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

Harassment from All Sides

The year 1993 brought international cancer research trail-blazing new evidence about the cancer process. In studies of cell death and ‘programmed cell death’ within cells, American and Australian scientists gained a completely new insight into understanding this insidious disease. According to them, cells have an inner clock which tells them when they must die. In cancer this clock does not seem to work, whereby the life of the cells is prolonged and the life of the carrier of these cells is put at risk. The cancer runs its course. It had already been known for a long time that in the development of embryos certain cells are programmed to die at a certain time. The researchers now discovered that this phenomenon was not confined to the development of embryos. In medical terminology this programmed cell death (PCD) is called apoptosis, a Greek expression for leaves falling from a tree or a plant.

In 1993 these new findings were published in the renowned American journal ‘Science’. At the time, cancer researchers throughout the world tried to find a substance which would force cancer cells to carry out the ‘suicide’ order. The first to find one was Professor Liepins at the Memorial University in St. John’s, Canada. At the 11^th Interdisciplinary World Congress in Geneva he reported on his experiments with Ukrain as an agent of cell death at a session dedicated to Ukrain with a total of nine papers delivered. He had demonstrated in laboratory experiments that the alkaloid derivative from greater celandine, Ukrain, caused characteristic programmed cell death.

With the exception of Nowicky, not a single Austrian was represented at the congress as a speaker. Austrian cancer specialists stayed away from this session. The fact that they continued to ignore this drug, which had been developed in Austria, can be explained in no other way.

For years. Ukrain had been discussed at all international cancer congresses (far more than 100). Nowicky had been expressly invited to most of them including the 20^th International Congress of Chemotherapy from 29 June to 3 July 1997 in Sydney, Australia, where eleven speakers presented their results with Ukrain at a special session. Nowicky reported on a clinical study carried out in Poland in which Ukrain had been used to cause cell death in patients suffering from breast cancer. Even at the low dose of only 50 mg, Ukrain caused cell death in cancer cells. The number of cells which reacted was dependent on the malignancy of the cancer.

In 1993 the connection was made between cancer and programmed cell death. In April 1994 in Geneva, Ukrain was reported to be the trigger to bring about the death of cells which had refused to die. In June 1993 the Austrian Ministry of Health had given approval for clinical studies on the basis of a report from the drugs commission. In June 1994 the same ministry wrote to the regional health insurance authorities in Upper Austria (‘Re: Use of Ukrain’) referring to a ‘general ban on the use of Ukrain due to a decree of the federal ministry of 25 July 1986 - although this ban had not been binding for a long time on purely formal grounds (there was no confirmation).

It went on, ‘Until now, no definitive, state-of-the-art evidence of efficacy has been brought forward for the substance Ukrain.’ Furthermore, it was also pointed out that the list of publications given to the health insurance authorities included publications which had also been given to the drugs commission for assessment. Why this fact should be detrimental was not explained. ‘Therefore,’ continued the letter with incestuous logic, ‘it is still not scientifically proven that the substance Ukrain can achieve the above-mentioned ‘success’.’ It also did not fail to refer to the fact that if Ukrain was administered outside the framework of a clinical study, a fine of ‘up to € 72,000’ was threatened.

Whatever was already scientifically demonstrated at that time was simply (in ministerial arrogance?) not paid any attention. The responsible civil servants did not seem to want to do so at all since they even ignored the final report of their own drugs commission of the Federal Ministry of Health, Sport and Consumer Protection, General Health Department. This had already stated in November 1992 that, among other things, no kinds of side effects had been observed in patients with various forms of cancer.

The report went on, ‘Clinically, it was reported that these patients showed the following reactions: partial remission, total remission and total remissions which have already lasted for several years (up to ten years).’

The layman is forced to ask what more can be demanded of an anti-cancer drug that is non-toxic, without negative side effects and not carcinogenic. In addition the question could also be asked as to why Ukrain was put before the drugs commission at all because the substance had been tested again and again in Austria since the summer of 1983. ‘Since tolerance is obviously very good,’ the report finished, ‘a clinical study could under certain circumstances be given continued approval.’

A cryptic sentence which neither explains the ‘certain circumstances’ nor how or since when clinical studies had previously been approved.

However, there could still be no question of real clinical studies, not to mention registration.

The real state of affairs for clinical studies can be seen from a letter from Dr. R. from a Viennese gynacological clinic to the Ministry of Science on 8 May 1995. He had given his support for a clinical study. As is prescribed for such studies, Dr. R. had handed in to the Ethics Commission of the Medical Faculty of the University of Vienna the protocol of his methodology for a study of Ukrain in the treatment of recividist cervical cancer and received an astounding rebuff for an ‘ethics commission’. This insisted on a randomised, placebo-controlled double blind study, which means that one group of patients would be treated with Ukrain while the other group received only a placebo for comparison purposes. Quite correctly Dr. R. pointed out that it would hardly be possible to get the consent of patients suffering from a deadly disease to be treated with a placebo and that for cancer patients in Stage II new chemotherapy drugs had been tested without placebo groups for comparison (as stated in the Codex for Taxol).

