Criminal Story of a Prevention - Ukrainian Anti Cancer Institute

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
37