Honest Money

Gold is Wealth Hiding in Oil

  • Subscribe

  • Alert

    Three UK politicians look only at Germany behaviour After thalidomide scandal Not UK behaviour Before scandal

    Posted by Ivo Cerckel on November 3rd, 2014

    S.O.S. to Guy Verhofstadt!

    Last updated on 05 November 2014 at 10h46 GMT+8

    Syed Kamall, UK conservative MEP, said on 31 October 2014. that he opposes the rule of law.

    Michael McCann, UK labour MP, on 31 October 2014, and Sir Robert Smith, UK liberal democrat MP, on 04 November 2014, said that they refuse to grasp that thalidomide had been tested and that France therefore banned it.
    Smith did moreover “extraordinarily” admit on that 04 November 2014 that the dropping of the criminal case against the maker of thalidomide resulted in concealment of evidence. Evidence of what, isn’t it?

    Fortunately, there is still in the European parliament, Beatriz Becerra, MEP from Spain, in the ALDE, the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, fraction led by Guy Verhofstadt.

    Tension between the supporters and opponents of European integration.

    Tension between the area of freedom of the individual and the requirements of the order imposed by way of straitjacket by the welfare state.

    Tension between those who look only at the German behaviour after the thalidomide scandal and those who look also at the UK behaviour before and during the scandal.

    ANTI-EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

    When thalidomide was brought onto the West-German market, the product had been banned in France and remained banned there.
    Later, the product was, while still being banned in France, brought onto the British market.

    When thalidomide appeared on the British isles, the UK could have chosen between two possible courses of action.

    Either, it could follow the French example and ban the drug,
    Or, it could follow the West-German example and refrain from doing anything against this marketing of the product on the isles.

    The UK chose the latter course of action.

    Half a century later, some UK politicians are complaining to Germany that the UK followed the West-German example.

    Syed Kamall wants Germany, not the UK, to compensate the UK thalidomiders.
    His only argument is that “we are knowing what we now know”.
    This is an argument for the UK to compensate the UK thalidomiders.

    If the UK does not compensate the UK thalidomiders, the EU, not Germany, should do so.

    Michael McCann says that the German Leviathan’s inexplicable decision to end the criminal case against Grünenthal was itself a criminal act.
    Sir Robert Smith adds that this decision resulted in concealment of evidence from parents in the UK and lower court settlements for effected families.

    In the 1970 criminal case against Grünenthal, the office of the West-German public attorney was arguing that thalidomide had not been tested. The case was dropped by that office because there was, in that office’s eyes, lack of public interest in the public finding out, through Grünenthal’s defence, that thalidomide had been tested and indeed banned in France before it was ever marketed, that is, before it was marketed in West-Germany.

    If, when agreeing on the sidelines of the case on compensation with the parents of some thalidomiders, Grünenthal had contested its liability, vis-à-vis the parents, this would have brought into the open the reasons why the office of the German public attorney dropped the 1970 criminal case against Grünenthal, that is, it would have brought into the open that in the prosecution’s eyes, there was lack of public interest in the public finding out that thalidomide had been tested before it was ever marketed.

    Grünenthal did that in order to protect the West-German Leviathan.

    Why did the prosecution fear the truth about the real culprit in the thalidomide scandal being displayed in the open?

    Good question, isn’t it?

    Sir Robert Smith “extraordinarily” said that the termination of the criminal trail against Grünenthal resulted in concealment of evidence?
    He probably didn’t realise that this concealment also concerns the real culprit in the thalidomide scandal – on the British isles –, Her Majesty’s guv’mint.
    The only way for Grünenthal to defend itself in that trial would have been to draw the court’s – the jury’s? – attention to the real culprit in the scandal – in West-Germany – the West-German Leviathan.

    END OF ANTI-EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

    1.
    The primary cause – as opposed to the efficient cause, the tablet, (1) – of the thalidomide scandal is the fact that after the French Leviathan had banned thalidomide, other Leviathans – such as the UK of NI-and-GB – did not prevent the product being brought onto “their” markets nor did they immediately order the withdrawal of thalidomide from “their” markets, once the product appeared there after the French ban.

    Let’s start with some essentials of correct thinking or correct reasoning.

    Every reasoning process involves a number of previously known truths. These truths are called the “premises”, when taken separately, and the “antecedent” when taken as a whole.
    The reasoning process also involves the knowledge of a new truth (the “conclusion” or “consequent”) which is inferred from the premises. (2)

    The impossibility of being either true or false is the essential note of logical opposition. (3)

    Contradictory opposition is the opposition of a pair of propositions so related to one another that they cannot be either simultaneously true or simultaneously false. (4)

    Through a correct deduction, one may infer from the contradictory proposition of the consequent to the contradictory proposition of the antecedent. (5)

    Now that some essentials of correct thinking or correct reasoning have been refreshed in our minds, let’s start with the tabloids.
    (Wow, page-three girl! – Or did she die?).

    Legal tabloids tell us that thalidomide is an example of the development-risk defence which allows producers to escape liability if they prove that the state of scientific and technical knowledge at the time when they put the product into circulation was not such as to enable the existence of a defect to be discovered, as defined at present “a contrario” (“argument based on the contrary” – denotes any proposition that is argued to be correct because it is not disproven by a certain case, says Wikipedia) in article 15(1)(b) of the 1985 EEC Product Liability Directive, formally Council Directive 85/374/EEC of 25 July 1985 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning liability for defective products.

    Dr. Herman Cousy, professor now-emeritus from the law department of the K.U. Leuven, reports in note 28 of his 1996 paper “The Precautionary Principle: A Status Questionis” published in the “Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance – Issues and Practice”, also available on the website of the “Geneva Association”, l’“Association Internationale pour l’Etude de l’Economie de l’Assurance”, the leading international think tank of the insurance industry, that:
    “One often cites the Thalidomide (Contergan) case as an example of a development risk situation, although it appears that when thalidomide was brought onto the German market, the product had been banned in France.”

