Bill Gates „Trotz der globalen Erwärmung gibt es immer noch genug Nahrung. Die Begrenzung der Bevölkerungszahl und des Nahrungsmittelangebots wird es uns ermöglichen, mit größerer Zuversicht in die Zukunft zu blicken.
Die Produktion anderer landwirtschaftlicher Produkte als Nahrungsmittel muss bis 2030 eingestellt werden.“
Ein Artikel von: Redaktion
Hier finden Sie einen Überblick über interessante Beiträge aus anderen Medien und Veröffentlichungen. Wenn Sie auf “weiterlesen” klicken, öffnet sich das Angebot und Sie können sich aussuchen, was Sie lesen wollen. (AT)
Wir weisen darauf hin, dass die jeweiligen Anbieter für die Barrierefreiheit ihrer Angebote selbst verantwortlich sind und es durchaus sein kann, dass der Zugang von zunächst freien Inhalten nach einer Zeit beschränkt wird.
Hier die Übersicht; Sie können mit einem Klick aufrufen, was Sie interessiert:
Ein Artikel von Frank Blenz
Ein jüngerer Kommentar des öffentlich-rechtlichen Deutschlandfunks (DLF) zu den fortlaufenden und berechtigten Protesten gegen den US-Autobauer Tesla in Grünheide weckte bei mir wegen eines einzigen Wortes, unscheinbar und dennoch absichtsvoll platziert, ehrliches Unbehagen und fortgesetzte Sorge: Antiamerikanismus. Das Wort lässt sich in die Liste von Begriffen einsortieren, die meinungsführende Medien und die herrschende politische Klasse samt Gefolgschaft benutzen, die im Grundgesetz verbriefte Meinungsfreiheit zu reglementieren, einzuschränken und dabei unter dem Deckmantel Demokratie die eigenen Interessen gegen Widerstände und Einwände durchzusetzen. Das gehört sich ja nicht, gegen eine große Idee aufzubegehren. Wer will schon anti sein, gar antiamerikanisch? Ein Kommentar von Frank Blenz.
Dieser Beitrag ist auch als Audio-Podcast verfügbar.
Audio-Player
00:00
00:00
Pfeiltasten Hoch/Runter benutzen, um die Lautstärke zu regeln.
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Amerikanismus ist Nationalismus
Amerikanismus, fangen wir damit an, ist wohl – dem Kommentar zum Verständnis nahekommend – das Gegenteil von Antiamerikanismus und der zutreffende Begriff für amerikanischen Nationalismus. Nationalismus klingt eindeutig nach einer Richtung, nach Macht, nach Ausgrenzung, nach Intoleranz gegenüber nicht Nationalem. Wer als Deutscher antiamerikanisch ist, findet es nicht gut, was unter der Firmierung Nationalismus made in USA hierzulande passiert. Das aber darf nicht sein, und so kritisiert der deutsche Radiosender Deutschlandfunk (DLF) das Verhalten als „anti“. Nein, nein, nein, wo kommen wir da hin? Die Reihen sollen geschlossen sein, koste es, was es wolle.
Kommentator ganz auf Linie, auch das Wort „Fakten“ feiert Konjunktur
Immerhin gibt der Kommentator zu, dass Kritik berechtigt ist – also die, dass man ein riesiges Autowerk, das zudem entgegen anfänglichen Plänen nun weiter und weiter ausgebaut werden soll, in ein Naturschutzgebiet platziert wurde. Weiter geht die DLF-Kritik nicht, weniger Emotionen bitte, sagt er und teilt weiter aus. Was ich als Bürger heraushöre, das ist schlicht: Wer gegen amerikanische Interessen ist, wer den Stempel „Tesla-Gegnerschaft“ trägt (auch so ein kräftiges Wort der Ausgrenzung), der ist antiamerikanisch. Das Verhalten gehört in die Schublade Antiamerikanismus, das Gegenteil von US-Nationalismus. Warum sollten jedoch Deutsche US-national sein?
Der Verdacht liegt nah: Bei der Tesla-Gegnerschaft hat man es auch mit einer gehörigen Prise Anti-Amerikanismus zu tun. Und wichtig wäre in der Tesla-Debatte daher: mehr Fakten, weniger Emotionen.
