The „Deutsche Gesetzliche Unfallversicherung“ (DGUV), which represents the'heart' of the'system' and is the control centre of the 'Cartel of Secrecy', reacted to our publication of May 26th in BOOK TWO ( the article 'The Cartel' can be downloaded as a PDF here) with a statement on its website.
However, they only commented on the publication in the printed edition of the Süddeutsche Zeitung, in which, despite the fact that a full three pages dealt with the subject- in which not everything could be presented in detail.
The DGUV's communication strategy - as is to be expected - is to focus on aspects that we only mentioned in passing or not at all.
The DGUV does not deal with the extensive, detailed and with many 'hot docs' evidenced representations found in www.ansTageslicht.de/krankdurcharbeit at all - obviously aware that they could not really "criticize" by using their platitudinous 'counterstatements' . As expected, it is part of what we described in ansTageslicht.de in the chapter „Tricks, Methods and Strategies“ in which we gave examples: it is a strategy of creating confusion. In a German journalism manner of speaking, one speaks in such cases of "fog candles".
The DGUV states (see paragraph 10):
"It remains unclear on what the authors' judgement is based on, when they describe a "recognition rate" as "absurdly low" without stating standards or reasons. What is the significance of the relationship between recognition and notifications of a suspicious nature and the quality of expert decisions? The "reputable journals" which made serious accusations about"unclean research“ having been carried out (in which cases?), are not mentioned.“
The spokesman of the DGUV, Stefan BOLTZ, has either not read properly or does not want to do so. We did quote figures; by "absurdly low" we meant that only 7% of those who have applied for recognition of occupational ill health receive financial compensation from the "system". This figure does not even take those into account, who abandoned the lengthy recognition procedure after their first attempt.
We reconstructed several examples of "unclean" research in detail. And named the horse and rider: names of so-called renowned professors, who are constantly commissioned for their expertise, by the DGUV, respectively by the occupational associations.
"However, a dialogue can only be useful for the public if the parties involved can agree on a common basis for the discussion. "
A "dialogue" could be difficult: those who scatter“ fog candles“ show little interest in an objective discussion. How would it be possible?