Ukrainian Anti Cancer Institute

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

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

12.08 2010

Dear Dr. Hauer,

As you know I have been struggling for the approval in Austria of my anti-cancer preparation Ukrain since 1976. At that time I gave your lawyers office power of attorney to represent me in this legal matter.

On 27.7.1981 I submitted an application for the approval of Ukrain to the Federal Ministry of Health and Environmental Protection. This application has not been dealt with until now. On 18.2.2010 I wrote a letter to you in which I asked for information about what legal steps I should take in order to obtain my legal right. However, despite several reminders such as from 5.8.2010  I have so far received no reply from you.

On 28.3.2002 I filed a complaint at the European Court about my application not having been dealt with and on 24.2.2005 the court found in my favour against the Republic of Austria. Despite this verdict nothing has changed concerning the processing of my application in accordance with the law in force at the time.

Due to the fact that my application has not been dealt with it is particularly cancer patients who suffer great harm because the health insurance institutions refuse to cover the costs of treatment, such as in the case of Ms Jakob which was reported in the media (please see: http://www.ukrin.com/fall-hedwig-jakob). However, the Republic of Austria has also suffered financial detriment (please see: http://www.ukrin.com/de/2010-07-22-ministry-justice). I therefore cannot understand why I have had to wait more than six months for an answer and urgently ask you to answer the question I have posed.

I would like to draw your attention to § 9 and §11 of the Lawyers’ Regulations in which §9 states that a lawyer must represent his client eagerly, faithfully and conscientiously. A lawyer is also obliged to deal with the business entrusted to him as long as he is commissioned to do so and is responsible for non-fulfilment (§11 Lawyers’ Regulations).

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

Best regards,

Dr. Wassil Nowicky

Dr. Christian Hauer
Schönherr Rechtsanwälte GmbH
(Schönherr Attorneys Pvt. Ltd.)
Tuchlauben 17
A-1010 Vienna

Vienna, 18th February 2010

Dear Dr. Hauer,

As Ukrain has been approved in many countries, has received the status of an orphan drug in the USA and Australia, was first presented at the 13th International Congress of Chemotherapy in Vienna (http://www.ukrin.com/docs/13.congress.pdf) and at several renowned international specialists' conventions (http://www.ukrin.com/docs/congresses.pdf), and has also been described in the published medical literature (http://www.ukrin.com/docs/Bibliography_5.doc), it may be prescribed by doctors for their patients, pursuant to §8 (previously §12) AMG (Medicinal Products Law). According to §8 AMG: "Medicinal products require no marketing authorisation if: 1) these (products) are intended to be used for conducting non-clinical or clinical trials or clinical tests, or 2) a doctor, dentist or veterinarian authorised to practice his profession in his country independently certifies that the medicinal product is urgently required to prevent a life-threatening condition or grave health damage and, according to the current level of science, such an outcome cannot be anticipated by the use of an approved and available medicinal product." (http://www.ukrin.com/docs/amg-1994-12.pdf). The law is superior to an official notification. Austria is a constitutional state and a law cannot be negated by an official functionary. Besides, Ukrain is approved in Austria for clinical trials (http://www.ukrin.com/docs/Arrouas_1993.pdf) and, according to §42 AMG, any doctor may use this preparation in his medical practice, even outside of hospitals.
Regarding this type of clinical testing, various oncological diseases encountered in routine practice by urban and rural doctors have been treated with Ukrain. The analytical methods were adjusted to the scope of options available at the office of a general practician and certain limitations of rural areas, especially because many of the patients had undergone previous treatment and a large percentage of them suffered from progressive disease.

About 250 Austrian doctors were involved in these studies.

The results of these studies were continuously presented to the ministry. In their reports the doctors recommended early marketing authorisation for Ukrain (http://www.ukrin.com/de/tatsachen#klinischeanwendungen, http://www.ukrin.com/docs/Gansauge_2002.pdf, http://www.ukrin.com/docs/Gansauge_2007.pdf, http://www.ukrin.com/docs/Susak_1996.pdf, http://www.ukrin.com/docs/Bondar_1998.pdf, http://www.ukrin.com/docs/uglanica_1998.pdf, http://www.ukrin.com/docs/Uglyanica_1996.pdf).

For instance, Dr. Adolf Langer in Vienna said: "I will be glad to present my numerous medically provable cases in which patients owe their survival solely to the effect of UKRAIN. It would appear that UKRAIN is capable of developing several other modes of action by way of improving the entire organism and I am also in a position to prove this scientifically by presenting solid medical data." (IV Page 31)