(Quelle: deutschlandfunk.de)
Der amerikanische Traum – wenn man aufwacht, erlebt man einen enttäuschenden Alltag
Zur bildlich romantischen Erinnerung: Das imposante Raumschiff Gigafactory des US-amerikanischen Elektroautobauers Tesla ist vor nicht allzu langer Zeit in der brandenburgischen Provinz nahe unserer Hauptstadt Berlin gelandet. Viel beachtet, heftig gelobt, hofiert und innig ersehnt (von denjenigen, die stabile Jobs und gute, solide Steuern made in USA versprachen), brachte der US-Chef, der mächtige, super-super-reiche Macher Elon Musk einen bunten Strauß visionär scheinender, verheißungsvoller Verheißungen, Versprechungen und cooler Slogans mit.
Und selbst noch bei ersten, vorsichtigen, ja schüchtern geäußerten Bedenken der Einheimischen, etwa wegen des (von Anfang an) offensichtlichen Problems mit dem (Trink)Wasser, lächelte der wundersame (nicht wundervolle) Sunnyboy Elon dies in lässig amerikanischer Art weg – so, wie das der deutsche und brave Otto Normalverbraucher halt mag. Musk fachsimpelte in die vielen Kameras und Mikrofone, Wasser, Bäume, Natur gäbe es in Brandenburg genug, anders als in der Wüste in Amerika … LOL (lautes Lachen, Ironie aus).
Doch dann? Nach der schrillen, falsch-frohen Opener-Party, nach den vielen brachialen und teils zweifelhaften Baumaßnahmen, nach mehr und mehr Tatsachen schaffen à la Musk und nach den ersten rabiaten Entlassungen einst hoffnungsvoller Mitarbeiter stellen sich die jetzige Katerstimmung, die Ernüchterung bei den Betroffenen einschließlich der Frage ein: Was haben wir uns hier für einen Vogel ins Nest geholt?
Viele Menschen in der Region geben sich selbst die Antwort, die ihnen die Politiker und die tonangebenden Medien nicht geben: Musk ist einfach nur ein skrupelloser Turbokapitalismus-Mann, der aufzuhalten und zu mäßigen wäre, wenn die deutschen „Partner“, die Politik, die Medien wirklich im Interesse der vielen Menschen der Region agieren würden. Ein wenig deutscher Nationalismus vielleicht? Doch was geschieht? Den Kritikern des Amerikaners bläst der fremdnationale Wind entgegen. Amerikanismus vor.
Zu Ausdrücken wie „Leugnerszene“ gesellt sich ein neuer Begriff
So erscheint das Wort Antiamerikanismus neu im Spiel der Medienbegriffe. Das Wort ist im jetzigen Kontext ebenfalls ein Abstempelungsbegriff und ganz bestimmt kein Lobeswort für denjenigen, der damit in Verbindung gebracht und abgestempelt wird. Wie kann man aber auch in diesen Zeiten nicht amerikanisch sein wollen, also dem großen Freund, Befehlshaber, Tonangeber, Strippenzieher, Modemacher, der Stilikone, den Führungskräften des auserwählten Volkes hinterm Teich, mehr noch, dem Führer der westlichen Welt samt all der coolen Werte nicht folgen wollen? Wer US-amerikanisches Handeln kritisiert, ist antiamerikanisch. Basta. Doch hier ist Einspruch einzulegen: Nein, es geht um das Handeln der Amis, nicht darum, amerikanisch sein.
Der Stempel gibt es viele. Früher standen auf den Schreibtischen in den Kontoren unseres Landes praktisch modellierte Halterungen, an denen Stempel in allen Größen und Heftigkeiten (Bezeichnungen von erledigt, vollzogen usw.) hingen. Auf dem Stempelkissen mit Tinte leicht und gekonnt von den Beamten angetippt, drückten diese den Stempel saftig für den folgenden Abdruck auf Papier, um es amtlich gültig zu machen.
