|
 Today we received answers to the 3 questions of the Socialist Party (SP), Social Democrats (D66) and the Green Leftwing Party (GroenLinks) on his lies about the "mushroom incident" with the Frenchman and his dog:
Answers to the parliamentary question from Van Velzen (SP), Van der Ham (D66) and Azough (Green) on the three-time expression of untruth about magic mushrooms (2080907450).
Question 1. Do you acknowledge that you have at least three times an untruth told about the incident in which a Frenchman killed his dog? In contrary with the scientific truth (psychiatrist) you kept saying he took mushrooms. (1- Parliament 6 march 2008, debate about the national drug policy, page 60-4243 *** 2- “Netwerk” news broadcast, 7 august 2008 *** 3- “Vrij Nederland magazine, issue 49, 6 december 2008 *** 4- “Algemeen Dagblad” , July 17 2007 *** 5- Additional information of mushroom incidents, CAM october 2007 )
Answer 1:
Further research has indeed shown that this particular incident did not have a causal link that could be demonstrated in relation to the use of magic mushrooms. However, the ban on shrooms is based on a number of other incidents, in which this was the case.
Question 2. How coult it happen that 3 times you told the untruth about this incident? The local health service of Amsterdam (GGD) and your own research agency (CAM) showed there was no mushrooms involved. The Frenchman was known as psychotic.
Answer 2: In retrospect it is unfortunate that it seemed that we banned the shrooms because of this incident. What i wanted to say is that the incident of the alleged use of magic mushrooms made me and my colleagues decide to brainstorm to ban the magic mushrooms. The ban, however, is based on a few incidents where there was clearly risky and unpredictable behaviour, caused by, among other substances, the use of magic mushrooms.
Question 3. Are you willing to take back your words, to recognize that this incident not related to magic mushrooms and to stop influencing the public about the perception of hallucinogenic mushrooms with statements which are not truth or research based?
Answer 3: See answer to question 1 and 2.
... Further research? Unfortunate? WTF! That research was actually done on behalf of Minister Klink himself, and was in October 2007 on his desk! Klink publicly used the incident with the dog to justify the ban on shrooms. And causality is not demonstrated. Moreover , the state has even acknowledged this!
Two quotes from the decision of the appeal of the www.vlos.nl against the ban on shrooms, in december 2008:
"2.16. Prof. dr. FA de Wolff, toxicologist and member of the CAM until the end of 2006 (hereinafter:" De Wolff "), in response to questions from the VLOS in a letter dated November 21, 2008 inter alia stated (essentially ) that in none of the incidents in Amsterdam and Den Haag was determined that really magic mushrooms have been used or that the observed clinical effects of magic mushrooms can be attributed.. In addition, De Wolff explained that the comparison of the Minister with alcohol, from which the Ministry concluded that Magic Mushrooms were riskier, would be scientifically incorrect.
"4.7. In the context of this appeal, the VLOS made sufficiently plausible that the logic of the position of the Minister has major flaws.. Thus, the State confirmed in court that in none of the incidents to which the Minister refers was an actual causal link between mushroom use and mushroom idents.
So whats going on? Did Minister Klink read the report from october 2007 or not? He sais the ban is based on incidents. So he asked the CAM researchers to further investigate those incidents. But obviously he hasnt read this report. OR the other possibility: he did read this report and is a liar in 3fold !
 |
Subscribe to this comment's feed
