Grant Information And Questions For Pre-Submission Planning: Fill & Download for Free

'What are some ways to encourage pharmaceutical companies to share their data? Who will be the key stakeholders involved and what roles do they play?'Why is clinical trial data transparency and sharing important? Regulators use this data to approve new drugs and only relatively recently has the general public become aware of the extent to which such decisions hinge on handpicked data sets while an unknown amount remain unpublished, in both clinical trial registries as well as in peer-reviewed scientific journals. If a drug's approved based on part, not all, of the data on it, how could we be sure it's as effective and safe as claimed?This answer addresses the roles, responsibilities and incentives of both academia and biopharma since both are involved in the discussion on clinical trial data sharing and data transparency. Key stakeholders in clinical trial data include both decision makers as well as hapless participants who still aren't part of the decision making process.Decision makers are regulators, scientists, academia, biopharma and science publishing, all of whom have in recent years fostered the notion through regulations and abundant posturing that the entire biomedical research ecosystem from individual investigators on to entities that fund and publish their research is in favor of data transparency and keen to share clinical trial data with peers, partners and maybe even the general public (1).Unfortunately, studies continue to find that a substantial portion of data from completed clinical trials never see the light of day (2, 3). Such analyses also show the rule-makers themselves to be big-time rule-breakers.IMO understanding the main obstacles that prevent clinical trial data sharing from becoming the norm helps understand the kind of policy prescriptions necessary to bring about change.Perverse incentives and absence of tangible incentives for data sharing keep scientists chained to a hyper-competitive, publish-or-perish, winner take all attitude to the scientific data they generate. Their promotions, tenures and grants are decided by their publication, not their data sharing, record (4).Regulators (FDA, EMA, etc.), employers (research institutions, universities) and funders (governments, foundations, academia, industry) remain stubbornly blind to how data sharing remains antithetical to what it takes to forge a successful scientific career.In a scientific culture that prizes originality and novelty above all, scientists currently do not benefit from sharing their data or by mining other people's data to glean new insights simply because funders, journals and employers presently do not similarly reward them as they do those who publish original and novel data generated from their own studies.Total data transparency weakens incentive for drug repurposing, Drug repositioning - Wikipedia, which has increasingly become a lifeline that sustains biopharma revenue in an age where new products have become increasingly expensive and time-consuming to roll out (5, 6).Proposed regulatory solutions fail to adequately address need to protect trade secrets and proprietary information, and do not provide requisite relief and mitigation. Rather, they ignore the real constraints that both academia and biopharma face today and instead exhort them to share data by paternalistically highlighting obligations to volunteer participants. Ignoring such real constraints might instead serve to foster a backlash in the form of inventive expansions of what actually constitute trade secrets and proprietary information, a reaction that would end up helping no one.A systematic review found 85 opinion pieces on the importance of developing incentives for researchers to share their data but fewer studies, 76, that actually tested approaches to increase data sharing (7). Most of the approaches tested entailed mere tinkering around the edges and nothing substantive.Clearly, a substantial gap exists between stated intent and actual actions. Data sharing needs to become part of clinical trial design and a critical aspect for scientific career progression (1). Typically, researchers plan a study with the intention of analyzing the data and publishing a peer-reviewed report upon completion. No thought is given to how the data will be stored such that it's easy to share so others can re-analyze it and neither is data sharing deemed merit-worthy for a scientist's career progression.Clinical trial participants are MIA in these discussions. No clinical trial participants, no clinical trial, no results, no new drugs. As simple as that. Given they're so central to this issue, why are trial participants nowhere to be seen or heard in this debate (8)?Paternalism continues to dominate the biomedicine culture but the general public's passivity and apathy makes it equally culpable.In recent decades, patient and disease advocacy groups have started notching impressive wins and gained accelerated access to new therapies, HIV/AIDS and cancer being cases in point. However, the weakness inherent to the tactics these groups have used thus far is to focus not on the totality but rather narrowly only on enhancing the speed of the drug approval process. Doing so ended up with regulators and drugmakers both cutting corners in the decision making process whereas fighting to get a seat at the table through legislative and regulatory means