Heute: „Antiamerikanisch“, „Schwurbler“, „umstritten“, „putinfreundlich“, „Querdenker“, „antisemitistisch“, „kriegsmüde“. Die Halterungen für Stempel sind in den Redaktionen und Amtsstuben der politischen Klasse ziemlich gut gefüllt – und das im Jahr des Jubiläums des Grundgesetzes. Die Verfassung wird als Schatz für uns alle bezeichnet, im Jubiläumsjahr gefeiert und gelobt. Dass das Grundgesetz während der vergangenen Jahre zeitweise beinah überflüssig und/oder per Pausentaste in einen Tiefschlaf versetzt wurde, passt in die heutige, weiter kritische Lage als eine Folge dieser Zeit.
Zwar wird permanent das Wort Demokratie in den Mund genommen, doch erleben Menschen Tag für Tag, dass Demokratie vor allem ein Werkzeug für die ist, die letztlich entscheiden. Es heißt so schön: „Wir können ja mal drüber reden.“ „Ihr könnt auch mal protestieren, aber ja immer friedlich, zahm – und dann geht es wieder nach Hause.“ Ja und dann? Dann machen wir es so, wie z.B. Tesla und andere große „Demokraten“ es wollen.
An der Ostsee erleben die dort lebenden Menschen, die gegen Flüssiggas-Terminals vor ihrer Küste protestieren, dass diese dennoch errichtet werden, dass entgegen aller Zusagen nun doch US-amerikanisches Fracking-Gas herangeschippert wird. Sorry. In Berlin konnten die Bürger abstimmen, wie sie wollten – ihr erfolgreiches, demokratisches Votum für eine Vergesellschaftung großen, privaten Wohneigentums können sie in die Tonne treten. Die Liste für derlei Verständnis von Demokratie – sie ist sehr lang.
Kritik an US-Aktivitäten wichtig und richtig
Es bleibt dabei: Wenn man gegen US-Fracking-Gas, gegen einen ungebremsten Ausbau einer Gigafactory ist, wenn man sich nicht wohlfühlt, wenn der deutsche Bundeskanzler neben dem US-Präsidenten nicht auf Augenhöhe behandelt wird – dann ist das nicht antiamerikanisch. Dann ist das demokratisch.
Titelbild: Tobias Arhelger/shutterstock.com
We are witnessing as I speak a train of events that is extraordinary – perhaps utterly scandalous would be a far better word. I wish to draw your attention to it.
A serious attempt is being made at the level of the United Nations to blank out the genocide that occurred in Croatia from 1941 to 1945, during World War II.
That genocide is the subject matter of this conference.
The suppression of that event from public awareness is being done perfidiously. They are not overtly comparing a slaughter of the magnitude of Jasenovac to another, lesser event.
They are trying to ignore Jasenovac altogether, or “cancel” it in contemporary parlance. I am referring of course to the Srebrenica resolution now before the General Assembly of the United Nations. It misrepresents and by disgusting virtue signalling purports to “memorialise” a phony, politically fabricated genocide whilst ignoring a genuine genocide that actually did take place in the recent past and in relative geographical proximity to Srebrenica.
If highlighting a Balkan genocide for the purpose of universal condemnation had been the real concern of the sponsors of the UN resolution, they would not have chosen as their focus a highly dubious example which pales by comparison to a genocide that is unquestionably real. Such a genocide occurred in Croatia, and you come together every year to pay homage to its victims. It is symbolised by the death camp of Jasenovac.
I do not intend to offer any legal or historical arguments concerning the genocide in Croatia during World War II, leaving that task to other presenters who will be speaking today. Instead, I will narrowly focus on the issue of Srebrenica which the global political establishment holds to be a starker example of genocide than even Jasenovac. Does Srebrenica qualify as a genocide and can it legitimately replace Jasenovac as the paradigmatic Balkan genocide?
Ustaše militia executing people over a mass grave near Jasenovac concentration camp (From the Public Domain)
In the mind of the globalist political establishment, that precisely appears to be the case. In their propagandistically reconfigured version of reality, Srebrenica indeed overshadows the massive slaughter of several hundred thousand innocent civilians in Jasenovac. It makes no difference to them that the slaughter in Croatia fully satisfies the criteria laid down in the Genocide Convention. Nor does it matter that it was committed with amply documented intent to exterminate all Serbs, Jews, and Roma within reach, to destroy the ethnic and religious communities to which the victims belonged.