    And Professor Cousy goes on to ask in the note:
    “Can it be readily upheld, under such circumstances, that the conditions for a “development risk” situation were fulfiled?” (6)

    The Sunday Times added in an 08 February 2009 article “Thalidomide ‘was created by the Nazis’” that the drug may have been developed as an antidote to nerve gas and that the manufacturer of thalidomide, Chemie Grünenthal GmbH, now known as Grünenthal GmbH, in Stolberg, Aachen, hereafter Grünenthal, “apparently purchased the trade name of the drug – Contergan – and therefore probably the substance itself, from a French firm, Rhône-Poulenc, which was under Nazi control during the war years.” (7)

    Thalidomide was developed in France and banned there before it was licensed anywhere.

    Got it?

    This demonstrates that the Leviathans – such as the UK of NI-and-GB – which did not prevent thalidomide being brought onto “their” markets nor immediately ordered the withdrawal of thalidomide from “their” markets, once the product appeared there after the French ban, are the primary cause of the thalidomide scandal.

    Indeed, I submit that the quoted article 15(1}(b) of the 1985 EEC Product Liability Directive can be applied “mutatis mutandis” (by changing what has to be changed) to the Leviathans which did not prevent the product being brought onto “their” markets nor immediately ordered the withdrawal of thalidomide from “their” markets, once the product appeared there after the French ban.

    2.
    Syed Kamall is a member of what should be, according to its name, the “European parliament”, the legislative branch of the EU Leviathan, member “emanating” from the sheeple of the UK of NI-and-GB where he is a member of the conservative party. He apparently lives in New Malden, Surrey, UK of NI-and-GB.

    Here’s what Kamall wrote to the editor of The Daily Telegraph which the said newspaper, the mouthpiece of Kamall’s conservative party, published on 31 October 2014:

    ” [TITLE] It’s time to secure justice for Thalidomide victims

    ” [SUBTITLE 1] More than half a century after the Thalidomide scandal, European governments still aren’t doing enough to make amends

    ” [SUBSTITLE 2] Launched as a drug for treating morning sickness, thalidomide unexpectedly gave rise to severe abnormalities in children

    “[TEXT UNDER PICTURE OF TABLETS] Justice: Grünenthal, a German pharmaceutical company, produced Thalidomide

    6:59AM GMT 31 Oct 2014
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/letters/11198359/Its-time-to-secure-justice-for-Thalidomide-victims.html

    ” SIR – The Thalidomide scandal almost six decades ago continues to have a serious impact on thousands of people who were born severely disabled. Independent reports show that over the past 10 to 15 years, many European Thalidomide survivors have seen their health decline, experiencing complex and continuing health problems.

    ” Several EU countries have still not put in place a formal compensation scheme, while in others the compensation available is not sufficient to meet victims’ health and independent living costs. “At the time of the original legal action, a lack of clear evidence prevented lawyers from making the case for a just settlement. This was particularly the case in Germany.

    ” Knowing what we now know, surely the German government has an obligation to meet the needs of the few remaining European Thalidomide survivors?

    ” German ministers should meet representatives of those survivors, with a view to sympathetic consideration of the cases of victims in Denmark, Finland, Italy, Spain, Sweden and Britain.

    ” Syed Kamall MEP (Con)
    ” New Malden, Surrey ”

    3.
    Kamall seems to agree with my submission in earlier blog posts that article 15(1)(b) of the 1985 EEC Product Liability Directive can be applied “mutatis mutandis” (by changing what has to be changed) to the Leviathans which did not prevent the product being brought onto “their” markets nor immediately ordered the withdrawal of thalidomide from “their” markets, once the product appeared there after the French ban.

    Why then does Kamall want Germany, not the UK of NI-and-GB, to compensate the UK thalidomiders?

    Here’s the only argument the politician has or the only reasoning he is able to perform:
    “Knowing what we now know, “surely” the German government has an obligation to meet the needs of the few remaining European Thalidomide survivors.”

    Note the “surely” in the argument or reasoning.

    Sorry Mr Kamall, most honourable member of the European parliament,
    what we now, that is, since 1996
    when Professor Cousy published his quoted article, know “for sure” is that
    after the French Leviathan had banned the product,
    the UK of NI-and-GB did not prevent thalidomide from reaching the isles
    nor did it order the immediate withdrawal of the product from the isles once it appeared there.

    But like all politicians, Kamall is a mystic failing to elaborate on two essential parts of his reasoning or argument.

    One, Kamall does not elaborate what is the antecedent of his argument or reasoning. He only refers to “what we now know” without elaborating on what it is that “we now know”.

    Two, as he does not elaborate what is the antecedent of his argument or reasoning, he cannot elaborate on how the consequent follows from this antecedent. He can only use the mystic’s “surely” to link the unexpressed (unverbalised – my spell checker doesn’t like this … verb -, that is, not put into words, “omitted” will I say in section 7) antecedent to the so-called “consequent”.

    “Ex absurdo sequitur quodlibet”, from what is false follows whatever you want, Mr Kamall.

    This means that if the premises are false, the conclusion can be either true or false. (8)

    Section 7 of this blog post will argue that Michael McCann, labour MP, that is, member of the labour party and of the lower house, the house of commons, of the parliament of the UK of NI-and-GB, in his 31 October 2014 blog post “Michael McCann MP Demands Thalidomide Justice” could have given the arguments which Kamall, MEP, failed to give. The section will immediately refute McCann’s arguments.

    The section will also happily expand, or rather really explain while being very happy, Sir Robert Smith, member of the UK of NI-and-GB liberal democrat party and member of the house of commons, ’s “extraordinary” admission on 04 November 2014 that the dropping of the case resulted in concealment of evidence. Evidence of what, isn’t it?

    What Kamall also knows, perhaps even “surely” knows, is that thalidomide first appeared on the West-German market in 1957, that is the year that the original founding treaty of an international organisation was signed at Rome, Italy, and that that organisation was called the … European Economic Community.

    A coincidence?
    Why did the EEC legislator, the EEC council, then wait three decades to adopt its 1985 product-liability directive?
    Why did that legislator wait so long to make European law become the corner stone (“la pièce maîtresse”) of national legislations concerning consumers? (Jean-Sylvestre Bergé and Sophie Robin-Olivier, “Introduction au droit européen”, Presses Universitaires de France, 2008, 1st ed., section 377)
    Was that not in order not to make it too obvious that thalidomide was necessary to achieve this?
    Was that not in order to hide this co-incidence?