would have had a far more consequential and beneficial effect with respect to data sharing and transparency.Rest of this answer detailsA recap of regulations mandating clinical trial data be reported and published.Efforts to change the status quo by Ben Goldacre - Wikipedia, the reigning enfant terrible in the clinical trial space, and his collaborative initiative, AllTrials - Wikipedia.Quick recap of recent regulatory developments in the US clinical trial space as well as important global players1997: Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997 - Wikipedia is passed. The FDAMA led to the creation of ClinicalTrials.gov - Wikipedia, currently the world’s largest online clinical trial registry.2000: ClinicalTrials.gov - Wikipedia comes online, maintained by United States National Library of Medicine - Wikipedia (NLM), a permanent institute within the US NIH.2007: Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007 - Wikipedia is passed. The FDAAA mandates the following (9),All applicable clinical trials to be prospectively registered at ClinicalTrials.gov - Wikipedia.Data should include information on study participants, summary outcomes, particularly adverse events.Mandatory publication of trial results upon completion.Section 801 of FDAAA establishes penalties for non-compliance. For example, US $10000 per day if trial results not posted within 12 months of completion.Applicable trials entail those other than Phase I and with at least one study site in the US.Limitations of FDAAA that end up excluding data on vast majority of treatments in use today,Excludes clinical trial results obtained pre-2007.Only requires publication of trials completed after 2008.Not to mention strikingly unenforced.In response to poor compliance with these reporting requirements, US regulators tightened perceived ambiguity and issued what is called the Final Rule in September 2016 (10).Also note that the US FDA has dismantled patient protections with regard to international clinical trials. Declaration of Helsinki - Wikipedia is the international code of medical ethics which stresses that everyone involved in a clinical trial has a duty to make the findings public. Specifically, in 2009 after years of insisting that companies applying for marketing authorization for a drug in the US needed to provide evidence that all foreign trials had been compliant with the Helsinki declaration, the FDA diluted its position by pegging such trials to the much lower standard of the International Conference on Harmonization (ICH) Good Clinical Practice (GCP) guidelines (11). As Goldacre points out,These guidelines are only voted on by members of the EU, USA and Japan.They are more focused on procedures while Helsinki focuses on moral principles.Over the years, GCP has become the main ethical regulation of trials in the developing world, a sign of expediency trumping Informed consent - Wikipedia.This kind of thinking is penny-wise, pound-foolish since no matter the experimental drugs in question get initially tested on non-US populations, once approved in the US, they'd be consumed by Americans, no?The WHO. Mainly soft not hard power. On May 18, 2017, major research funders across the world, now numbering 21, released a statement on the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform pledging to implement self-avowed policies and impose audits to ensure trials they fund are reported (12). US regulators notably MIA in this statement. As the global public health organization of record, the WHO has substantial soft power it could bring to bear in mediating or nudging organizations that fail to measure up during periodic audits.The ICMJE (International Committee of Medical Journal Editors): ICMJE recommendations - Wikipedia. It announced in 2005 that (see below from 13),'The ICMJE member journals will require, as a condition of consideration for publication, registration in a public trials registry. Trials must register at or before the onset of patient enrollment. This policy applies to any clinical trial starting enrollment after July 1, 2005. For trials that began enrollment before this date, the ICMJE member journals will require registration by September 13, 2005, before considering the trial for publication.'With 16 journal members In 2017, up from 11 in 2004, ~3300 journals now reportedly follow ICMJE recommendations. To neutralize a perceived barrier to publication, ICMJE allows trial results to be posted to clinical trial registries (14, 15).Ben Goldacre - Wikipedia & The AllTrials EffortA physician by training who morphed into a journalist, writer and activist, Ben Goldacre is well-known in his native Britain for his two polemics, Bad Science (book) - Wikipedia and Bad Pharma - Wikipedia. His energizer bunny-like advocacy wedded to a keen sense of the fierce urgency of now makes him a compelling figure while his writing, though often hyperbolic, manages to remain engaging even when analyzing hard science or posting trenchant criticisms of prevailing policies and pervasive conflicts of interests among the deciders in the clinical trial space.Through the collaborative launch of AllTrials, Goldacre is expending yeoman effort to upend the inimical status quo of cherry-picked clinical trial data often serving as the basis for new drug approval, leaving the rest hidden and unpublished.Unlike the FDAAA, AllTrials calls for registration and publication of all clinical trials on all treatments in current