principle”  by Naser on the Kuwaiti website Charts & Numbers. (1)

If we cannot understand the more complex tools of the advancement in the financial sector, perhaps we should return to the basics.

I understand that “finance” is, in one way or another, ultimately related to “money”.

The Holy Koran says in Verse 161 of Surah An Nisaa’:
“That they took usury, though they were forbidden; and that they devoured men’s substance wrongfully;- we have prepared for those among them who reject faith a grievous punishment.”

This blogger asks:
When one party gives something of value
and the other party pays him with something,
in this case paper, of no value,
and when one party’s wealth is created out of thin air,
while the other party has to slave and earn to pay off the ill-gotten credit or loan,
is this not devouring of other people’s wealth?

This means that money in Islam must have intrinsic value.
If not, the buyer is devouring the seller’s wealth.

There is moreover a Hadith of Prophet Muhammed in the Sahih Muslim which teaches:
“Abu Said Al Khudri reported Allah’s messenger as saying:
“gold for gold, silver for silver, wheat for wheat, barley for barley, dates for dates, and salt for salt. (When a transaction is) like for like, payment being made on the spot, then, if anyone gives more or asks more, he has dealt in riba, the receiver and the giver being equally guilty.”

This Hadith of Prophet Muhammed establishes two things:
ONE ‘money’ in Islam is either precious metals such as gold and silver, or commodities such as wheat, barley, dates and salt.
TWO when gold, silver, wheat, barley, dates and salt were used as money, their value was ‘inside’ and not ‘outside’ the money. Hence, it is established that ‘money’ in Islam must possess intrinsic value. (2)

Before contradicting each other, scholars should return especially to Verse 161 of Surah An Nisaa’ of the Holy Koran.

Once the principle that money in Islam must have intrinsic value will be agreed upon,
many disagreements will disappear,
in the sense that one of the parties to the disagreement will have to admit that its standpoint is wrong (on religious grounds).

Or is Islamic finance only about Islamic business and not about Islam?

Ivo Cerckel
honestmoney@maktoob.com
http://twitter.com/ivocerckel/

NOTES

(1)
The Sharia Principle
August 31, 2009 by Naser   
http://chartsandnumbers.com/2009/08/31/the-sharia-principle/

(2)
Imran N. Hosein, “Explaining the Disappearance of Money with Intrinsic Value”, paper delivered at the International Conference on the Gold Dinar Economy, held in Kuala Lumpur on 24 and 25 July 2007, p. 1