Federal Minister
Mag. Claudia Bandion-Ortner
Federal Ministry of Justice
Museumstrasse 7
1010 Vienna
22.07.2010
Re: Violation of §8 Medicines Act (see “Explanations” pp 7-8), infringement of §8 clauses 2 and 3 of the Medical Specialities Order 1947 (see “Explanations” pp 5-6), article 7 (1) Federal Constitutional Principle (see “Explanations” pp 4-5), art. 2 right to life – Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Basic Freedoms art. 2 (see “Explanations” pp 9-10).
Dear Minister,
I found out the alarming information from the press – profil No. 6 from 8.2.2010 - that the average prolongation of life in the use of new anti-cancer preparations is only 24 days up to a maximum of 6.6 months (please see Enclosure 1, table on page 77).
As explanation for my impatience in waiting for your answer to my letter of 24.06.2010, I would like to quote the oncologist Dr. Wolf-Dieter Ludwig, president of the Medicines Committee of the German Medical Association:
“Many new drugs can only delay the progress of tumour diseases by a few weeks or months, but have either no influence or a minimal influence on survival.” (Enclosure 1, page 75)
It is incomprehensible to me that it should not be an obligation of the Austrian health authorities to take every smallest opportunity to relieve the suffering of cancer patients. My effective anti-cancer preparation, which at the same time has few side-effects (please see Enclosure 2, "Efficacy, Safety and Quality"), is ready to be used and the question arises as to which priorities were more important for civil servants than dealing with my applications for approval.
Since I came to Austria around 35 years ago from the former Eastern Bloc the Austrian health authorities have only created difficulties for me instead of supporting my efforts (please see Enclosure 3 and Enclosure 4, edicts which had to be annulled by the Higher Administrative Court because they were issued unlawfully). After indications for the efficacy of my preparation against cancer in vitro, in vivo and in the clinic had been submitted the attempt was even made to prevent me receiving a patent in Austria for my preparation UKRAIN (please see the enclosed email from Dr. Hauer, Enclosure 5). This was neither the job nor the duty of the civil servants. The attempt to prevent me failed because the health authorities were not responsible for the granting of patents. In the meantime I hold patents all over the world as well as, of course, in Austria.
However, in dealing with my applications from 1976 and 1981 the civil servants have had the power – although unlawfully through the breach of procedural regulations, as confirmed by the Higher Administrative Court (Enclosure 6) – to delay completion until now.
The delay in proceedings in Austria, as country of origin, has contributed to approval being prevented in other countries. Furthermore, if one supposes that only 10% of cancer patients in western Europe could benefit from my preparation, the Austrian state has lost hundreds of millions in tax revenue.
Around 30 years ago a child suffering from Ewing`s Sarcoma could be helped – please see the details in the enclosed letter to St. Anna Children’s Hospital (Enclosure 7). Although the hospital doctors had proof of successful therapy in the form of continual X-ray examinations carried out at their hospital, they had no opportunity to help other children with my medicament because my applications – I repeat – were not and have not been dealt with. This is all the more incomprehensible since applications for approval from large pharmaceutical companies have sometimes been dealt with within a few weeks. Bristol-Meyer received the first approval for Taxol in Austria within a very short period although it should be emphasised that Austria is not the country of origin of this preparation. Perhaps the explanation can be found in the fact that I am only a one-man business without the backing of a financially powerful lobby.
It is also worth mentioning that because the applications have not been dealt with the health insurance institutions refuse to cover the costs of treatment, including in cases of well-documented successful treatments (please see the case history of Heidi Jakob, which is known to you).
The efficacy, safety and quality of my anti-cancer preparation has been observed and proved by many scientists all over the world, as you may see from Enclosure 4. It is incomprehensible that this preparation is refused to cancer sufferers.
Dear Minister, I therefore ask you urgently to send me your answer, which is not only important for me but for many cancer patients. What should I do so that my applications from 1976 and 1981 are finally dealt with in accordance with the law in force at the time and I receive the right guaranteed to me by the constitution?
I look forward to receiving your appreciated reply, which, like this letter, I will publish on the internet since it is a matter of public interest.
Best regards,
Dr. Wassil Nowicky
Enclosures:
1. profil No. 6 from 8.2.2010
2. Efficacy, Safety and Quality
3. Edict
4. Edict
5. Email from Dr. Hauer
6. Decision of the Higher Administrative Court
7. Letter to St. Anna Children’s Hospital
German
English