use. AllTrials' definition of publication includes full reporting of methods as well as publication of negative data.As of December 2017, a total of 735 organizations from all over the world have joined AllTrials while 91006 people have signed the AllTrials petition (16). On the one hand, this seems promising.OTOH, 622 organizations and 87956 petitioners as of 24 April, 2016 (see page 7 of 17) means over 20 months, 113 organizations but only 3050 additional individuals signed a petition supporting this initiative.Clearly, there's a sharp contrast between institutional and individual participation in the AllTrials effort. Such an anemic individual participation rate only underscores how passive and apathetic even patients and disease advocacy groups remain about one of the most critical aspects of biomedicine, namely, transparency of clinical trial data.Bibliography1. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK269030/pdf/Bookshelf_NBK269030.pdf2. Tirumalai Kamala's answer to Why are some clinical trials finished, but the results not reported?3. Tirumalai Kamala's answer to Why are some clinical trials finished, but the results not reported?4. Friesike, Sascha, and Thomas Schildhauer. "Open science: many good resolutions, very few incentives, yet." Incentives and Performance. Springer International Publishing, 2015. 277-289.5. Brassington, Iain. "The ethics of reporting all the results of clinical trials." British medical bulletin 121.1 (2017): 19-29. ethics of reporting all the results of clinical trials | British Medical Bulletin | Oxford Academic6. Baghai, Tabassom. "Lack of clinical trial data transparency and current solutions." University of Ottawa Journal of Medicine 7.1 (2017). https://ottawa.scholarsportal.info/ojs/index.php/uojm-jmuo/article/download/2021/18617. Rowhani-Farid, Anisa, Michelle Allen, and Adrian G. Barnett. "What incentives increase data sharing in health and medical research? A systematic review." Research Integrity and Peer Review 2.1 (2017): 4. https://researchintegrityjournal.biomedcentral.com/track/pdf/10.1186/s41073-017-0028-9?site=researchintegrityjournal.biomedcentral.com8. Haug, Charlotte J. "Whose Data Are They Anyway? Can a Patient Perspective Advance the Data-Sharing Debate?." New England Journal of Medicine 376.23 (2017): 2203-2205. http://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJMp17044859. https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-110publ85/html/PLAW-110publ85.htm10. National Institutes of Health. "Clinical Trials Registration and Results Information Submission. Final rule." Federal register 81.183 (2016): 64981. https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2016-09-21/pdf/2016-22129.pdf11. https://www.fda.gov/downloads/RegulatoryInformation/Guidances/UCM294729.pdf12. http://www.who.int/ictrp/results/ICTRP_JointStatement_2017.pdf13. De Angelis, Catherine, et al. "Clinical trial registration: a statement from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors." (2004): 1250-1251. http://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJMe04822514. http://icmje.org/icmje-recommendations.pdf15. Dal‐Ré, Rafael. "The ICMJE trial data sharing requirement and participant's consent." European journal of clinical investigation (2016).16. Supporters17. Breil, Thomas, et al. "An Assessment of Publication Status of Pediatric Liver Transplantation Studies." PloS one 11.12 (2016): e0168251. http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0168251&type=printableThanks for the R2A, Jeffrey Brender.

In March 2017, the Government passed the Children & Social Work Act (2017) which resulted in the creation of a new compulsory subject in all primary schools – Relationships Education (RE), as well as a new statutory subject in secondary schools called Relationships & Sex Education (RSE). Following the consultation, it was announced that the new content delivered in RE (primary) and RSE (secondary) would be subject to public consultation.In December 2017 the Department for Education opened their public ‘Call for Evidence’ to consult on the content of these new subjects. The public consultation closed in February 2018 and received over 23,000 submissions.In July 2018 the Secretary of State for Education, Damian Hinds MP, announced the publication of its Draft Guidance on the content and delivery of the new subjects. He also announced a change in policy regarding the Government’s previously stated intention to retain parents’ right to withdraw their children from the ‘sex education’ aspects of RSE (see below). In addition to this, he announced that rather than making PSHE compulsory, the Government was instead creating a third new compulsory subject, Health Education, which would be taught in both primary and secondary schools.Most recently, the Government announced a public consultation on the content of the new Draft Guidance, which closed on 7th November 2018. It further announced that this guidance and the obligation to deliver the new subjects would now come into force in September 2020 (rather than September 2019 as previously planned).Many people are rightfully sceptical of government-initiated consultations, as the government often launches consultations to evidence its pre-agreed findings.Firstly, the consultation received an unprecedented 23,000 submissions (18,000 online and a further 4,500 letters and emails). The vast majority of responses were from parents. There have been calls for