    If the UK of NI-and-GB does not compensate the UK thalidomiders, the EU, not Germany, should do so.

    4.
    It would seem that Beatriz Becerra, Spanish MEP of the ALDE, the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, fraction of my anarcho-capitalist hero 35 years ago, Guy Verhofstadt, now leader of the ALDE fraction in the European parliament, has better ideas than the conservative party of Kamall.

    On 30 October 2014, Ms Becerra raised the issue of unequal treatment of thalidomide monsters by the different EU member states. (9)

    Kamall is only interested in the “sympathetic” [sic] consideration of the cases of victims in the UK of NI-and-GB, Denmark, Finland, Italy, Spain and Sweden. (see section 2 of this blog post)

    I suppose that by “sympathetic consideration” of some cases, Kamall means that the conclusions in these cases should, like in his argument or reasoning, “surely” follow from the unexpressed antecedent.

    Guy,
    Gij, als eerste Minister van de Koning der Belgen, had mij veel schrijfgenot toegewenst hier in de Zuid-Oost Azië waarheen ik als niet-erkend softenonmonster 14 jaar geleden diende te vluchten.
    In de Filipijnen is ‘s mens’ existentie inderdaad beterkoop. Dit is belangrijk voor een niet-erkend softenonmonster als ik die in het Westen niet in zijn levensonderhoud kan voorzien.
    Dit, deze blog, is het resultaat.
    Een blog post van 20 oktober 2014, ook van mijn … hand, op deze blog richtte zich tot minister van volksgezondheid, Maggie De Block, van de Partij. (10)

    My work is done, be it that I am trying to draft a post attempting to do three things.

    One, to answer to the 24 october 2014 question of the Spanish thalidomiders
    “¿Quién dirige la fundación alemana Contergan, Grünenthal o el Estado alemán?”
    Who manages the German Contergan Foundation, Grünenthal or the German federal state? (11)

    Two, to explain what Juan Antonio Megas meant on 28 October 2014 in an “From my Fishbowl” (“Desde mi pecera”) column under the title “Stop and think” (” Párate a pensar”) in La Opinión de Murcia, when he said that:
    “Tal vez sea una invencible razón económica y legal la que impide que el Estado indemnice a la víctimas de la Talidomida”,
    Maybe there is some reason of higher economic and social order which prevents the state to compensate the thalidomide monsters. (12)

    Three, to explain with two judgments of the German federal constitutional court, the “Bundesverfassungsgericht”, hereafter BVG, and some pieces of German legislation why the Conterganstiftung will NEVER compensate Spanish thalidomide monsters, contrary to what Grünenthal was arguing in court and reiterated after the 22 October 2014 judgment of the Madrid Provincial Court, overruling the 20 November 2013 judgment of the Madrid Judge of First Instance, who (the latter) had ordered Grünenthal to pay, to the victims as recognised by Spain’s Health Ministry, 20’000 euro for each percentage point of disability of the victims.
    I explained the Madrid procedure in my 23 October 2014 post “Historical Criticism, Thalidomide, Statutes of Limitations and Prescription – Update 1.0” on this blog. (13)

    My work is done.

    Yours is cut out, Guy!

    6.
    On 31 October 2014 at 11h36 GMT+1, Guy Verhofstadt wrote the following tweet:

    Read my opinion in autumn’s edition of @EuropesWorld on how we can make #Europe work for its citizens #juncker -> http://goo.gl/Gj9QgK
    https://twitter.com/GuyVerhofstadt/status/528133381171593216

    After starting with the prediction that the new European parliament will be rowdier, with more heated debates as TENSIONS rise between clashing supporters and haters of European integration, Verhofstadt went on in the article to “inter alia” (among other things) recognise that the EU is not yet a fully-developed polity and to argue that Europe needs to show a human face, that is, that it must show that it is more than a purely economic or monetary union, but also a political and social union that shares, and is prepared to defend, commonly-held fundamental values of freedom, non-discrimination and respect for the RULE OF LAW. As the guardian of the treaties and acting through a commissioner with special responsibility for upholding fundamental rights, the commission, with small “c” in the article, is the most impartial body to do this, concludes Verhofstadt.

    Can the contradiction between the approach of Ms Becerra who supports thalidomide monsters from all EU member states and the approach of Mr Kamall who is only interested in the “sympathetic” [sic] consideration of the cases of victims in the UK of NI-and-GB, Denmark, Finland, Italy, Spain, and Sweden (see section 2 of this blog post), be interpreted as a tension between supporters and haters of European integration?

    In my next post I should discuss judgment BVerfGE 42, 263 of 08 July 1976 of the BVG of which I find the text on a website with a Swiss address
    http://www.servat.unibe.ch/dfr/bv042263.html
    which also speaks about an unbridgeable tension.

    Section 120 of that judgment says that there is an unbridgeable “TENSION” (eine “unaufhebbaren Spannungslage”) between
    the area of freedom of the individual (der “Freiheitsraum des Einzelnen”)
    and the requirements of the order imposed by way of straitjacket by the welfare state (die “Anforderungen der sozialstaatlichen Ordnung”)
    and that this requires the supersession of private autonomy to settle claims resulting from torts.

    (“Die Ersetzung der autonomen Regelungsbefugnis muß der unaufhebbaren Spannungslage zwischen dem Freiheitsraum des Einzelnen und den Anforderungen der sozialstaatlichen Ordnung gerecht werden.”)

    Kamall also wants to supersede the Rule of Law for all, by or with the “sympathetic” treatment of the cases of some only of the thalidomide monsters, depending on the place where they were born.

    Yes, Kamall opposes the Rule of Law. He opposes the Rechtsstaat.

    Yes, Kamall hates this characteristic of European integration.

    Yes, the contradiction between the approach of Ms Becerra who supports thalidomide monsters from all EU member states and the approach of Mr Kamall who is only interested in the monsters from some members states can be interpreted as a tension between supporters and haters of European integration.