The approach I will take to examine whether Srebrenica was a genocide comparable to Jasenovac, or to any other example of a real genocide that could be cited, is by stating a number of hard data points. As you undoubtedly know, a hard data point is a fact that is established, indisputable, and relevant for assessing the truth of a claim. Anyone asserting a contrary position is free to do so, but he must explain such a hard data point and harmonise it with the substance of his claim.
The essence of the Srebrenica genocide controversy, in the legal and political sense, is whether there is evidence of intent to exterminate the Muslim community.
Exhumations in Srebrenica, 1996 (Photograph provided courtesy of the ICTY.)
Absent provable genocidal intent, or dolus specialis, the loss of life in Srebrenica may be regretted and condemned but it cannot be raised to the level of genocide. The defining characteristic of genocide is the intent to physically destroy one of the categories of persons, ethnic, religious, or racial, protected under the Genocide Convention. That is not in dispute. All professionals are aware of that and accept it.
If we assume that the ripening of the genocidal design and the logistical preparations for its execution take a certain minimum period of time, it is reasonable to ask at what point and at what temporal distance from the events was genocidal intent established in Srebrenica, if it ever existed?
That is the first hard data point to which I wish to draw your attention. Testifying in November of 2001 before the Srebrenica Inquiry Commission of the French Parliament, the chief investigator of the Hague Tribunal, Jean-Rene Ruez gave the following answer to the question put to him by the Commission, whether it was true that prior to 9 July, 1995, which is two days before Serbian forces entered Srebrenica, there had been no plan to overrun the enclave, in spite of the fact that it was of great strategic significance to the Bosnian Serbs. Ruez responded as follows:
“In fact, the decision to seize the enclave had not been taken before 9 July, when General Mladic realised that it would not be defended. The initial objective was for the enclave to be narrowed down to the city limits of Srebrenica … “ [1]
This is an extremely significant admission to the effect that the Serbian side had no intention of even capturing Srebrenica prior to 9 July. Ruez’s assessment is based on documents to which Ruez had access in his capacity as the Hague Tribunal’s chief investigator. That is why Ruez’s statement may be considered a reliably proven fact.
If we bear in mind that the alleged genocide in Srebrenica took place between 13 and 17 July, this fact is of capital significance, coming from a knowledgeable source within the Hague Tribunal. It means that the intent to physically destroy the population of Srebrenica, or a part of it, could not have existed before 9 July, whilst the alleged genocide is said to have been conceived and launched only four days later.
The next hard data fact is provided by the military expert for the Prosecution of the Hague Tribunal, Richard Butler. His testimony concerning the sequence of events also is against the interest of the institution which he served, which enhances its credibility.
Testifying as a Prosecution witness in a Sarajevo Srebrenica trial in 2010[2] Butler furnished important information which bears on the issue of genocidal intent. As a prosecution expert, Butler also had access to the most sensitive and relevant documents. In that capacity, he testified that at least up to 11 July he had found no hint of the existence of a plan to exterminate Srebrenica Muslims. That is the date when Serbian forces took control of the enclave. Ruez’s chronology is therefore moved forward by Butler by at least two more days, confirming that there was no evidence that on the Serbian side anyone was planning to commit genocide even forty-eight hours before the imputed crime began to occur.
How could immensely complex logistical preparations for a killing operation of such magnitude be made at such short notice?
Other assertions made by Butler during his testimony make the existence of a genocidal plan equally dubious.
First, Butler confirms Ruez’s view that the original aim of the Serbian military operation was only to reduce the UN protected enclave to Srebrenica city limits.
Secondly, he confirms that Karadzić issued the order for Serbian forces to enter Srebrenica only on 10 July, a day before that actually happened.
That suggests that the takeover of the enclave was an improvised decision taken on the spur-of-the-moment and in light of the success of the military operation up to that point and was not part of a premeditated plan to capture the Muslim population in order to exterminate it. Third, Butler testified that he was “not aware” of the Serbian side shooting at civilians after 11 July, when Srebrenica was overrun and the operation ended, which is unusual behaviour for people with genocidal intent. Fourth, with regard to the deportation of the civilian population of Srebrenica, Butler testified under cross-examination that “there is no evidence in the documents” of prior planning to capture the enclave before the morning of 11 July, when the decision to enter Srebrenica was taken, so there could not have been a prior deportation plan either. Finally, Butler agreed under cross-examination that in the ranks of the Army of the Republic of Srpska there was no expectation that prisoners might be harmed “even up to 12 or 13 July.”