the Government to publish a full report and breakdown of responses, something which is in the interests of transparency, yet the government has failed to publish the results. In its place a brief summary of the online submissions (78% or 18,000 of them) has been published by Ipsos Mori (as an annex to the consultation document).The 4,500 submissions made by email and post (representing 22% of the total submissions) have so far not been reported at all. However, even the small number of results the Government has so far published feature some significant insights into the strength of feeling against the Government’s LGBT and sex education agenda, in favour of a more pro-life and pro-family ethos. There are signs that the Government cannot ignore the strength of feeling of respondents.Primary SchoolsThe Government has conceded that teaching LGBT ideology to primary school children is contentious and that there is far from agreement in favour of it. The government alludes to the ‘many’ (without quantifying the percentage of respondents) that wanted the new subjects to “raise awareness of different types of family”. They also admit that ‘opinions were also split regarding when children should be taught about LGBT relationships’. They admitted that only “a small proportion of respondents suggest that primary schools should teach about gender and sexual identity, but this was a controversial viewpoint with others disagreeing that it is appropriate to teach about these issues at primary school”.The results of the consultation also reveal that “opinions were split […] as to whether it is appropriate to teach any subjects related to sex education at primary school”.It is further noted that “where respondents support this, consent education (1,408, 9%) is the most widely supported subject area”.The alleged need for all primary school children to learn urgently about ‘consent’ as a preventative measure against child abuse has been one of the primary justifications for compulsory Relationships Education. This result shows that only a small minority, even of those who wanted any kind of sex education at primary school, thought that this was important.This document states,“When asked the most important subject areas to be taught in Relationships Education at primary school, the most frequently mentioned is relationships with family (7,778, 52%), including building strong relationships with family members and awareness of different family compositions. It is likely that the volume of responses on family compositions is driven by ‘campaign’ responses.”It is encouraging that a large number have attempted to turn Relationships Education into something more positive by stressing the importance of family life. However, the report suggests that the LGBT lobby has also been campaigning to introduce the idea of ‘diversity’ of families to children, as a way of introducing young children to the LGBT lifestyle. It is not specified what proportion of those lobbying for family education favoured this kind of approach.Secondary SchoolsWe should be encouraged by the fact that the most common response by adult respondents to what ‘the most important subject areas to be taught in Relationship and Sex Education (RSE) at secondary school, is commitment (5,746, 39%), with an emphasis on traditional marriage. It is likely that the volume of responses on commitment isdriven by ‘campaign’ responses’.Successive governments have always sought to use the term ‘campaign responses’, to undermine responses that do not align with both its narrative around a policy area and what it intends to implement. By using this term, they question the authenticity of opinion by alluding to campaigns influencing people to respond in particular way. This cannot take away from the strength of feeling that the current proposals are an assault on the values of vast sections of the population who want a more traditional understanding of marriage taught to children.From what we can see of the responses alluded to by the government, there is no majority consensus on what should be covered within RSE in secondary schools.Thirty five percent of adults who participated in the consultation thought teaching of ‘respect’was important, (5,174, 35%), 36% suggested sexual health (5,332, 36%), 18% sexual consent (2,721, 18%).Of young people responding to the consultation (representing 13% of overall respondents), only 31% (668) favoured teaching about gender and sexualidentity.Even if there were a majority in favour of any particular approach or subject to be covered in RSE then the Government is not revealing what it is. Either way they have no basis on which to claim there was any ‘consensus’ in the consultation in favour of the approach that they are taking in the draft guidance.Because this summary does not include the 4,500 (22%) of total responses made byemail or post these findings are also skewed and unreliable.Even if we were to take the responses the government has selectively provided, there is no support in favour of LGBT teaching but there is a large proportion in favour of teaching about family and normative marriage.There are a number of positive supporting statements in the government’s consultation response which point to the impact our submissions made at the last call for evidence.The government reiterates the right of parents as the primary educators of their children,“We recognise that parents are the primary educators of their