Criminal Story of a Prevention - Ukrainian Anti Cancer Institute

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.
17