The critical question is whether this chronology of events, as described by some of the most knowledgeable Hague Tribunal Prosecution experts, can be harmonised with the proposition that the political and military leadership of the Republic of Srpska attacked Srebrenica with the intent to physically exterminate the Muslim population as such, as an ethnic or religious community? The Genocide Convention requires proof of such intention for the crime of genocide to be charged.
You decide.
Viewed from such a perspective, and that is my next hard data point, the questions raised by the distinguished Canadian legal scholar and expert for genocide, William Schabas, are eminently reasonable. Schabas asked:
“Can there not be other plausible explanations for the destruction of 7,000 men and boys in Srebrenica? Could they not have been targeted precisely because they were of military age, and thus actual or potential combatants? Would someone truly bent upon the physical destruction of a group, and cold-blooded enough to murder more than 7,000 defenceless men and boys, go to the trouble of organizing transport so that women, children, and the elderly could be evacuated?”[3]
Again, you decide.
With regard to the extent of human losses sustained by the Muslim population of Srebrenica in July of 1995, there is general agreement amongst all the authorities that on the day Srebrenica changed hands, 11 July, 1995, the population in the enclave was about 40,000. But we have another relevant hard data point, and that is the summary report of the UN Command in nearby Tuzla, dated 4 August, 1995. It is stated there that as of that day UN personnel in Tuzla had registered 35,632 refugees who had arrived in Tuzla from the enclave of Srebrenica. This document serves as a key marker of the demographic changes between 11 July and 4 August, 1995. It strongly suggests that the total losses from all causes sustained by the population of Srebrenica could not have exceeded 4,500. That is about half the figure that is commonly claimed.
Image: An agricultural knife nicknamed “Srbosjek” or “Serbcutter”, strapped to the hand. It was used by the Ustaše militia for the speedy killing of inmates at Jasenovac (From the Public Domain)
The next hard data point is the generally accepted fact that in July 1995 there were two significant causes of human losses amongst the population of the enclave. One was execution of prisoners of war, the other was combat deaths sustained by the mixed military/civilian column of the Muslim armed forces which was conducting a breakout from Srebrenica to the nearest territory under Sarajevo government control in Tuzla. In international law, execution of prisoners is a punishable war crime. Combat losses however are not subject to criminal prosecution. The Hague Tribunal has accepted the validity of that distinction and that is why it never indicted anyone for inflicting casualties on the retreating Muslim military column.
Estimates of legal combat losses sustained by the column during the break-out vary, but in every instance they are significant. The Hague Tribunal military expert Richard Butler estimates those losses at between 2,000 and 4,000, the UN military observer in Bosnia Carlos Martins Branco puts them at around 2,000. According to US intelligence officer John Schindler who was stationed in Sarajevo about 5,000 Srebrenica military-capable males were killed in combat after 11 July. EU peace negotiator Karl Bildt’s estimate is about 4,000, whilst the UN in their assessment of combat losses put the figure at 3,000. Because of the chaotic conditions there obviously is no precision in these estimates, but they give you a sense of the order of magnitude of post 11 July legitimate combat losses. To repeat, the infliction of these casualties is not a violation of the laws of war, there is no criminal liability attached to them, and these losses cannot be considered victims of genocide.
The remaining issue is how many execution victims could there have been. Execution of prisoners is a crime against humanity but please note that unless other conditions also apply even that is not sufficient to show that genocide was committed.
Between 1996 and 2001 forensic teams sent out by the Office of the Prosecutor of the Hague Tribunal conducted exhumations of mass graves suspected of being associated with the executions of Muslim prisoners. They processed and classified 3,568 cases. Their forensic analysis, supported by detailed autopsy reports, presented the following picture:
For the remaining cases, Prosecution forensic experts were unable to determine the cause of death.
Thus, the Srebrenica forensic picture is very diverse. It is not generally consistent with execution, as one would expect to find that it would be if the official account were true. That is a very important additional hard data point which the proponents of the death count of 8,000 must explain.
Finally, and with this I conclude my factual review, Hague Tribunal verdicts are highly inconsistent with regard to the actual number of execution victims.