children, particularly where relationships and sex are concerned, and want to ensure that schools work with parents on the design and delivery of these subjects. Schools will be required to consult with parents on their Relationships Education and RSE policies, which will minimise any misconception about the subjects and enable parents to decide whether to request that their child is withdrawn from sex education.”The government has disappointingly watered down the right of parents to withdraw from RSE in secondary schools, the government assures us that parents “may request that their child be withdrawn from some or all elements of sex education in RSE and this should be granted unless the headteacher, taking into account any considerations about the pupil and their circumstances, decides otherwise.”The government further clarifies that,“except in exceptional circumstances, the school should respect the parents’ request to withdraw the child, up to and until three terms before the child turns 16.”So the right to withdraw has been severely watered down.We are also assured that:“Secondary schools should engage proactively with parents”“set out how and when they plan to cover topics included in RSE so that parents can understand clearly, what is going to be taught.”Existing guidance also mandates that schools consult parents regarding the content, yet experience shows that this is not happening. Although the Government claims that schools, including faith schools, will have ‘flexibility’ in how they teach these new subjects, including coverage of LGBT issues, this will be within the parameters of what the Secretary of State and OFSTED regard as compliance with ‘the relevant provisions of the Equality Act’.Please make your submission online at:Although there are many points to be made, in summary I believe the following issues capture the main criticisms of the changes to the draft guidance.1. It is unacceptable that the government has refused to allow parents to withdraw from Relationship Education at primary level.2. It is disappointing that the government has failed to provide any assurances that SRE/statutory science related topics will not be included in RE classes, neither has it clearly clarified in detail what will be taught in RE.3. The government has gone back on its own commitment to provide a legal right to withdrawal from RSE classes at secondary level. Instead it has given head teachers the right to veto parental requests to withdraw. This completely contradicts the legal position of parents as the primary educator of their children.4. The draft guidance is hugely vague and allows teachers to interpret its requirements. This places parents in a subordinate position, to accept the changes schools are willing to make.5. It undermines the right of parents to decide when and how to impart sensitive information around sexual matters to their children.6. It normalises LGBTQ relationships to children.7. It encourages children to experiment with and question their biological sex under the gender agenda.8. Schools must engage in real and not make-believe consultation with parents. Parental views must be taken into account when making decisions, in relation to the resources, how it is taught, which organisations comes in to help deliver programmes etc.9. Schools have to be mandated to communicate with parents about when, how and what is being taught to their children in SRE, RE, RSE, health education and statutory science elements of ‘sex education’.

A2A, thanks DanijelWhy was Northern Kosovo included in territory of Serbia after its defeat by Nazi Germany and during the German occupation, but after liberation it was given to the autonomous province of Kosovo ruled by Albanians?Mainly because of the Trepča mining complex[1]in northern Kosovo.In WW2, the Nazi Germany didn’t have any interest into giving a relatively prosperous Serb populated part of Kosovo to the Italians / Albanians to control, and had an interest to retain it for themselves, Trepća being an already important mining complex.Between 1945 and 1948, Marshall Tito had view over Albania to join Yugoslavia, views that were before the breakup between Tito and Stalin shared by Enver Hoxha, the stalinist dictator of Albania. In order to do that, and also to satisfy the policy “weak Serbia, strong Yugoslavia” established in the Yugoslav Communist Party in the 1930s, Kosovo was reestablished as a autonomous region of the Yugoslav People’s Republic of Serbia. The Albanians were acomodated by preventing the return of the Serb refugees from WW2 in the lands that the Albanian Balli Kombetar and S.S Division Skanderberg cleansed. After 1948, the prospect was given up, and Kosovo only started to grow in autonomy once the republicanist/autonomist factions started to eat alive the federalist/centralist factions in the 60s in Yugoslavia.But the Leposavic municipality was in 1945 in… central Serbia, with a great part of the Trepča mines. In the 1950, the Kosovo Leadership asked its cession to Kosovo, and in 1959 it was accepeted and done, for Serbia didn’t see yet what was to come in Kosovo.Kosovo autonomy was then increased in 1963, 1968 (the term Metochia was removed from the province name, hence displaying the Albanian takeover on the province), 1971, and 1974 to the point of making Kosovo a quasi-Yugoslav Republic at the expense of Serbia, putting the whole province… and the Trepča mine away from Belgrade political control (that even