The Ethics Commission remained unimpressed with these objections, stating that in contrast to cytotoxic drugs, the mechanism of action of Ukrain was completely unclear. The doctor should present a new protocol.

The Ethics Commission, made up of professors and civil servants, was obviously unaware of the fact that according to the World Health Organisation (WHO) placebo studies are forbidden with cancer patients. No sensible person would think of carrying out a double blind study with cancer, it stated. Since Dr. R. had no desire to follow the wishes of the Ethics Commission, he withdrew his application, but not without informing the Ministry of Science of his failed plan to set up a clinical study.

At this time Ukrain was being used on cancer patients not only in Austria but also in many other countries, especially USA. Many of these patients had gone through normal chemotherapy which undermined their general condition. However, in almost all cases Ukrain therapy led to an improvement in the quality of life, sometimes astonishingly so. In a very few cases, patients who had been through normal forms of therapy and were suffering from extremely advanced cancer with no prospects of a cure even achieved remissions. Others, in any case, experienced a subjective improvement in their general condition. Remarkable remissions were achieved particularly with advanced melanomas with metastases and with small-cell lung cancer, both forms of cancer which could not be dealt with using normal means.

The case previously described which led Professor Wodnianski to write to the Ministry of Science could now be supplemented with many other case studies.

Also in the early 1980’s, when Ukrain had hardly been used on patients, a 43 year-old Vienna doctor (Dr. I.R.) underwent Ukrain monotherapy (treatment only with Ukrain, without conventional medicine) at his own request, treated by the internist, Dr. Alexander Schmid and the neurologist Dr. Walter Dekan. The precisely documented medical records show that he had been diagnosed with ‘metastases from a malignant melanoma’ following a fine needle biopsy on a growth in the armpit area. An operation was carried out to remove the growth on 13 July 1983. The histological examination of two walnut-sized pieces of tissue produced the result, ‘lymph node metastases from a malignant melanoma’. On the day after the operation treatment with Ukrain was begun and in addition to the normal laboratory tests, melanin in the urine was also investigated. ‘The result was positive,’ stated the report, ‘so that a stage III cancer must be assumed.’

During the course of six series of injections, which were carried out with pauses of 15 days rising to a maximum of 60 days, the fluorescence of Ukrain was investigated. Wherever there were metastases fluorescence appeared after Ukrain had been injected. At first this was very clear but gradually reduced during treatment until it did not appear at all. While urine tests in July and September 1983 still showed melanin, in March 1984 no more melanin was found, a result that did not change after repeated examinations. The patient remained without complaints and without a recurrence of the disease.

Case studies from the following ten years would fill a thick book on their own. Their findings resulted in a change in Ukrain therapy. Monotherapy proved itself to be not always a panacea. When tumours were too big but an operation was possible, then surgery was needed. It was also discovered that thanks to the accumulation of Ukrain around tumours, even when they had seemed previously inoperable, it now became possible to remove them surgically. In certain cases supplementary radiotherapy was also helpful. Nowicky only excluded chemotherapy, which along with cancer cells also destroys healthy cells and weakens the immune system and thereby the patient. However, Ukrain showed itself to be especially helpful after chemotherapy in rebuilding the body’s own defence mechanisms and improving the general condition, mostly in a spectacular way.

However, the health authorities continued to ignore such reports and oncologists who had the opportunity to check the findings refused, at least officially, to use Ukrain experimentally. This meant that it was mostly general practitioners who prescribed Ukrain for their patients under paragraph 12 of Austrian medical law, which allows an unregistered drug to be used when the patient is at great risk and no other medicine can be expected to help.

This paragraph was obviously a thorn in the side of the health authorities since it continuously reminded them of their ‘ban’ on Ukrain, notwithstanding the fact that this ban was invalid since the decree was in contravention of the law. Despite this, all health authorities throughout Austria received official letters referring to this ‘ban’. These offices threatened 150 doctors with sanctions.

Finally exasperated at these circular letters Nowicky, via his lawyer Dr. Michael Graff, telephoned the Austrian Constitutional Court which promptly lifted the decree with the ‘ban’ as ‘unconstitutional’ and on 26 February 1996 ordered the Federal State, i.e. the taxpayer, to pay € 940 to Nowicky as ‘compensation’, payable ‘within two weeks or goods will be impounded’.

