British court rules blood samples be taken from Skripal, who is in a coma

20

The British court has allowed to take blood tests from Sergei Skripal and his daughter Julia.

This decision was made by the court in connection with the fact that Sergei Skripal and his daughter, poisoned at the beginning of March in British Salisbury, are in a coma and can not give consent to blood sampling.

The results of the examination can be used by experts of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW). They are invited to the UK by the government of the country specifically to investigate the case.

 

Source Lenta
Subscribe to our newsletter
Sign up here to get the latest news, updates and special offers delivered directly to your inbox.
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
20 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
lsammart
lsammart
3 years ago

the saga continues….it is a show for simple minded people and a repetition of what Ge. Powell did before intervention in Iraq.

AM Hants
AM Hants
3 years ago

I hope they witness the blood samples being taken. Just to make sure, they have the right patients.

TiredOfBsToo
TiredOfBsToo
Reply to  AM Hants
3 years ago

Good point. The Russian embassy should also be present and receive a sample at the same time; after all, they are Russian citizens. It’s time the UK follow International Law on CW convention!

AM Hants
AM Hants
Reply to  TiredOfBsToo
3 years ago

Good point from you, leaving a decent audit trail, that cannot be corrupted.

Shahna
Reply to  AM Hants
3 years ago

There you have the heart of the matter – the OPCW should send their own doctors to draw the blood from patients they have verified to be the Skripals.

But as we saw in Syria – the OPCW is not averse to using 2nd or even 3rd hand samples.

JPH
JPH
3 years ago

Simply can’t believe that doctors have been waiting for a court to obtain blood samples. This is part of the UK show trial.

Steve Earnshaw
Steve Earnshaw
Reply to  JPH
3 years ago

I agree. You would think that that would be the first thing they did upon admission.

Shahna
Reply to  Steve Earnshaw
3 years ago

Upon admission, everything necessary to preserve life would’ve been done. Where life is threatened staff treat first and worry about consent afterwards.

Specific consent is required for extras that are not part of medical life-sustaining protocols – like sending a sample of your blood to international organisations to run their own tests for their reasons. This is not life-sustaining and therefore treat first and worry later doesn’t apply.

IOW. This isn’t odd – it’s standard.

Shahna
Reply to  JPH
3 years ago

No. The patients are unconscious and cannot give consent – therefore the court’s consent is needed.

JPH
JPH
Reply to  Shahna
3 years ago

The Brits have been screaming “Chemical Attack’ straight from the outset. Public safety also prevails over any such legal niceties. However our British provocateurs having refused to cooperate with Russia within the OPCW framework are now intent on creating the illusion that they stick to the book.

Shahna
Reply to  JPH
3 years ago

I know they have and they are lying thru’ their teeth in true good Blairite fashion here but there’s nothing odd about getting a court order to take this blood.

This court order isn’t the govt playing games it’s just standard doctor/hospital “cover my arse” so this does’t come back to bite them in the arse in 6 or 20 years time. “Who gave you permission to draw that blood and hand it over to XYZ?”

They need “patient consent” to draw and release the blood for a non-hospital, non-medical procedure but the patients cannot give consent (they are unconscious) and there is no next of kin to give consent so they’re doing what British law/practice requires here – they are getting the court’s permission to do it.

That’s all – nothing sinister here.
And in fact, because they did this we get to read the court’s decision and we now know – Boris was lying about Porton Down test results.

And… another in fact, if PD did tell BJ “categorically” then the only way they would know “categorically” would be because they supplied the stuff for the poisoning. ….It might be worthwhile for an investigative reporter to talk to Boris’s PD source – if all is on the up-and-up then he has no need for secrecy.

trackback
3 years ago

[…] Brytyjski s─àd nakaza┼é pobra─ç pr├│bki krwi Skripala b─Öd─àcego w ┼øpi─àczce […]

TiredOfBsToo
TiredOfBsToo
3 years ago

European Council: “European Union leaders announced Thursday that they agree with Britain’s conclusion that it is “highly likely” that Russia is responsible for the Salisbury attack on March 4.”

