Criminal Story of a Prevention - Ukrainian Anti Cancer Institute

conclusion, in this case there is no indication whatsoever for the anyway questionable
effectiveness of the preparation.’
This contradicts the conclusions of a Vienna general practitioner who had used Ukrain
for many years and was asked for an opinion:
The patient J.H. was most certainly in danger of her life, both before and after the
operation. I have treated a very similar case myself with Ukrain. A 30 year-old woman with
colonic cancer and lymph node metastases who had a hemi-colectomy like Frau J.H. and also
widespread bone and especially liver metastases. After three months of treatment with Ukrain
the liver metastases disappeared. This was demonstrated by computer tomography several
times and by MRI and ultrasound.’
‘Since I have worked with Ukrain for a long time,’ continued the doctor, ‘and
increasingly see the unbelievably positive effects it can have, both on tumour activity and on
the immune system, in this special case of Frau H. I can imagine no other reason for the
patient’s survival than the effect of Ukrain. I would be pleased to present the numerous,
medically proven cases where patients have the efficacy of Ukrain to thank for their survival.’
As may have been expected, nobody was interested in taking up this offer.
Two other doctors who had experience of Ukrain also gave their opinions. Dr. P.K.
reminded the tribunal that according to data from the World Health Organisation the five-year
survival time for adenocarcinomas of the intestine with lymph node metastases in stage Dukes
C1 was only 7 percent. And that according to clinical experience recidivisms could also be
expected after this period. Preventing this was he said ‘of the greatest importance’. A
colleague also confirmed that in this life-threatening case paragraph 12 of medical law should
be applied.
‘When Professor Zielinski stresses (after seven years) that the patient was luckily not
affected by the unfavourable prognosis for colonic cancer Dukes C1, he is taking no account
of the fact that this can indeed be attributed to Ukrain. In addition, since according to
Professor Zielinski’s statement the patient’s chances at the time of the operation were so bad,
it is even most probable that the reason that the unfavourable prognosis did not apply to Frau
H. can be attributed to Ukrain.’
Since in the meantime, there was a case in progress at the Constitutional Court about
the ‘decree’ from the Ministry of Health which forbade the use of Ukrain, the proceedings in
Frau J.H.’s case were adjourned. Her lawyer, Dr. Michael Graff raised an objection.
On 19 June 1996 the Constitutional Court concluded ‘that the improperly announced
orders have no basis in law and that these should not have been applied by the courts from the
outset, and also without appeal to the Constitutional Court.’ Whereby the health insurance
authorities could no longer claim in court that there was a ‘ban’ on the use of Ukrain.
The proceedings in the case of J.H. were now continued with new specialist reports
both pro and contra Ukrain. An internist, Dr. Donatus Pokorny stated on 12 August 1996 –
eight years after the operation – that there were no metastases in the patient’s lymph nodes
and that it had not been established that Ukrain was used ‘for the treatment of existing tumour
manifestations’ or against expected recidivisms. He did not go into the fact that the doctors at
the hospital had sent the patient home after the operation with no further treatment and had
told her husband that they could do no more and she could only be expected to live a few
months. Every part of this report was torn to pieces by another report which accused Pokorny
of obvious bias and described his argument that, according to statistics, after an operation for
colonic cancer and without further treatment the patient had a thirty percent chance of
survival and that Ukrain would therefore not have been necessary as ‘a scandal in itself’.
Pokorny then countered with an ‘interim supplementary report’ in which he claimed
that in this case Ukrain had been applied ‘purely speculatively’ and because of this it was
unsuitable because after the operation during the regular examinations no recidivism and no
43