The eight-page document outlining the grounds for the decision of the Constitutional Court reads like an – unintentional – record of the tricks with which registration had continually been prevented. It states that the ‘authority being sued’ (the Ministry of Health) has answered the statements of the appellant (Nowicky) but ‘their explanation is too general and amounts only to assertions with no recognisable basis. It is partly also unclear what the authority being sued wishes to prove with their explanations.’ The Ministry of Health is also, in several cases, missing relevant documents, ‘but does not expain what these are or what purpose they serve’.

Michtner, who wanted to prevent the registration of Ukrain by any means, sought to refute the accusations brought by the lawyer Graff on behalf of Nowicky in an eleven-page document addressed to the Constitutional Court and dated 2 October 1995.

In this defence, which was thrown out by the court and which does not reflect favourably on the legal abilities of the civil servant, it is stated that the accusation of prejudice is decisively refuted, on the contrary: Nowicky was ‘extremely favourably treated’. The fact that the same law was not applied to Ukrain as to the anti-cancer drug Taxol was explained with the astonishing reasoning that Taxol was only registered for hopeless cases when no other anti-cancer drug helped, leading to the fact that, ‘no investigations of a possible carcinogenic effect were necessary and also no comparitive studies with other cytotoxica needed to be carried out’.

Finally: ‘The Federal Minister for Health and Consumer Protection petitions that the claim should not be recognised and should be dismissed with costs.’

However, the Constitutional Court ruled against the authorities on 26 February 1996. But although Nowicky’s case had been upheld this brought no change of attitude on the part of the civil servants from the registration authorities. The more time that elapsed, the more they appeared to be contented. The worldwide patent on Ukrain was due to run out soon.

The fact that the Austrian Medical Association also played its part in this harassment of Nowicky and Ukrain is a further sad chapter in the story of how this cancer drug has been suppressed. On what thin ice the disciplinary council of this doctors’ representative organisation walks was demonstrated in the case of a courageous physician. The fact that her name is Gazyna Nowicki made her especially suspicious. The similarity in names is only phonetic. Dr. Gazyna Nowicki is not related to Dr. Jaroslaw Nowicky in any way.

Gazyna Nowicki was treating a child suffering from a bone tumour and wanted to use Ukrain, which in the meantime had been registered in Belarus, since all other means appeared to have failed. She wrote a prescription and, as was usual in such a case, she requested permission to import the drug. Normally the chemist applies for permission to import a medicine and confirms that it is registered in the country from which it comes. This procedure usually takes one week – but not in this case.

The doctor was summoned to appear before the Disciplinary Commission of the Austrian Medical Association. She was told, ‘to appear reliably before the undersigned examiner’ on 1 March 1996 in the offices of the Austrian Medical Association to answer a breach of discipline: and this breach of discipline was ‘use of the medicament Ukrain’. Punctually, at the time stipulated in the summons the doctor appeared accompanied by a lawyer from Dr. Graff’s office. After the lawyer had established her credentials the two women were told that the summons was a mistake.

The doctor asked herself how the Medical Association knew about her application to import Ukrain. In fact, it is not difficult to trace the source of this knowledge. The applications of chemists are made via the Ministry of Health and the civil servants there had obviously taken rapid action. The lawyer, Dr. Michael Graff, then wrote to the ministry but unsurprisingly received no answer. After one and a half years (!) came the news that the application had been refused. One and a half years instead of one week! If that is not working according to double standards!

However, with this the ‘measures’ against Dr. Grazyna Nowicki were in no way at an end. On 24 September 1997 she was summoned to the Health Department of the Vienna City Council. At the time she was working fifteen hours a week as a doctor for the council. She had already heard on the grapevine that she was on the ‘hit list’ and since her superior Dr. Graf (not to be confused with the lawyer Dr. Graff) had refused to speak to her privately a few days previously but had insisted on talking to her only in the presence of a ‘commission’, she asked the lawyer, Renate Palma, to accompany her. She kept a record of the ‘discussion’:

‘On 24.9.1997 at 09.30 Dr. Nowicki and I arrived at Dr. Graf’s office. Several members of the commission, as Dr. Nowicki later told me, were already present, including her superior Dr. Christa Locius. After I had introduced myself, I was asked to provide identification. I handed over my document of title and my driving licence. Dr. Nowicki and I were then asked to leave the office and wait in the corridor. After some time we were called back into the office. When I asked for my identification papers back I was told that they were still with Dr. Graf and that he would phone later. Shortly afterwards we were shown into Dr. Graf’s private office.’

‘There we were given an extremely reserved and cool reception. Dr. Graf appeared to be incensed. His first words were, ‘That’s the end of the discussion.’ In answer to my question why he was behaving like this he only answered that he was not prepared to talk under these circumstances. Only a discussion had been planned and it would not have been necessary to have been represented by a lawyer. I explained that our client, Dr. Nowicki, had no idea what purpose a discussion in the presence of a commission was meant to serve. In addition, my presence would not disturb anyone because I would only listen. Dr. Graf insisted, as he had decided before, on not allowing the discussion to take place. In answer to my question what would happen next, he replied that he would first talk to Dr. Nowicki privately.’

