Criminal Story of a Prevention - Ukrainian Anti Cancer Institute

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,
35