Eleonore Thun-Hohenstein
ANTICANCER PHARMACEUTICAL UKRAIN
Nowicky Leaves the Country of His Birth
Congresses, Successes and Dirty Tricks
Obstacles and ‘Coincidences’ Pile Up
Summary of the Medical History of S.D.
Who in the world is afraid of Ukrain? – And who must be protected from it at all costs?
These are the main questions to be investigated in this book. It is also the story of the way in which the emergence of a promising anti-cancer drug has been obstructed – perhaps for reasons which are not always so mysterious.
It is
also the first and only drug which destroys cancer cells while leaving healthy
cells undamaged, as proven by, among others, the US National Cancer Institute
(NCI), an internationally recognised research institute. The mechanism of
action of the drug was deciphered at St. John’s
University, Newfoundland
in
At international cancer congresses, doctors and researchers from all over the world have reported their successes in using Ukrain. There is certainly no shortage of success stories. Hundreds of case histories prove that Ukrain has been effective, even in apparently hopeless cases where conventional medicine had failed.
However, Ukrain is no wonder drug. There are also cases in which it has failed, especially when the disease is too far advanced; although even then, in not just a small number of cases, significant prolongation of life can be expected and particularly a decisive improvement in the general condition. All patients so far have agreed on this: the quality of life during and after treatment increased in a way they had not known previously - in contrast to conventional chemotherapy which also destroys healthy cells and weakens the immune system. Cancer patients and their relatives know the suffering of undergoing ‘chemo’ and how many additional drugs must be taken to reduce that suffering as much as possible – i.e. make it to some extent tolerable.
The anti-cancer drug Ukrain is interesting because it is completely non-toxic, as proven decades ago at the Pharmacological Institute of the University of Vienna and later confirmed by numerous researchers and doctors worldwide. Furthermore, it has no damaging side effects such as hair loss or extreme nausea and therefore needs no extra drugs to combat the side effects.
Ukrain appears to be especially effective where conventional medicine has unfortunately so often failed, such as with lung cancer with metastases, colon cancer, melanomas or types of cancer which form metastases in the liver and intestines. Many cases will be described in more detail in this report.
The layman may ask why, if Ukrain is so promising, is it not long-established in general cancer therapy?
That is the question.
Its
inventor, Wassil Jaroslaw Nowicky, an Austrian citizen originally from
Tirelessly Nowicky has repeatedly submitted documentation which the authorities have demanded, only to then be told that they are still not satisfactory. Like Don Quixote he has struggled against a bureaucracy which, as we shall see, does not want to register his drug.
But Nowicky has not given up. He has a deep streak of stubbornness. He is likeable and ready to help others but when it is a question of his invention he is imperturbable, hard-headed and liable to flare up. He will not let it out of his own hands. He has devoted his entire life to his research and he is utterly convinced of its value – and events have proven him right.
His misfortune is that he can only be granted registration of a medicine in the country of which he is a citizen.[1] His even greater misfortune is that the authorities responsible refuse to grant it.
Without registration a drug may only be dispensed at a chemist in exceptional circumstances, which are precisely defined under medical law. It is of no importance whether it is effective or whether it cures patients or not. The law particularly demands that a drug, when properly used, has no damaging effects beyond those that can be justified according to current medical knowledge. This means that when a drug is registered, damaging effects (risk) must be accepted when the sum of desired effects (benefit) is greater.
In general,
when dealing with cancer drugs, this relationship between risk and benefit
is very generously defined by the registration authorities. Since 1980 several
highly toxic substances with a relatively low response rate and low efficacy
have been registered in
Therefore a cancer drug which was completely harmless and without side effects would be of enormous importance. It would also have a very favourable effect on the costs of cancer treatment. (The National Cancer Institute estimated the costs for 1990 at 104 billion dollars.)
In view
of these facts, any country and its ministers, authorities, health insurance
institutions and doctors ought to be grateful if a drug is developed in
their country which fights cancer without damaging health in any way. For
this reason there is an accelerated procedure for these cases in many EU
states and in the
It is therefore totally incomprehensible that over a period of twenty years an inventor has not been able to register an anti-cancer drug which on top of all other factors was also developed with considerable support from the Austrian Ministry of Science. In this case there can be no doubt about a positive risk-benefit ratio.