shows on the production graph, the more Kosovo was autonomous, the less the mine was productive), even if its capitals and management was still Serbian. Along that growing autonomy, the census of 1971, 1981, and 1991 showed a strange explosion of the Albanian population, it’s natural growth being multiplied by more than 3 compared to what it was in the 50s… before being divided by… 30 in the 90s. The Kosovo Albanians made quite a demographic transition. ;-)In 1999, after the U.S led NATO agression over Yugoslavia, NATO invaded the province and separated it from Serbia. This time, and despite the North still being mainly populated by Serbs, Trepča must remain “in the south”[2] , for the invaders are coming from there, and not from the north, and want to retain control over these mines through an “independent Kosovo” encompassing the North.Caricatural representation of Bernard Kouchner and Hacim Thaci in Kosovo.The UCK, Bernard Kounchner (aka. “the French doctor”, head of the United Nation Mission in Kosovo, and very famous in Serbia for its cover up for Albanian criminality and the related Human / organs trafic in Kosovo), the KFOR all seeked between 1998 and 2000 to loot and destroy what they could in the complex, so Serbia would be crippled by its malfunction, could never operate it again Sovereignly and call for / surrender it to foreign help, hence foreign capitals to restart its production… but not get the benefits of it like before.The arrival of KFOR in June 1999 led to an outburst of the mining complex. The northern mines remained owned and operated by Serbs, while the southern mines were in Albanian hands. After the Serbian forces withdrew from Kosovo in 1999, the chaos ensued in the period during the takeover by KFOR and UNMIK, a military and a civilian administration, respectively. The units of UÇK looted and destroyed lots of mine's properties while international forces did nothing to stop it. An experts commission compiled a study, which calculated that the total direct damage in the period 12 July-30 November 1998 was $192.105.256. UNMIK was authorized to take over all the state owned companies. However, Trepča wasn't organized as a plain, state-owned property, but was transformed into the joint-stock company in 1996. UNMIK chief Bernard Kouchner personally asked for the documentation on the ownership of Trepča, but he wasn't authorized to take over the stock company, which French newspaper Le Monde wrote about at the time. Serbian management of the company tried to continue the production in the facilities north of the Ibar river which remained out of Albanian control, as much as it was possible: 9 mines out of 14, 6 out of 8 flotation units, 1 out of 2 metallurgy factories and 9 out of 17 factories or 70% of the capacities. As Kouchner had administrative rule over the electric company, he ordered the shutting down of the power supply to the mine. An alternative power line, which connected the mine with the grid in the Central Serbia was then established. The mine was supplied with water via the 30 km (19 mi) long concrete canal from the Gazivode Lake. Claiming that two Albanian children fell into the canal, Kouchner order for the water to be cut, too. It was later confirmed that the accident which he used as a pretext never happened. The company then organized alternative water supply system which consisted of powerful water pumps which pumped the water from the Ibar river via the two-way pipeline into the pools on the slopes of the Zvečan Hill. From there, using free fall, the water was conducted to the factories. The official seat of the company was transferred to Belgrade, but the management remained in Zvečan.Chief of the US section of the KFOR, General William L. Nash tried to shut it down, too, giving statements that 700 bodies of dead Albanians were suspected to be in the First Tunnel or that bodies were incinerated in the manhole furnace. After several months of investigation, French, German, Dutch and American investigators concluded that the furnace in question wasn't operational when the alleged crime happened.General Nash then claimed that Trepča needs to be closed because of the environmental pollution, though French minister for environment, Dominique Voynet concluded that there is no danger for the surroundings.Expecting military takeover, the management "fortified" the complex with goods wagons, locomotives and slag, while it was lit with powerful reflector lights, looking like a "space ship". On early 14 August 2000, at 3:45, 3,000 mostly US soldiers stormed the premises, using tanks, amphibians and helicopters. French soldiers, using battering ram, broke into the central administrative building. Soldiers arrested the CEO, Novak Bjelić, who was 3 hours later expelled into central Serbia on the orders of Kouchner. Kouchner ordered the shut down of Trepča.On 4 January 2001, Serbian deputy prime minister Nebojša Čović signs a document which returns the seat of the company to Zvečan and changes the structure of Trepča, transforming it back to the state owned company, which effectively retroactively legalized the military occupation of the complex.As of 2017, the only remaining operational part of the complex are the Kopaonik mines and the flotation in Leposavić.Disgusting, ain’t it ? Kouchner and the KFOR were fucking animals, like Cliton, Albright, and Clark, who tried by all means necessary to destroy the local economy and force Serbia into submission, and