Reply to comment

Dr. Christian Hauer
Schönherr Rechtsanwälte GmbH
Tuchlauben 17
A-1010 Vienna

18.08 2010

Dear Dr. Hauer,

As my lawyer I entrusted you to advise and represent me in legal questions relating to the approval of my anti-caner preparation UKRAIN in Austria. The commission I gave you is still valid today. However, I have the impression that the questions I ask you have been ignored and not dealt with for reasons which are incomprehensible to me.

According to § 11 of the Lawyers’ Regulations a lawyer is obliged to deal with the business entrusted to him as long as the commission is still valid and is responsible for not doing so. According to § 9 of the Lawyers’ Regulations a lawyer is obliged to fulfil commissions he takes on in accordance with the law and to plead for the rights of his client against third parties diligently, faithfully and conscientiously. It is therefore incomprehensible that you have disregarded my letter of 18 February 2010 and the following reminders for more than six months.

In Ukraine I began my research on the development of a preparation that was intended to be effective against cancer while at the same time having few side effects. After moving to Vienna I continued my work on my own initiative as a student at the Cancer Research Institute, Borschkestrasse, and I actually succeeded, as the first person in the world, in developing a product which is only toxic against cancer cells while leaving healthy cells undamaged.

It is generally known that the greatest wish of all cancer researchers has been to produce such a medicament. I have learned from the media that many Austrian cancer researchers are currently working on the development of such a preparation (Enclosure 1).

It is highly commendable that the cancer research institute at which I carried out research as a student in 1976 and developed an anti-cancer preparation free of side-effects (Enclosure 2) is also making a great effort in this direction. However, until now these attempts have remained unsuccessful and we do not know how much longer Austrian researchers will need to develop a comparable product. My preparation is the first to have these properties and it has been in existence for more than 30 years. Unfortunately cancer patients cannot wait until Austrian scientists produce a similar medicament. I therefore see no sense in depriving patients of my preparation and information about its effect. The Austrian state has lost hundreds of millions in tax revenue on account of this delay in dealing with my application in Austria as the country of origin.

I submitted my application for approval to the Austrian authorities on 27 July 1981 as a one-man company. It is incomprehensible that my application has remained undealt with for decades while in 1993, as the first country in the world, the Austrian authorities granted approval to the global American concern Bristol-Meyers Squibb for the highly toxic product Taxol within the shortest time after the application had been submitted – and did so although Austria was not even the country of origin of Taxol.

I need your support since in my case it is most clear that Article 7 of the Constitutional Principle, in which every citizen is guaranteed the same rights irrespective of whether a one-man firm or a global concern, has been infringed. But in this case I am not the only one to have been treated unjustly by the authorities, this delay particularly harms cancer patients since they receive no compensation for the cost of Ukrain treatment from the health insurance institutions (please see the example of Ms. Jakob, Enclosure 3).

In your mail of 03.08.2010 you tell me that the Austrian authorities want information about the production of the active substance by 24.08.2010. Here I must state that whenever I have informed the ministry of the name of the production company it has always promptly distanced itself from me and I have had to look for a new producer. This was the case with Gerot (Enclosure 4), Solvay and Lavoisier. This  leads to the suspicion that this is cannot be a coincidence and that influence has been exerted on the part of the authorities. For this reason I see myself forced to keep the name of the production company as a trade secret.

It should also be noted that since 1976 I have had Ukrain produced hundreds of times and, as you can see from the enclosed document “Efficacy, Safety and Quality” (Enclosure 5), Ukrain has always been produced with the same quality and has been effective and safe in its application.

As you know, the European Court of Human Rights delivered a verdict against the Republic of Austria on 24.02.2005 (Enclosure 6) for not dealing with my application. Despite this verdict nothing has happened until now and my application is still undealt with by the authorities. The book “Krebsmittel Ukrain, Kriminalgeschichte einer Verhinderung“ by
Dr. Eleonore Thun- Hohenstein, Molden Verlag (Enclosure 7), in which scandalous illegalities were made public, has also not been able to stop the delaying tactics of the Austrian authorities. It must be asked what priorities were and are more important to the health authorities than acting in accordance with the law.

As my lawyer I therefore ask you, in accordance with the obligations laid out in the Lawyers’ Regulations, to do everything to ensure that my application of 27.07.1981 is dealt with as promptly as possible in accordance with the law in force at the time.

Since this is a matter of public interest I shall take the liberty of publishing this letter and your reply on the internet.

Best regards,
Dr. Wassil Nowicky