At therapeutic doses Ukrain is non-toxic (it can even be drunk if it is not possible to inject it); it has no damaging side effects and its therapeutic efficacy is greater than conventional cytostatica. This has been confirmed in over one hundred scientific studies, clinical studies abroad and in numerous case reports.
The
inventor of this substance has been honoured worldwide (with the exception
of
‘It is certainly no quack remedy,’ was even confirmed years ago by one of the civil servants responsible for registration. However, there can be no question of it being registered. The same ministry and the same civil servants who certified a positive risk-benefit ratio for such highly toxic substances as Taxol and Cisplatin for cancer treatment have fought against Ukrain with almost religious zeal. Whereby the facts of the case for registration are extremely simple: the preparation is not toxic and therefore not dangerous. The Ministry of Health has had the relevant proof for a long time. The therapeutic efficacy has been clearly demonstrated in studies on cell cultures (in vitro), in animal experiments (in vivo) and in clinical studies. In addition, the economic importance of such a preparation should also be considered. It would be an excellent product for export with an enormous world market and, as an intelligent product is apparently what the Austrian government so much wants to support. Since the raw materials for Ukrain come from plants there would also be benefits to agriculture. There are reasons why its inventor has been offered millions by powerful international concerns for his worldwide patent and the relevant know-how.
So why
has this drug been persecuted by the registration authorities as though
it were an enemy? This persecution culminated in the statement by one of
the top civil servants at the registration authorities to interested parties
from other countries who were interested in licencing
agreements: ‘Ukrain will never be registered in
The fact that such a standpoint of one of the civil servants can amount to an almost insuperable hurdle lies in the nature of Austrian medical law. This uses expressions such as current scientific knowledge, practical experience, state-of-the-art and others. However, it does not define what state-of-the-art actually is. It is therefore subject to the discretion of the civil servants interpreting the law, who can therefore subvert its intention, namely to protect patients.
In this way the registration procedure can be drawn out to eternity by continually demanding new proofs, even when they are not required. This prolongs the procedure and uses up the time in which the patent is in force. At the same time the gathering of experience of the use of the preparation has been purposely obstructed by the ministry by putting pressure on doctors who successfully use the drug and not repealing edicts which are in contravention of the law or have misleading contents even when their incorrectness has been acknowledged by the ministry in writing and recognised by the highest court in the land. As a result, the health insurance institutions do not compensate patients for treatment costs even when treatment was obviously successful.
The question arises as to who finally benefits from the ministry’s attitude. The patients need not be protected because the drug is not dangerous. The Austrian economy can only be damaged: delaying registration shortens the time for which the patent is effective and therefore also reduces economic profits and tax revenues.
The solution to the puzzle is perhaps closer if the question is turned around: who is damaged by the registration of a drug?
The question is aimed directly at the financial interests of international pharmaceutical companies. Perhaps here is the solution to the puzzle and the story of this incomprehensible delaying action suddenly turns out to be less mysterious. After all, an American doctor had expressed the opinion that this new drug could replace most current chemotherapeutics.
During the course of my research this report has turned more into a crime story. Acts such as theft, telephone tapping and even direct threats cannot be attributed to coincidence for long. The obstruction, for which civil servants at the Ministry of Health and Consumer Protection (in the text below named Ministry of Health) are shamefully to a great extent responsible, has taken on ever more brutal forms over the course of the years so that once even the secret service became involved.
I have spoken with those who are for and against, with doctors and with scientists and collected the evidence which is now part of this crime story. The two special issues of the medical journal ‘Drugs Under Experimental and Clinical Research’ from 1992 and 1996 and the ‘Documentation of Research Work on Ukrain’ under project director Dr. Peter Locatin, all sponsored by the Austrian Ministry of Science have been particularly helpful in covering the scientific aspects. I would also like to express my thanks to Dr. Heinz Talirz for his valuable thoughts on the practice of drug registration.
In order to make the book more easily readable for laymen, I have kept specialist terms to a minimum.
[1]
The only exceptions are
<NEXT CHAPTER> <TOC>