    7.
    Tension between the supporters and opponents of European integration.
    Tension between the area of freedom of the individual and the requirements of the order imposed by way of straitjacket by the welfare state.

    Michael McCann, member of the UK of NI-and-GB labour party and of the lower house, the house of commons, of the parliament of the UK of NI-and-GB, posted on 31 October 2014 an article “Michael McCann MP Demands Thalidomide Justice” on his website arguing, as the title says, that he wants justice for thalidomide monsters.

    He correctly says that the German Leviathan, not Grünenthal, is the culprit and that the case is a scandal, not a catastrophe.

    He only does not understand the real scandal of the West-German Leviathan not having done anything, before and while thalidomide was being marketed on “its” territory, against a drug which the Leviathan’s French neighbour had banned for an obvious reason.

    I repeat,
    the real West-German and UK of NI-and-GB thalidomide scandal is that the Leviathans instituted on those territories, c.q., isles, have not done anything against a drug that had been banned by an “ally” while the drug was being marketed on the West-German territory, c.q., on the British isles.

    McCann does not grasp this and merely says that the German Leviathan, a supposed ally [sic – in and against what?], has consistently

    [that is, consistently AFTER,
    that is, NOT BEFORE NOR DURING,
    the thalidomide scandal]

    displayed behaviour more in common with an organised crime syndicate than that of a “sovereign” [sic] state
    [Ivo: what’s the difference between Leviathan and such a syndicate, anyway?]
    and “believes” that the German Leviathan’s inexplicable decision to end the case against Grünenthal was itself a criminal act and that he has have written to [German chancellor] Dr Merkel […] to demand that she acknowledges this and … “does “something” about it”. (14)

    All these allegations of McCann which I quoted after “He merely says that […]” concern the behaviour of the West-German Leviathan AFTER the drug had been withdrawn from sale on the West-German territory,
    NOT the behaviour of the said monster
    (“teratos” in Greek, isn’t it,
    ergo “teratogenic”, as in thalidomide being a teratogenic, monster-creating, drug)
    BEFORE and DURING the thalidomide scandal when the monster could have followed the French example – at any moment.

    Likewise, “our” three UK of NI-and-GB politicians are not interested in the behaviour of their insular state before and during the thalidomide scandal – but only in the behaviour of West-Germany after the scandal.

    Sir Robert Smith, member of the UK of NI-and-GB liberal democrat party and member of the house of commons, “extraordinarily” added on 04 November 2014, that this decision to end the criminal case against Grünenthal resulted in concealment of evidence from parents in the UK and lower court settlements for effected families. (15)

    The right honourable (or whatever may be the correct adjective for this gentleman, a UK of NI-and-GB MP) gentleman forgets that if the case had proceeded, the public would have found out, through Grünenthal’s defence, that thalidomide had been tested and indeed banned in France before it was ever marketed, that is, before it was marketed in West-Germany, “a fortiori” – an “a fortiori” argument is an “argument from a yet stronger reason”, says Wikipedia – before it was marketed on the British isles.

    In that way, the public would have found out that when thalidomide appeared on the British isles, the UK of NI-and-GB could have chosen between two possible courses of action.

    Either, the UK of NI-and-GB could follow the French example and ban the drug,
    Or, it could follow the West-German example and refrain from doing anything against this marketing of the product on the isles.

    The said insular state chose the latter course of action.

    Half a century later, Kamall, McCann and Smith are complaining to Germany that they, the insular state, did not follow the French example.

    Maybe this is the explanation which Kamall omitted.
    Kamall’s only argument was that
    “Knowing what we now know, “surely” the German government has an obligation to meet the needs of the few remaining European Thalidomide survivors.”
    As I said, what we now, that is, since 1996
    when Professor Cousy published his quoted article, know “for sure” is that
    after the French Leviathan had banned the product,
    the UK of NI-and-GB did not prevent thalidomide from reaching the isles
    nor did it order the immediate withdrawal of the product from the isles once it appeared there.
    And I continued by saying that like all politicians, Kamall is a mystic failing to elaborate on two essential parts of his reasoning or argument.

    But let me now refute McCann’s argument, which could be the argument which Kamall omitted or left unexpressed.
    By refuting McCann’s argument, I would then by the same token also be refuting Kamall’s unexpressed argument.

    The argument says that the German Leviathan’s inexplicable decision to end the case against Grünenthal was itself a criminal act.

    In his “The History of Thalidomide”, Dr Widukund Lenz, a paediatrician and human geneticist from Hamburg who on 25 November 1961 advised Grünenthal by telephone that he suspected thalidomide of causing birth defects (16), indicates
    that the suit was started by the public prosecutor against seven men of Grünenthal,
    that the proceedings or hearings in court started on 27 May 1968,
    that the prosecution’s case was that Grünenthal had put on sale a drug which caused an unacceptable degree of bodily harm without having tested it properly, and that Grünenthal had failed to react to information on side effects in due time, and instead had tried to suppress information. (17)

    As Professor Cousy indicated, the drug had been tested and France therefore had banned the drug.

    On 18 December 1970, the 283th day of the court proceedings or hearings, the case was dropped by the prosecution not for an inexplicable reason, as McCann alleges, but because of minor guilt of the accused and because of lack public interest, says wochenblatt.de. (18)

    This is the explanation which McCann cannot find.

    In the 1970 criminal case against Grünenthal, the office of the West-German public attorney was arguing that thalidomide had not been tested. The case was dropped by that office because there was, in that office’s eyes, lack of public interest in the public finding out, through Grünenthal’s defence, that thalidomide had been tested and indeed banned in France before it was ever marketed, that is, before it was marketed in West-Germany.

    I repeat:
    In the 1970 criminal case against Grünenthal, the office of the West-German public attorney was arguing that thalidomide had not been tested. The case was dropped by that office because there was, in that office’s eyes, lack of public interest in the public finding out, through Grünenthal’s defence, that thalidomide had been tested and indeed banned in France before it was ever marketed, that is, before it was marketed in West-Germany.

    Is Jacques H. Herbots listening?

    Are the then-proponents of the 1985 EEC product-liability direction still alive and also listening?

    Once the reason why the prosecution dropped the 1970 criminal case against Grünenthal has become clear, the rest of the story should become clear in my next post.