‘Highly likely’ European Council staffed by morons!

byblos
byblos
Reply to  TiredOfBsToo
3 years ago

Total Morons

Todd millions
Todd millions
Reply to  byblos
3 years ago

Whores actually- the stupidity is camouflage for the malice .Its a Canadian approach used by our court systems and judiciary.
I’m not sure on detailed specifics on current euro weenie variants but
in western Canaduh your first clue is a ‘Federal’ court house(Shitcurrent Sask)staffed with over age single mom strippers impersonating law clerks. If one raises hell over their ‘competence’ level, with the flick of a pen the court becomes a provincial level one and the violations of federal law performed at it-Never happened officially. Judges,ministers and crown are fine with this.
In this and my case- J. Swifts Gulliver’s travels is your best Baedeker.
See-‘Whores & Backstairs.’
A review of the rational horse asking the reasons for yahoo wars is also currently of much use.

byblos
byblos
3 years ago

Oh, so now they are not poisoned dead, but in a coma. This stinks of an inside job. Russia should not be intimidated one bit. Without Russian specialists being there as a control, nothing can be taken seriously.

MyWikiDisQus
MyWikiDisQus
3 years ago

This entire fiasco is so far from standard procedures for detection and treatment of exposure to chemical nerve agents that even a Hollywood script writer would not try and convince an audience that it is believable.

Please refer to this U.S. OSHA (Occupational, Safety and Health Administration) Nerve Agents Guide see: https://www.osha.gov/SLTC/emergencypreparedness/guides/nerve.html .

Scan down to the question, Is there a medical test to show whether I’ve been exposed to nerve agents GA, GB, GD, or VX?

“Yes, medical tests can determine whether you have been exposed to nerve agents. There are tests to measure degradation products of nerve agents in the urine, but these are not generally useful. A different kind of
test measures the levels of a substance called cholinesterase in the blood. If these levels are less than half what they should be, and you were exposed to nerve gases, you may experience symptoms of poisoning. Cholinesterase levels in the blood can remain low for months after you have been exposed to nerve agents. Measurement of cholinesterase levels in blood is not specific for exposure to nerve agents.”

The key issue is that a blood test is used to detect nerve agents. So in the Skripal case if no blood was drawn from the victims, then how can the U.K. state definitively that a nerve agent was used to poison them?

Shahna
Reply to  MyWikiDisQus
3 years ago

Blood would have been drawn upon admission to run tests and find out what how why in order to treat the patients. Hospitals have their own labs and use outside labs for what they can’t test for themselves.

This sample required the court’s permission because the sample is not for patient treatment but for an outside organisation to run their own tests for their own reason that has nothing to do with the treatment of the patients. Also, because both Skripals are affected there is no-one else to give consent. Eg wife, adult sibling etc.

Same way if you were rushed to hospital unconscious and dying from a car accident you’d go straight to theatre, have blood drawn for typing etc – there is no time to get consent because you will die if you’re not treated immediately.

Afterwards, if someone else wanted a sample of your blood for any reason not related to treating you, they’d have to get consent for it. If you or your next of kin can’t give consent (can’t, not won’t) they’d have to go to court to get the court’s permission to draw your blood.

This is not abnormal, it’s standard procedure where patient consent is required for medical treatment.

Shahna
Reply to  Shahna
3 years ago

The upside of that system is this.
Had there been a Next of Kin to give consent that person would have signed a piece of paper and we’d know nothing more.

Because there was no NOK and because the court publishes its reason for granting consent we now KNOW that Boris-the-clown was LYING when he said Porton Down had already tested and found absolutely positive for Russian made Novichok.

Annoyingfurrything
Annoyingfurrything
3 years ago

You should view Inessa’s channel on Youtube. She dissects this pathetic false flag and it’s equally pathetic role-players beautifully.

20
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x