The harassment of Dr. Jaroslaw Wassil Nowicky, who as an outsider had had the audacity to develop an anti-cancer drug now began to take up more and more of the courts’ time.

The owner of the Adler pharmacy in Währing, Vienna, via the lawyer Dr. Karl Grigkar, sent a woman with a prescription for Ukrain to Nowicky. She said that a cancer patient urgently needed the drug but that the pharmacy would not issue it and had sent her to him. She expressly referred to paragraph 12 of medical law whereby in life-threatening cases or when serious damage to health is to be expected a drug which has not yet been registered may be prescribed.

Hardly had Nowicky, in all good faith, provided the woman with Ukrain, than an application for an interim injunction to forbid the sale of Ukrain was made to the courts by the company Novipharm GmbH on 28.8.1996. Since Nowicky knew that the company Novipharm produced the alternative cancer drug Isorel and that this application was not completely disinterested, with the help of the lawyers’ office of Professor Walter Barfuss, he set about defending himself. Successfully. On 21 April 1997 the case was dropped.

However, that was not the end of the matter. The owner of the Adler parmacy, who was closely connected with Novipharm, appealed against the decision. The grounds upon which the Commercial Court, Vienna rejected this appeal on 15 May 1997 reveal the questionable methods which could have caused the downfall of Nowicky if the court had not seen through them and denounced them in writing.

The court records that the representative of the appellant who bought the Ukrain leading to this case at the Commercial Court was given the drug after he had, in contravention of the truth, named a non-existent person and declared that it was required urgently. The prescription demanded from the defendant in accordance with paragraph 12 of medical law could not be provided or demanded because the name and address, according to the invoice, proved to be false. The suspicion exists that, at the time of the purchase which is the subject of this case, Frau Fruhmann, an employee of the plaintiff’s lawyer (!), falsely presented herself as a cancer patient and had also deceived Dr. Riessberger in order to get a prescription.

The appeal court saw the ‘unethical’ nature of the whole purchase not only in the behaviour of the purchaser, who had also ‘instigated’ the case, but also in that of the plaitiff (the Adler pharmacy) which had ‘not only refused to dispense Ukrain under the conditions laid out in paragraph 12 of medical law but also sent an employee of a lawyer friend as a test purchaser to the defendant’.

‘The behaviour of the plaintiff’ it concluded, ‘is in the opinion of the appeal court undoubtedly to be considered unethical and beyond the bounds of forbidden incitement with the use of an agent provocateur to trick a competitor. There is no basis for the accusation contained in the charge that the defendant acted in contraversion of the law.’

The administrative court also had to concern itself with Ukrain and paragraph 12 of medical law several times. Dr. Grazyna Nowicki also had to answer to the court in this connection. As an ear, nose and throat specialist, with the required certification, she had received Ukrain from Dr. Nowicky for a patient suffering from a malignant melanoma. Shortly afterwards she was charged with the illegal administration of an unregistered drug. This case was also dropped after an appeal to the independent administration court.

What is astonishing about all this harassment is that it appeared to be of no interest at all what success Ukrain had in fighting cancer. – Despite the fact that this promising anti-cancer drug was repeatedly brought to the attention of the changing ministers at the Ministry of Health by journalists, patients and doctors. Some of them discussed this with their civil servants – they were always the same ones - with the best intentions but, as was to be expected, they were strongly advised against having anything to do with the drug. Almost all cancer specialists reacted in the same way. Medical records for which patients had given their permission to be publically used and whose doctors were also prepared to reveal their part in the treatment met with an irritated lack of interest as if only a swindle could be expected from a local outsider.

This was especially astonishing in the case of a nine year-old girl with Ewing’s sarcoma. This case was documented with X-rays in ‘Drugs Under Research’ in 1992. This malignant growth, which appears particularly at an early age in long tubular bones and all too often leads to the amputation of a leg, had affected the girl’s right calf bone. After both radiotherapy and chemotherapy had proved ineffective and the tumour continued growing, the desperate mother decided to try using Ukrain. This case is not only fully recorded but the X-rays were made at regular intervals at Vienna’s St. Anna’s Children’s Hospital where many children suffering from cancer are treated. The X-ray pictures printed in ‘Drugs Under Research’ are enough for the layman to be able to follow the course of the healing process. After one year with six series of therapy with Ukrain, neither X-rays nor laboratory tests showed any signs of disease.

Whoever believes that at St. Anna’s Children’s Hospital, in the interest of suffering children, special attention might be paid to this case and perhaps even further tests tried in hopeless cases is wrong. Since that time, nothing in this lack of interest has changed.