    I quoted already an excerpt from section 120 of the 08 July 1976 BVG judgment which says that there is an unbridgeable TENSION (eine “unaufhebbaren Spannungslage”) between the area of freedom of the individual and the requirements of the order imposed by way of straitjacket by the welfare state.

    After the thalidomide scandal – apparently after the dropping of the criminal case to which, if memory (19) serves me well, the 08 July 1976 BVG judgment does not refer – the West-German parents of some thalidomide monsters reached agreement with Grünenthal on some compensation.

    That’s what the RULE OF LAW provides: When one individual is injured by another (or by another’s product), the compensation of the former takes the form of compensation by the latter, except if the latter can convince the former, or the courts, that he can invoke an excuse. And if the parties can reach an agreement on this compensation, then the bureaucrats of the courts and of guv’mint don’t have to intervene.

    All that happened before the Conterganstiftung was set up in 1971.

    In order to exculpate both Grünenthal, which is indeed innocent in the thalidomide scandal (see Cousy), and itself, the West-German Leviathan, who is not innocent at all, in the thalidomide scandal, realised that the best way to obscure its own liability was to participate in the compensation of thalidomide monsters, or rather that in order to achieve that objective, it also had to carry the burden of the compensation, no not the burden of compensation of thalidomide monsters, but the burden of providing effective help to speed up the integration of thalidomide monsters into society (“Hilfe […] um ihre Eingliederung in die Gesellschaft zu fördern”), says section 16 of 1976 BVG judgment.

    Is Jacques H. Herbots still listening?

    By now, the then-proponents of the 1985 EEC product-liability directive must all be dead.

    By exculpating itself and Grünenthal, the West-German Leviathan could thank Grünenthal for accepting not to point the finger at Leviathan when discussing the liability for the scandal.

    Grünenthal accepted not contesting that it had the sole liability for the scandal. (Is this what is called in the USofA the argument or rather the reply, defence or admission of guilt of “nolo contendere”, which is Latin for “I do not want to contest”?)

    Just like Grünenthal did not want to contest its liability vis-à-vis the parents of some West-German thalidomide monsters with whom (the parents) it (Grünenthal) had reached agreement on some compensation.

    Grünenthal did that in order to protect the West-German Leviathan.

    Why did the prosecution fear the truth about the real culprit in the thalidomide scandal being displayed in the open?

    Good question, isn’t it?

    Sir Robert Smith “extraordinarily” said that the termination of the criminal trial against Grünenthal resulted in concealment of evidence?
    He probably didn’t realise that this concealment also concerns the real culprit in the thalidomide scandal – on the British isles –, Her Majesty’s guv’mint.
    The only way for Grünenthal to defend itself in that trial would have been to draw the court’s – the jury’s? – attention to the real culprit in the scandal – in Germany – the German Leviathan.

    By now, even Jacques H. Herbots must be dead.

    It is because
    there was, in the eyes of the prosecution, a lack of public interest in the public finding out that thalidomide had been tested and indeed banned in France before it was ever marketed, that is, before it was marketed in West-Germany,
    that by an Act of 19 December 1971 the Conterganstiftung was set up.

    The starting capital of the said Stiftung was provided jointly by the West-German Leviathan and by Grünenthal.
    The West-German Leviathan later provided more capital.
    Grünenthal later VOLUNTARILY provided some more capital.

    Most of the parents who had reached agreement with Grünenthal were not happy with this overruling by the West-German Leviathan of their agreements with Grünenthal and filed court cases.

    That’s how the case arrived first in the lower courts and finally in 1976 at the BVG which had the opportunity to explain its 1976 judgment in a 2010 judgment.

    These judgments, which, as far as I can remember (19, again), do not refer to the 1970 criminal case should be discussed in my next post.

    The third thing I will examine in my next post is, as I said towards the end of section 5 of this post, whether the Conterganstiftung can provide benefits to thalidomide monsters who have no link to Germany.

    As another or supplementary preview of that post, I can tell you, dear reader, the following:

    Until 22 March 2009, the Conterganstiftung was providing benefits to the 2’700 thalidomiders living in Germany or born in West Germany, says the bill leading to the 23 March 2009 second revision of the Conterganstiftung Act,.
    This 23 March 2009 second revision of the Conterganstiftung Act would have extended those benefits to thalidomiders not living or born in Germany, although the act does not say so explicitly – or implicitly. I am probably totally unqualified or my German is too bad, but I am unable to find in the 2009 bill that it is extraterritorially applicable to thalidomide monsters who have no link to Germany.
    As of today, or rather as of 12 March 2013, date of the bill leading to the third revision of the Conterganstiftung Act, how many monsters are, or rather were, receiving benefits from the Stiftung?

    Tension between the supporters and opponents of European integration.

    Tension between the area of freedom of the individual and the requirements of the order imposed by way of straitjacket by the welfare state.

    Tension between those who look only at the German behaviour after the thalidomide scandal and those who look also at the UK behaviour before and during the scandal.

    Enough said – for today!

    Ivo Cerckel
    ivocerckel@siquijor.ws

    NOTES

    (1)
    Brazil Scotland Thalidomide and Thomas Aquinas
    Posted by Ivo Cerckel on July 22nd, 2014
    http://bphouse.com/honest_money/2014/07/22/brazil-scotland-thalidomide-and-thomas-aquinas/

    SNIP

    Aristotle distinguishes four types of causes
    – the “material” cause is that out of which something is made; it is the intrinsic constitutive element of something (e.g., the wood of the statue)
    – the “formal” cause is the form or shape of something; it is what determines its essence to be what it is (the shape of the statue)
    – the “efficient” cause is the being in act who brings about the change (the sculptor who makes the statue)
    – the “final” cause is that for the sake of which the change takes place; it is what constitutes the perfection of the being (in the case of the statue, this is the purpose for which the statue was made).
    (Aristotle, “Metaphysics”, Book Zeta (or VII), Chapter 8. line 1033a33)

    It may be that thalidomide is the “efficient” cause,
    the being in act who brings about the change
    (Aristotle gives the example of the … sculptor who makes the … statue
    Was this example devised 25 centuries ago with thalidomide monsters in mind?)
    of the physical malformations of thalidomide monsters.

