Eleonore Thun-Hohenstein WHO’S AFRAID OF A CURE FOR CANCER?

The Family is Evicted

Professor Hans Peter Spengler, son of a well-known Austrian surgeon, who worked as a surgeon at the Sanatorium Hera in Vienna, studied the fluorescence effect of Ukrain over a period of two years. When I contacted him as I was writing an article in 1984 he confirmed Nowicky’s observations.

‘I have seen just as many effects as non-effects. I suppose that it is only effective in cases of specific changes. That must be tested. Tests must be carried out according to norms and be reproducible. It would certainly be worth testing this preparation properly – not just here and there. That does not give a full picture.’ About Nowicky he said, ‘He is definitely a good researcher.’

However, since the oncologists at the established Vienna clinics were not prepared to take notice of his discovery, he had no choice but to collect his data ‘here and there’.

For a short time, there was a ray of hope from the hospital in Klagenfurt when some breast cancer patients were treated with Ukrain in the surgical department run by Professor Fritz Judmaier. At first, there was not much more to report except that cancer reacted to Ukrain. However, the final report stated:

‘Results so far appear to justify further clinical study, whereby we shall include somewhat younger patients who have not previously received polychemotherapy.’

Of course, no such thing ever happened. A short time later, Judmaier left his post and retired.

The explanation often heard in medical circles about new drugs, that they only work if the patient believes in them, could be refuted from the start. The Viennese vet, Helmut Forcher, reported a spectacular case. One of his four-legged patients was a poodle named Jason which had been brought to his surgery and operated on for a bone sarcoma in the lower jaw. When the swelling returned, because a second operation was not possible, Ukrain was used.

‘It was somehow extremely remarkable,’ Forcher described the case. The cancer growth was encapsulated, making a second operation possible. In addition, the vet observed, ‘it was becoming necrotic from the inside’. ‘This drug has got something.’ Further research was necessary.

Now that more reports about promising results with patients treated with Ukrain were coming in, Nowicky worked at his research with new heart.

Then, out of the blue, he received notice to leave his flat.

He had moved in two years previously after he and Anna had recognised that family life was not possible in view of his round-the-clock work. The two of them split up but have remained good friends to this day.

In 1978 Nowicky moved out of Anna’s small flat and rented a sub-standard flat in the Laimgrubengasse in the sixth district of Vienna. With friends, he modernised the apartment, installed central heating, tiled the bathroom and he bought a fitted kitchen.

It was the year of many hopeful beginnings. Not only did he have a new apartment but Professor Kuffner had also put him forward for a € 22,000 commission from the Ministry of Trade. In fact, Ukrain had not only proved itself to be the only known malignocytoliticum (cell growth inhibitor) which attacked only cancer cells while leaving healthy cells undamaged, but also a stimulator of the body’s immune system. No previous cancer drug had these properties.

All the greater was the shock when only two years after moving in to the now renovated flat, notice to leave arrived, on the grounds that the other people who had flats in the building were disturbed by noise from Nowicky’s apartment, whereby a whistling kettle, which he had never owned, played a special role. Nowicky appealed.

What now took place and stretched until Nowicky’s eviction in 1988 is no glorious chapter in the history of justice in this country.

Nowicky had remarried in 1986 and in Mira, who came from Poland, had found a valuable helper who brought order into the chaos of the brilliant but absent-minded researcher and with him bravely endured the injustice to which they were subjected – including the eviction on 10 February 1988.

That this should be officially ordered in the middle of winter, putting a pregnant woman and a one-year old toddler on the street is another ugly detail. Although statements by witnesses in the appeal court did not stand up to examination, a document proved to be a fake and in addition to much other proven incorrectness ‘police interventions’, which never happened, were stated as grounds for the verdict. It was always the noise supposedly caused by Nowicky and his guests which was put forward as the reason for these measures. The flimsiness of the evidence of the witnesses can be seen from the fact that the Nowicky family was taken in by a market trader who lived one floor above them and who now also received notice to leave – which was never implemented. None of the neighbours, who had wanted Nowicky evicted because of the unacceptable noise level, raised even the slightest objection against the family remaining in the house. They were now forced to live for many years in an extremely confined space.

Understandably, Nowicky was incensed by the whole procedure. During the whole case he had been illegally refused permission to look into the files – it was only after the eviction that he was allowed to do so. He sued the appeal commission of the civil court.

The reaction of the authorities was just as baffling as it was illegal. Nowicky received a letter dated 30 May 1990 from Dr. Peter Krieger, a specialist in neurology and psychiatry working for the courts.

‘The Vienna Criminal Court has commissioned us to draw up a report.

Please come for an examination on Monday, 18 June 1990 at 14.00.’

He was also asked to come alone.

Nowicky was incensed by this, as anyone might be. This was the reaction because he had dared to sue the authorities. Already having learned from experience of the tricks of officialdom, Nowicky first asked that the appointment be postponed in order to give him time to inform himself of the law. He discovered that he could not be forced to undergo any sort of medical, not to mention a psychiatric examination.

He was therefore considerably less shocked when he received a ‘Summons of the defendant in preliminary hearings’ dated 12 September 1990 – he had suddenly transformed from the plaintiff to the defendant – in which he was ordered to come to the criminal court for a ‘psychiatric examination’ on 25 September at 08.45.

To clear up any misunderstandings the summons went on:

‘You will be questioned by this court as the defendant.’

He was threatened that a warrant could be issued to force him to appear. However, Nowicky arrived punctually and discovered that the authorities obviously reckoned with the fact that citizens were ignorant of the law. As he referred to the relevant paragraphs according to which, ‘witnesses or defendants are not obliged to undergo medical examinations’ he was able to leave unmolested for the moment.

While Nowicky fought for his rights and tried in vain to prevent the eviction, he also lost his third laboratory place under Professor Bancher at the Technical University. Again without any reasons being given. Later Nowicky said that he was followed by a white and a black angel, whenever he took a beating from the black angel, the white angel came to his assistance shortly afterwards.

And so it was this time too. A cancer patient who had asked her doctor to treat her with Ukrain and had been cured, put the inventor without a laboratory in touch with Professor Viktor Gutmann who held a professorship in inorganic chemistry at the Technical University.

This contact turned out to be a fortunate one. On the day of his eviction, which took place at 10.00, he had his first appointment with Gutmann at 13.00. It seems that on this day, both angels were at work.

The eviction could not be stopped but Nowicky’s ‘white angel’ was waiting for him at the Technical University. The professor did not only offer him a laboratory place, he also agreed that he should oversee Nowicky’s work for his doctorate. And as Nowicky was summoned for psychiatric examination, Gutmann spontaneously offered to accompany him as a witness.