certainly not to help the populations.The Trepča case (and all the other Kosovo mines stolen from Serbia / Yugoslavia) is one of the key understanding for the American support to the UCK in 1998, then the NATO War against Yugoslavia in 1999, the other being the German ambitions to finish their soft-takeover of the Balkans at the expense of the Serbs, the expansion of the U.S sphere of influence in the Balkans & Eastern Europe, and the U.S puppeting strategy toward the European Muslims in order to keep the E.U in check.Do you really think it was about the Albanian self-determination, the civilian populations rights, freedom, democracy, whatever, or to prevent a civil war perpetuation when the civil war was fostered in the first instance and the remaining local economy was crushed afterwards by the UNMIK and the KFOR if its operators were Serbs ?The war for ressources, money, & Power, always :Americans officials like Madeline Albright and Wesley Clark, U.S State Secretary and NATO Supreme commander in Europe at the time of the 1999 agression, and hence top U.S Warmongers, are now investors in the mining business in Kosovo.Bountiful Kosovo… 3 years after the intervention, the ressources were fully mapped by the UNMIK and the “Kosovo Humanitarian Community Information Center” already : Kouchner was definitively interrested. And now, if the North is given back to Serbia, It will likely be the Chinese or the Russians who will take over Trepča later on. If the north remain under Prishtina fictionnal rule, it will likely be American or Canadian companies. That’d be a shame, right ?1914 - 1941 - 2018, what changed ?De jure, the U.S led NATO & the German led E.U are pretexting the “intangibility of borders” to deny the Serbs the autodetermination that was granted to the Albanian in the aftermath of the NATO War in 1999.One could wonder why would be the border intangible now (or in 1992–1995), when they were not in 1991 (SFRJ borders) or 1999 (FRY Borders) ? Why would they not be for the Yugoslavs, then Serbs, but be for the Croats, Bosniaks, Albanians and “Montenegrins”. Why all of them could self-determinate, but not the Serbs in Croatia, Bosnia, Kosovo, and Montenegro ?The Russians ended up wondering, for exemple, and after helping the secessionnists in Abkhazia and Northern Ossetia in 2008, they annexed Crimea in 2014 and support the Donetsk and Luansk self-proclaimed republics in the Eastern Ukraine on the very same “principles” that the U.S led NATO acted upon in Kosovo. And the Kosovo case, being ruled as a “sui-generis” case by the U.S/German diplomacies, is obviously a precedent on many matters in the post WW2 / post Cold War order :A third party can attack a country and bomb its whole territory in disrespect for both the International Law and the U.N Security Councils resolution to occupy one of its province (like in Kosovo).A third party can grant self-determination to a minority (the Albanians, in our case) in a country (Federal Republic of Yugoslavia / Serbia, in our case), deny then self-determination to another minority (the Serbs, in our case) in the secceded entities (like in Croatia, Bosnia, and now Kosovo).A third party can create a nation to justify to grant it a State (in fact, Kosovo Albanians are… Albanians, and not “Kosovans”), and avoid to be taxed of supporting another country irredentism (Albania) over a neighbouring territory.In other words, it’s the Law of the jungle : If you have the muscles to do it, well, just do it, and if you have nules, that’s better : non-nuclear Powers can’t do shit about it. Ressouces, money, Power.And nothing else really matters. One century of wars, 100,000,000 deaths in both World-Wars, the Vietnam War, the middle-East Wars and in south America & Africa, and all the work of the SDN & United Nations to build a more stable and secure International Order were for nothing. And we are back in the pre-WW1 period. Good job. But who cares anyway. Ressources, money, Power, by any means necessary. And the price for the targeted people ? A slight change, still. Before, it was “Untermenschen mussen sterben” (the subhumans MUST die). Now it’s just “Untermenschen können sterben” (the subhumans CAN die”). We are more civilized now than before, aren’t we ? Serbs or Albanians, that’s not really discriminant. What discriminates is what they own, and to whom they are ready to surrender it.So, ask yourselves. Do you want this to ever possibly happen to your country ?If yes, well, support an independent Kosovo and the 25 last years of NATO Wars, so it can keep going that way, and any other powerful country (Russia, and maybe one day China) can do the same.If not, well, support Serbia and the international Law against its agressors, and question the U.S foreign policies and the NATO Wars so we can stop that and make the World a more stable and safer place.Because beyond the occidental core (Anglo-Saxon World & the French), any non-nuclear country can be one day “someone else’s untermenschen”, and face the Occidental “humanitarian wrath” which leaves none of its target trully standing afterwards (think about Irak, Libya, Syria), or be swarmed by its consequences (international criminality and terrorism out of the destroyed countries, migrants pooring out of the remaining wastelands). We have only one planet, we should stop wrecking havock on it to pillage the whole for the interest of a few.Footnotes[1] Trepča Mines - Wikipedia[2] Plans and Propaganda