In the Krstić verdict, the Chamber claimed that “7,000 to 8,000” were executed. In the Popović case the Chamber said that “at least 5,336 individuals were executed after the fall of Srebrenica.” In the Tolimir case the Chamber found that there were “4,970 executed victims.”
All those incompatible figures are final, being stated in the appellate judgments of the cases to which they refer. These diverse body counts are all based on essentially the same corpus of evidence, which did not vary substantially from one Srebrenica trial to another. Besides being drastically different amongst themselves, they also significantly exceed the empirical findings of the Prosecution’s own forensic experts.
Once again, you be the jury and assess the credibility of these inconsistent claims.
A quarter century after the event, I would submit that the toxic Srebrenica narrative is significantly more lethal than anything that actually occurred in July 1995.
Firstly, Srebrenica has served as the basis of the murderous Right to Protect doctrine which the collective West has abused to attack, devastate, and plunder a series of countries, beginning with the attack on Yugoslavia in 1999, followed by the military destruction and occupation of Iraq, Libya, Syria, Afghanistan, and a number of other countries. The human cost of this global aggression unleashed using Srebrenica as the pretext so far has been about two million, ironically mostly Muslim lives. The official Srebrenica narrative served as the rationalization for the killing of at least 100 times more human beings than the number of lives presumably lost in Srebrenica in July 1995.
It is scarcely necessary to point out that the fostering of the official Srebrenica narrative, which may soon be enshrined in a UN resolution, is provoking permanent enmity between the Orthodox and Muslims, the two largest constituent groups in Bosnia and Herzegovina. One suspects that this animosity perfectly suits the globalist political agenda. Mutual distrust and hatred amongst the local population makes it possible for foreign interests to extend their presence and tutorship indefinitely and keep that strategically important part of Europe permanently under their control.
The sacralisation of the Srebrenica narrative as the contemporary model of genocide and the simultaneous suppression of Jasenovac, which by contrast fully qualifies as the true legal and moral standard by which to measure that heinous crime, is sad testimony to the disarray that prevails in the post-truth world in which we are trapped. All the more reason for both the Jasenovac Research Institute and Srebrenica Historical Project to press on with their noble task and never give up.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Stephen Karganovic is president of “Srebrenica Historical Project,” an NGO registered in the Netherlands to investigate the factual matrix and background of events that took place in Srebrenica in July of 1995. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.
Notes
[1] RAPPORT D’INFORMATION No. 3413, National Assembly of France, 22 November 2001, p. 43.
[2] State Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, War crimes division, Prosecutor v. Pelemiš at al., X-KR-08/602, 22 March 2010.
[3] William A. Schabas, “Was Genocide Committed in Bosnia and Herzegovina? First Judgments of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia,” Fordham Journal of International Law, Vol. 25, No. 23, 2001-2002, p. 46.
Featured image is from the Public Domain
Rethinking SrebrenicaBy Stephen Karganovic
Rethinking Srebrenica examines the forensic evidence of the alleged Srebrenica “massacre” possessed by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) in The Hague. Even though the ICTY created more than 3,500 autopsy reports, many of these autopsy reports were based on bone fragments, which do not represent complete bodies. An examination of the matching femur bones found reveals that there were only about 1,900 complete bodies that were exhumed. Of these, some 1,500 autopsy reports indicated a cause of death consistent with battlefield casualties. Only about 400 autopsy reports indicated execution as a cause of death, as revealed by ligatures and blindfolds. This forensic evidence does not warrant the conclusion of a genocide having taken place.
Karganovic examines the events that took place in Srebrenica in July 1995 in a wholistic manner instead of restricting it to a three-day event. The ten chapters cover:
1) Srebrenica: A Critical Overview;
2) Demilitarization of the UN Safe Zone of Srebrenica;
3) Genocide or Blowback?;
4) General Presentation and Interpretation of Srebrenica Forensic Data (Pattern of Injury Breakdown);
5) An Analysis of the Srebrenica Forensic Reports Prepared by the ICTY Prosecution Experts;
6) An Analysis of Muslim Column Losses Attributable to Minefields, Combat Activity, and Other Causes;
7) The Genocide Issue: Was there a Demonstrable Intent to Exterminate All Muslims?;
8) ICTY Radio Intercept Evidence;
9) The Balance Sheet; and
10) Srebrenica: Uses of the Narrative.