    This does not make Chemie Grünenthal GmbH, now Grünenthal GmbH, the maker of thalidomide, the “primary” cause of thalidomide monsters and of the thalidomide scandal.

    The adjective “efficient”, as in “efficient” cause, comes from Aristotle.

    The adjective “primary”, as in “primary” cause, comes from the “Book of … Causes” (“Liber de Causis”).

    Eight centuries ago, Thomas Aquinas, one of the most prominent interpreters of Aristotle, was the first to realise and to say in the “Preface” to his “Commentary” to the Book that the “De Causis” had been excerpted by one of the Arab philosophers from the work of a Neo-Platonist, the “Elements of Theology” of Proclus (412 AD – 485 AD), and thus could not be traced back to Aristotle as was generally thought.

    Aquinas adds that the Arab philosophers who excerpted the “De Causis” from Proclus reserved the subject matter with which the Book deals for the mature part of one’s life.

    The approach proposed by the Book might seem antithetical to Aquinas’s own Aristotelian conviction.

    At the end of his short life and career Aquinas managed however in his “Commentary on “The Book of Causes”” to interpret the text as complementary rather than in opposition to what he had learned from Aristotle.
    (Ralph McInerny, “Aquinas”, Cambridge UK, Oxford UK, Malden, MA: Polity, 2004, p. 19)

    For Aquinas the “Liber de Causis” is an exercise in the culminating philosophical effort, wisdom, as theology.
    (McInerny, op. cit., p. 37)

    Every primary cause infuses its effect more powerfully than does a universal second cause,
    “Omnis causa primaria plus est influens super causatum suum quam causa universalis secunda”,
    says Proposition One of the “Liber de Causis”.
    This means that when the alleged causes of a phenomenon stop existing or stop their effect, the real causes continue their effect.
    (Adriaan Pattin, “De hiërarchie van het zijnde in het “Liber de Causis””, “Tijdschrift voor Filosofie”, 23 (1961), 130, p. 140)

    Whereas the Aristotelian doctrine of efficient causality supposes that there be a “contact” between agent and patient, which contact can only be harmonised with extreme difficulty with the transcendence of divine action, the “De Causis” explains how the first Cause, while remaining separate, acts immanently in the inferior causes, supports those inferior causes, and links them to their effects.
    (Alors que la doctrine aristotélicienne de la causalité efficiente suppose un “contact” entre agent et patient, ce qui s’accorde mal avec la transcendance de l’action divine,
    le De Causis explique comment la Cause première, tout en restant séparée, agit de façon immanente dans les causes inferieures, les soutient, et les lie à leurs effets.
    (Jean-Luc Solère, “Livre des Causes”, in : “Encyclopédie Philosophique Universelle”, t. III, Paris, Presses Universitaires de France, 1992, 676, p. 678)

    (2)
    Juan Jose Sanguineti, “Logic”, Manila, Sinag-Tala Publishers, (first published in 1982 in Spanish by the Ediciones Universidad de Navarra), 1992, p. 131

    (3)
    Andrew H. Bachhuber, S.J., “Logic”, New York, Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1957, p. 74

    (4)
    Bachhuber. op. cit., p. 75

    (5)
    François Chenique, “Éléments de Logique Classique – L’art de penser, de juger et de raisonner”, Paris, L’Harmattan, 2006, 2nd ed., p. 200
    SNIP
    Par une déduction correcte, on peut inférer de la contradictoire du conséquent à la contradictoire de l’antécedent.

    (6)
    Herman Cousy,
    “The Precautionary Principle: A Status Questionis”, in:
    “The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance – Issues and Practice”,
    1996, 158
    https://www.genevaassociation.org/media/231494/ga1996_gp21%2879%29-cousy.pdf
    p. 163, footnote 28:
    “28 Anyway, if the restrictive interpretation is upheld, the number of actual cases may turn out to he extremely rare. It will indeed not happen very often that the dangerous potentials of a product or activity are completely unknown. One often cites the Thalidomide (Contergan) case as an example of a development risk situation, although it appears that when Thalidomide was brought onto the German market, the product had been banned in France. Can it be readily upheld, under such circumstances, that the conditions for a “development risk” situation were fulfiled?”

    (7)
    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
    link does no longer work
    copied here
    http://www.fourwinds10.net/siterun_data/health/harmful_products/news.php?q=1234215547
    SNIP
    One document […] shows that Grunenthal apparently purchased the trade name of the drug – Contergan – and therefore probably the substance itself, from a French firm, Rhone-Poulenc, which was under Nazi control during the war years.

    (8)
    Sanguineti, op. cit, p. 132

    (9)
    UPyD se reúne con la Asociación de Víctimas de la Talidomida en España
    30 octubre, 2014|
    http://weblogs.upyd.es/europa/2014/10/30/upyd-se-reune-con-la-asociacion-de-victimas-de-la-talidomida-en-espana/

    En determinadas semanas del año (las conocidas como “semanas verdes”) los eurodiputados trabajan en sus respectivos Estados Miembros. Son días que en UPyD se aprovechan para rendir cuentas ante los ciudadanos y para establecer contactos con distintas asociaciones y colectivos de la sociedad civil.

    Beatriz Becerra se reúne con la Asociación de Víctimas de la Talidomida en España (AVITE)
    En este contexto la eurodiputada Beatriz Becerra se reunió con la Asociación de Víctimas de la Talidomida en España (AVITE). Los contactos ya se habían iniciado antes de la cita, puesto que la asociación se planteaba emprender acciones en el Parlamento Europeo. Becerra, que efectúa un especial seguimiento en todo lo relacionado con las políticas de salud pública de la Unión, ha anunciado que impulsará y agilizará las actuaciones desde la Comisión de Peticiones (de la que es miembro, además de coordinadora del Grupo de la Alianza de Liberales y Demócratas por Europa – ALDE). Se está planteando que la petición la presenten víctimas de la talidomida de distintos Estados Miembros para así plantearlo como una cuestión “de desigualdad de trato, ya que hay un número de agraviados que no reciben nada. El tiempo juega en contra de ellos, ya que los afectados tienen ya más de 50 años y sus condiciones de vida son cada vez peores”.