Dr. Grazyna Nowicki (no relative): "I have been using 'Ukrain' for about 7 years now at my medical practice. The large majority of about 15 patients whom I personally treated were patients in whom all therapy options had failed. They had been given up by conventional medicine and were desperately looking for a last therapy option. It should be mentioned that all of these patients experienced subjective as well as objective improvement of their physical and psychological condition after the first few injections of Ukrain - a fact which I most definitely cannot define as a placebo effect. The patients improved their eating and sleeping habits, reported immense relief from pain - such that the use of strong analgesics was rendered unnecessary in many cases … I enclose a few case reports of the most remarkable successes achieved with Ukrain … a 67-year-old woman with metastatic breast cancer (bone and lung metastases, malignant pleural effusion and ascites) who had been discharged from the hospital as an incurable case. Her general condition was pitiable. After the third therapy series with Ukrain, the doctors in the hospital established that all tumours, metastases and the pleural effusion and ascites had disappeared. The patient stopped treatment with Ukrain after the 7th series and experienced a recurrence (short-term remission) 7 months later… It may be summarised that, also in consideration of my several years of experience at an ENT clinic abroad, I clearly observe the following: Ukrain is a therapy option for oncological diseases and should be made widely accessible if one is to maintain one's medical ethics and satisfy one's conscience. Marketing authorisation for Ukrain … should be issued … I do most urgently recommend early marketing authorisation as well as wide and rapid availability of this highly effective cancer therapy to those who need it." (IV Pages 27-28)

The well known Viennese doctor Dr. Thomas Kroiss wrote the following about his experience with Ukrain: "During my treatment of cancer patients for more than 16 years now, I have been working with the medication Ukrain. In my experience, with Ukrain one is able to treat malignant tumours of small dimensions in a way that they do not recur. I have also experienced that, when treating patients with Ukrain (provided one uses the right dose), no side effects occurred in 99% of cases." (IV Page 5)

The widespread use of Ukrain has led to an increasing number of cures (http://www.ukrin.com/docs/congresses.pdf, http://www.ukrin.com/docs/Bibliography_5.doc, http://www.ukrin.com/docs/Aschoff_2000.pdf, http://www.ukrin.com/docs/Aschhoff_2003_xp.pdf, http://www.ukrin.com/docs/Nowicki_2003.pdf).

We suspect that the officials issued their orders of 25th July 1986 (XVII), later on 25th February 1994 (XVIII), and finally their negative order of 6th August 2009, in order to suppress this evidence.
Instead of granting marketing authorisation as requested by doctors, Austrian doctors have been pressurised by various means with a the intention to compelling them not to use Ukrain.

Some of them, such as Stefan Dan's treating physician, were harassed with criminal charges (XVI), and others with disciplinary proceedings (XV). Many doctors have also distanced themselves from Ukrain and have abandoned patients in whom all treatment options had failed in order to avoid getting into difficulties with official authorities.

The disastrous consequences of these actions for patients are demonstrated in the following case.

As mentioned in the book "Krebsmittel Ukrain, Kriminalgeschichte einer Verhinderung" (The anti-cancer drug Ukrain, a criminal history of prevention) written by Dr. Eleonore Thun-Hohenstein, Molden Publishers http://www.ukrin.com/de/buch, Stefan Dan will remain paralysed for the rest of his life because of illegal actions taken by Austrian health authorities (see Page 7 and ff as well as Page 185 and ff). At a control investigation in the hospital, Stefan Dan's parents were coerced with threat of penalties, with reference to illegal orders of the Health Ministry from 1986 and 1994, to discontinue the treatment prescribed for him by his doctor according to § 12 AMG, although no other therapy option could be offered to him. This is even more incomprehensible in view of the fact that the treatment with Ukrain achieved such a visibly successful effect in a case of a disease that is incurable until the present day (generalised lymphangiomatosis) so that Stefan was even able to ride a bike (http://www.ukrin.com/de/verhinderungstaktik-folgen). If the therapy had been continued Stefan would have fully recovered his health, as in the case of a child with Ewing's sarcoma (http://www.ukrin.com/docs/fallberichte.pdf). Thanks to treatment with Ukrain, this girl is now completely healthy and alive until the present day. Both cases are known to the public through the television.
I do not understand what priorities were involved in this matter.

An application for marketing authorisation for Ukrain was submitted to the Federal Ministry of Health and Environmental Protection on 27th July 1981 (http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?item=1&portal=hbkm&action=html&highlight=Nowicky&sessionid=40878743&skin=hudoc-en).

In his letter dated 14th August 1981 the Federal Minister informed me that, in order to obtain marketing authorisation, I need a license to manufacture drugs. I immediately applied for such a license at the office of the official authorities in charge. After seven years, in May 1988, I was granted a license decree (http://www.ukrin.com/docs/Konzession.pdf) which I immediately presented to the Federal Ministry. Thus, all conditions for marketing authorisation according to §8 Line 2 and 3 of the (Medicinal) Speciality Law of 1947 were fulfilled. Yet, even today, nearly 30 years after submission of the application, Ukrain has not received marketing authorisation on illegal grounds, because of supposed violations of procedural law (http://www.ukrin.com/docs/im_namen_der_republik-1996.pdf).

As my lawyer, kindly instruct me as to how I can avail myself of my rights in the constitutional state of Austria. What legal steps should I take in order to achieve marketing authorisation in accordance with the legal situation at the time of submission of the application? This would eliminate the possibility of insurance companies refusing to reimburse the cost of treatment for Ukrain (http://www.ukrin.com/fall-hedwig-jakob). At the same time, it would enable cancer patients to select their treatment on their own (http://www.ukrin.com/de/node/129).

As it is a matter of public interest, I will publish this letter as well as your valuable legal instructions in the Internet.

With best wishes,
Dr. W. Nowicky