The original source of this article is Global Research
Copyright © Stephen Karganovic, Global Research, 2024
https://www.globalresearch.ca/un-ignores-real-genocide-jasenovac-srebrenica/5857936
Between the 1970s and early 1990s, over 30,000 patients in the UK were treated with blood transfusions or blood-derived products contaminated with HIV or hepatitis C. This led to more than 3,000 deaths and left thousands of people with ongoing health problems. A new report has concluded that UK authorities deliberately covered up and downplayed the scandal for decades, with drug companies such as Bayer and Armour Pharmaceuticals accused of knowing treatments were infected but continuing to sell them anyway. The scandal provides a shocking window into the profit-driven nature of the pharmaceutical ‘business with disease.’
The problem began when, during the 1970s, the UK’s National Health Service (NHS) was unable to meet the demand for blood and blood-derived products. As a result, products were imported into the UK from the United States and other countries where paid blood donors were used. These donors included prisoners and drug addicts at high risk of being infected with HIV or hepatitis C. Routine screening for HIV in blood and blood products didn’t begin in the UK until 1985, with screening for hepatitis C starting in 1991.
People with hemophilia and other clotting disorders were significantly impacted by the scandal as they received treatments made from large batches of contaminated blood plasma. Inevitably, therefore, infected individuals sometimes unknowingly passed on HIV or hepatitis C to their partners. Despite the growing number of victims, for many years the NHS and successive British governments refused to accept that any wrong had been done. In reality, however, the UK was one of the last developed countries to start screening blood for hepatitis C. It had also delayed the introduction of heat treatment for blood products to eliminate HIV. Clearly, therefore, while UK authorities have long pretended otherwise, the scandal was not an accident.
Video: Vitamin D Is More Effective Than the COVID-19 Jab
Following many years of tireless campaigning by those affected, the then UK Prime Minister Theresa May finally announced a public statutory inquiry in July 2017. Chaired by a former High Court judge, it aimed to examine why people were given infected blood and blood products, the impact on families, the authorities’ response, the support provided, questions of consent, and whether there was a cover-up. Evidence was collected between summer 2018 and February 2023.
The inquiry published two interim reports. The first one was released in July 2022 and recommended interim payments of at least £100,000 ($127,000) to victims. The UK government accepted this recommendation, and payments were made in October 2022.The second interim report, published in April 2023, recommended extending interim payments to bereaved parents, children, or siblings of infected individuals, and establishing a full compensation scheme.
The final report, published on 20 May 2024 in seven volumes, identifies systemic, collective, and individual failures in managing the risk of infections from blood products and responding to the consequences of the scandal. Its many recommendations include the immediate establishment of a compensation scheme, a formal apology, and, towards identifying undiagnosed cases, the routine questioning of new patients about pre-1996 blood transfusions.
Speaking in the UK parliament immediately after publication of the final report, Prime Minister Rishi Sunak called it “a day of shame for the British state” and said he wanted to make “a wholehearted and unequivocal apology for this terrible injustice.” Acknowledging that there had been an attempted cover-up of the scandal, including the loss and destruction of key documents, he committed to implementing the report’s compensation recommendations.
Two days later, however, on 22 May 2024, Sunak suddenly and unexpectedly called a general election, to be held on 4 July 2024. With his party widely predicted to lose this, it will seemingly now be left to Sunak’s successor to ensure the report’s many recommendations are fully implemented.
The roles of drug companies Bayer and Armour Pharmaceuticals in the scandal are particularly shocking. The UK’s Daily Telegraph newspaper has described how, rather than withdrawing the infected blood products as soon as they realized what had happened, both companies deliberately continued selling them so as to avoid reducing their profits. Bayer’s marketing plan reportedly even outlined how it would dump the drugs in countries including Taiwan, Hong Kong, Malaysia, Singapore, and Australia.
Despite the reckless greed they exhibited, no lawsuits have ever been brought in the UK against either of these drug firms. For now, therefore, as is also the case with the COVID-19 vaccine scandal, any compensation payments to victims will likely be funded by British taxpayers. Estimates suggest the total cost of these could eventually reach £10 billion ($12.7 billion). Sir Brian Longstaff, who chaired the inquiry, says the scandal has destroyed “lives, dreams, friendships, families, and finances,” adding that the number of deaths is still increasing. His words provide a sobering reminder of why the pharmaceutical ‘business with disease’ must urgently now be brought to an end.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
This article was originally published on Dr. Rath Health Foundation.