    Existen grandes disparidades en el trato a las víctimas de la talidomida entre los Estados Miembros. En España, de hecho, no tienen ningún tipo de indemnización, mientras que en países como Alemania tienen una pensión vitalicia. UPyD ya impulsó desde el Congreso de los Diputados en la pasada legislatura iniciativas para que se pusiera una solución a este colectivo.

    Entre otras cuestiones, están planteando que dicha petición sea presentado por víctimas de la talidomida de varios países. “Se podría plantear una cuestión común de desigualdad de trato, ya que hay un número de agraviados que no reciben nada y que además, en el caso de España, se les ha arrinconado durante años. El tiempo juega en contra de ellos, ya que los afectados tienen ya más de 50 años y sus condiciones de vida son cada vez peores”, ha señalado.

    GOOGLE TRANSLATES AS FOLLOWS:

    UPyD meets with the Association of Victims of Thalidomide in Spain
    October 30, 2014 |

    MEP UPyD Beatriz Becerra has held meetings with various groups and associations in the development of their “constituency week.”

    In certain weeks of the year (known as “green weeks”) MEPs working in their respective Member States. These are days that are exploited to UPyD accountable to the citizens and to establish contacts with various associations and groups in civil society.

    Beatriz Becerra joins the Association of Victims of Thalidomide in Spain (Avite)
    In this context MEP Beatriz Becerra met with the Association of Victims of Thalidomide in Spain (Avite). The contacts were already underway before the appointment, since the association take action raised in the European Parliament. Becerra, who made a special tracking everything related to the public health policy of the Union, has announced that it will promote and expedite the proceedings from the Petitions Committee (of which he is a member, as well as coordinator of the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe – ALDE). It is considering that the petition presented thalidomide victims from different Member States so I put it as a matter “of unequal treatment, as there are a number of injured parties get nothing. Time plays against them, because sufferers are over 50 years old and living conditions are getting worse. ”

    There are wide disparities in the treatment of victims of thalidomide among Member States. In Spain, in fact, do not have any compensation, while in countries like Germany have a pension. UPyD and drove from the House of Representatives in the last term initiatives for a collective solution to this is put.

    Among other issues, they are suggesting that such request is filed by victims of thalidomide in several countries. “You could raise a common question of unequal treatment, as there are a number of injured parties get nothing and also, in the case of Spain, has cornered them for years. Time plays against them, because sufferers are over 50 years old and living conditions are getting worse, “he noted.

    (10)
    van Ebola en Softenon naar Maggie De Block en Koen Geens
    Posted by Ivo Cerckel on October 20th, 2014
    http://bphouse.com/honest_money/2014/10/20/van-ebola-en-softenon-naar-maggie-de-block-en-koen-geens-2/

    (11)
    VÍCTIMAS DE LA TALIDOMIDA PIDEN UNA REUNIÓN URGENTE CON EL FISCAL DEL ESTADO
    24/10/2014 – http://www.teinteresa.es, MADRID
    http://www.teinteresa.es/espana/VICTIMAS-TALIDOMIDA-REUNION-URGENTE-FISCAL_0_1235876961.html
    SNIP
    En relación al comunicado emitido por Grünenthal tras conocerse la resolución de la Audiencia Provincial de Madrid, argumentando que cualquier afectado español podía solicitar las ayudas de la fundación alemana Contergan, Avite asegura que en el formulario de solicitud se piden “pruebas del consumo de talidomida de su marca, la receta y el frasco original que tomó la madre hace 50 años”.
    “Cuando no se les aporta, te contestan diciendo que no has presentado ni el frasco ni la receta, y deniegan cualquier ayuda”, dicen en Avite, que también denuncia que la fundación alemana “obliga a todos los solicitantes de ayuda a firmar primero una renuncia formal a no demandar nunca a la farmacéutica Grünenthal”. “¿Quién dirige esta fundación, Grünenthal o el Estado alemán?”, se preguntan las víctimas.
    Entre el 10 y el 13 de noviembre, una representación de Avite acudirá al Parlamento Europeo junto a afectados de otros países europeos para “destapar pruebas incontestables de esta catástrofe”. “Vamos a buscar fuera de nuestras fronteras el apoyo político que se nos niega aquí”, afirman.

    (12)
    Desde mi pecera
    Párate a pensar
    28.10.2014 | 04:00 Juan Antonio Megas
    http://www.laopiniondemurcia.es/opinion/2014/10/28/parate-pensar/599713.html
    SNIPS
    [INSERT] Tal vez sea una invencible razón económica y legal la que impide que el Estado indemnice a la víctimas de la Talidomida. Pero legales o económicas, de conveniencia o de vértigo umbilical, ninguna de ellas es una razón justa.
    +
    Tal vez haya sido un razonamiento irreprochable desde el punto de vista legal el que ha llevado a los jueces a anular la sentencia. Tal vez haya sido también una razón legal impecable la que ha mantenido al Ministerio Fiscal en silencio durante todos estos años. Tal vez sea una invencible razón económica y legal la que impide que el Estado indemnice a la víctimas de la Talidomida. Pero legales o económicas, de conveniencia o de vértigo umbilical, ninguna de ellas es una razón justa.

    (13)
    Historical Criticism, Thalidomide, Statutes of Limitations and Prescription – Update 1.0
    Posted by Ivo Cerckel on October 23rd, 2014
    http://bphouse.com/honest_money/2014/10/23/historical-criticism-thalidomide-statutes-of-limitations-and-prescription/

    SNIP

    On 20 November 2013, the Judge of First Instance number 90 of Madrid ordered the manufacturer of thalidomide, the private limited company now known now known as Grünenthal GmbH, known fifty years ago as Chemie Grünenthal GmbH. hereafter Grünenthal, to pay 20’000 euro for each percentage point of disability of the victims as recognised by Spain’s Health Ministry.
    (Spanish Thalidomide Victims obtain Judgment against Innocent Party
    Posted by Ivo Cerckel on November 22nd, 2013
    http://bphouse.com/honest_money/2013/11/22/spanish-thalidomide-victims-obtain-judgment-against-innocent-party-3/

    The judge did not consider it necessary to inquire into the tort which Grünenthal would have committed.
    No, Grünenthal produces an unsafe medicine, therefore it is liable for tort damages.
    What tort? No reply.