Executive Director of the Dr. Rath Health Foundation and one of the coauthors of our explosive book, “The Nazi Roots of the ‘Brussels EU’”, Paul is also our expert on the Codex Alimentarius Commission and has had eye-witness experience, as an official observer delegate, at its meetings. You can find Paul on Twitter at @paulanthtaylor
He is a regular contributor to Global Research.
Featured image is from the Public Domain
The original source of this article is Global Research
Copyright © Paul Anthony Taylor, Global Research, 2024
https://www.globalresearch.ca/infected-blood-scandal-pharmaceutical-business-disease/5858062
From this Monday, 27 May, the 77th World Health Assembly will meet to vote on the WHO’s proposed Pandemic Agreement (Treaty) and the amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR).
It is imperative the representatives from the New Zealand Government vote against the reforms or postpone voting to allow countries (big and small, well-resourced and not) sufficient time to review, consider, and understand the impacts of what is proposed in these treaties.To ensure the Coalition Government is aware of the community support for a NO/Postpone vote, we urge those who care about NZ’s sovereignty to send our MPs an e-mail to let them know!
unbedingt anschauen:
ardmediathek.de
2&wmode=transparent0:00 Einführung
5:17 Alexander Milyutin
28:20 Moderation
29:50 Patrik Baab
1:22:27 Diskussion
2:22:43 Schluss
Der Russland-Feindschaft die kalte Schulter gezeigt
Ein Reisebericht Teil 1
https://transition-news.org/der-russland-feindschaft-die-kalte-schulter-gezeigt-ein-reisebericht-teil-1
Ein Reisebericht Teil 2
https://transition-news.org/der-russland-feindschaft-die-kalte-schulter-gezeigt-ein-reisebericht-teil-2
Ein Reisebericht Teil 3
https://transition-news.org/der-russland-feindschaft-die-kalte-schulter-gezeigt-ein-reisebericht-teil-3
«Von der Levante bis zur Persischen Golfregion»
(Red.) Die Leserinnen und Leser von Globalbridge.ch kennen sie: Karin Leukefeld, die wie nicht schnell eine andere Journalistin den Nahen Osten persönlich kennt und seit einigen Jahren regelmässig von dort berichtet. Fritz Edlinger, der Herausgeber und Chefredakteur der – immer sehr lesenswerten – österreichischen Zeitschrift INTERNATIONAL: «Soeben haben wir ein umfangreiches Video ins Netz gestellt, … «Von der Levante bis zur Persischen Golfregion»weiterlesen
Die Leserinnen und Leser von Globalbridge.ch kennen sie: Karin Leukefeld, die wie nicht schnell eine andere Journalistin den Nahen Osten persönlich kennt und seit einigen Jahren regelmässig von dort berichtet. Fritz Edlinger, der Herausgeber und Chefredakteur der – immer sehr lesenswerten – österreichischen Zeitschrift INTERNATIONAL: «Soeben haben wir ein umfangreiches Video ins Netz gestellt, welches die komplette Aufnahme des jüngsten Vortrages „Von der Levante bis zur Persischen Golfregion. Akteure und ihre Interessen im Kampf um Palästina“, den Karin Leukefeld auf Einladung von INTERNATIONAL am 8.5. in Wien gehalten hat, beinhaltet.»
Nicht erschrecken! Das Video hat eine gesamte Länge von fast zweieinhalb Stunden. Davon sind – nach einer fünfminütigen Einleitung durch Fritz Edlinger – rund eineinhalb Stunden der komplette Vortrag. Danach folgen die Fragen aus dem Publikum sowie die Antworten von Karin Leukefeld. Es ist ein äußerst interessanter und kompetenter Überblick über die aktuelle Situation im gesamten Nahen Osten – man sollte ihn eigentlich besser Westasien nennen –, in dem auch die vielfachen historischen Hintergründe erläutert werden.
Mehr dazu muss nicht gesagt werden.
Hier zum Video anklicken.
Der Friedensstifter