    In its 20 December 2013 appeal against this decision to Madrid’s Provincial Court, Grünenthal had three main arguments. One, the original plaintiffs do not prove that their malformations are due to thalidomide. Two, their claims are so old that “a valid judgment is impossible”. Three, the plaintiffs can obtain allowances from the German Thalidomide Foundation, Conterganstiftung.
    (Grünenthal recurre la indemnización a los afectados por la talidomida en España
    SMS News
    20 de diciembre, 2013 10:41 AM
    http://www.ksmstv.com/2013/12/20/grunenthal-recurre-la-indemnizacion-a-los-afectados-por-la-talidomida-en-espana/
    Grünenthal apeló el fallo judicial, emitido el 20 de noviembre, por considerar que AVITE no aportó “las pruebas imprescindibles” para justificar sus reclamaciones y no probó que las malformaciones estuvieran causadas por el producto distribuido por el esta farmacéutica.
    El laboratorio alemán invocó el principio de prescripción de las acciones legales, al entender que, después de cincuenta años, “un juicio válido resulta imposible”.
    El laboratorio resaltó que los afectados españoles con malformaciones atribuibles a un producto de talidomida distribuido porGrünenthal pueden solicitar ayudas a la Fundación Contergan.)
    On Wednesday 22 October 2014, Madrid’s Provincial Court ruled that the claims of the original plaintiffs were prescribed, thereby overturning the condemnation of Grünenthal by the Judge of First Instance.
    (German Firm Wins Appeal in Spain Thalidomide Case
    MADRID — Oct 22, 2014, 10:54 AM ET
    http://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/german-firm-wins-appeal-spain-thalidomide-case-26367275
    SNIP
    Madrid’s provincial court said the statute of limitations for the plaintiffs’ case had expired.
    +
    Gruenenthal said in a statement the “the court confirms that the plaintiffs weren’t able to prove their claims and that fair proceedings aren’t possible after more than 50 years. ” It added that there existed “effective and established options for people harmed by products containing thalidomide to get financial support from Gruenenthal or its distributors. ”
    UNSNIP
    Ivo: the article is from Associated Press (AP), an American news agency, and is thus intended for an American audience and thus speaks of a “statute of limitations” instead of “prescription”.)

    (14)
    Michael McCann MP Demands Thalidomide Justice
    Posted on October 31, 2014
    http://www.michaelmccann.org.uk/?s=thalidomide&submit=Go
    http://www.michaelmccann.org.uk/michael-mccann-mp-demands-thalidomide-justice/
    SNIPS
    Afterwards, Michael, MP for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow, said: “I want justice for Gerry!
    “The German Government, a supposed ally, has consistently displayed behaviour more in common with an organised crime syndicate than that of a sovereign state.
    +
    “I believe the German Government’s inexplicable decision to end the case against Grunewald was itself a criminal act and I have written to Dr Merkel on Gerry’s behalf to demand that she acknowledges this and does something about it.”

    (15)
    MP calls on Germany to help Thalidomide survivors
    4 November 2014
    https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/news/politics/westminster/390117/mp-calls-on-germany-to-help-thalidomide-survivors/
    SNIPS
    An MP has called on German Chancellor Angela Merkel to help compensate north-east survivors of the Thalidomide scandal.
    Sir Robert Smith, who represents West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine, met Stonehaven resident Laura Beeton and her son Owen Thomson at a reception for survivors in Westminster.
    +
    The criminal trial of the German manufacturer Grunenthal was terminated in 1970, resulting in concealment of evidence from parents in the UK and lower court settlements for effected families.

    (16)
    Chronik des Contergan-Falls: Tragödie – Katastrophe – Skandal?
    http://www1.wdr.de/themen/archiv/sp_contergan/contergan176.html
    SNIP
    15. November 1961:
    Der Hamburger Kinderarzt und Humangenetiker Widukind Lenz unterrichtet den Forschungsleiter der Firma Grünenthal telefonisch, dass er Contergan verdächtigt, bei der Einnahme während der Schwangerschaft zu Kindesmissbildungen zu führen. Lenz fordert, alle Thalidomid-Präparate aus dem Handel zu nehmen.

    (17)
    The History of Thalidomide
    by Dr. Widukind Lenz May 27, 1968,
    http://www.thalidomide.ca/history-of-thalidomide/
    SNIP
    The first accusations against Chemie Gruenenthal reached the public prosecutors office at the country court of Aachen by the end of 1961. By 1968 the bill of indictment comprising 972 pages was completed, based on some 500,000 documents. On May 27, 1968, a criminal law suit was started by the public prosecutor against seven men of Chemie Gruenenthal. The case was that they had put on sale a drug which caused an unacceptable degree of bodily harm without having tested it properly, and that they had failed to react to information on side effects in due time, and instead had tried to suppress information.

    (18)
    Contergan und die schrecklichen Folgen
    http://www.wochenblatt.de/nachrichten/schwandorf/ueberregionales/Contergan-und-die-schrecklichen-Folgen;art5580,79583
    SNIP
    Am 18. Dezember 1970, dem 283. Verhandlungstag, stellte das Gerichte das Strafverfahren wegen geringfügiger Schuld der Angeklagten und mangelnden öffentlichen Interesses an der Strafverfolgung ein.

    (19)
    I analysed and discussed the 08 July 1976 BVG judgment and the 26 February 2010 BVG judgment in case 1541/09
    IN ENGLISH
    on the “Question Disputées” forum on le “Grand Portail Philosophie Saint Thomas Thomas” under this post:

    “25e anniversaire : Joseph Wresinski, celui qui remue la vie”
    Auteur: mandonnaud
    Date: 14-02-2013 10:39
    http://www.thomas-aquin.net/PHPhorum/read.php?f=6&i=57642&t=57175

    Scroll down under this post until you arrive at my replies, first in French, then in English.

    Leave a Reply

    XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>