Why?

Vienna, 19.02.2009

Austrian civil servants should feel obliged to Austrian tax payers to answer the following questions:

Ewing's sarcoma occurs as a result of tumour growth that comes from the connective tissue cells of bone marrow. With an incidence of 3 cases per 1 million people it is a rare disease. Ewing's sarcoma can appear on the whole skeleton but nevertheless occurs most frequently on the legs, pelvic bone, bladebone and ribs. As a rule children get the disease when aged between 10 and 15 but children below 10 years old are also affected.
(http://www.medizinfo.de/krebs/kinder/knochensarkome.shtml). 

A 9 year-old girl from Poland was diagnosed with Ewing's sarcoma. The girl received chemotherapy and radiotherapy but the tumour growth could not be stopped. The girl was declared to have exhausted all possible forms of treatment (i.e. had been given up by mainstream medicine) and was sent home with hopeless prospects.
The parents took their daughter to Vienna to St. Anna Children's Hospital because they hoped to receive better medical treatment.
The doctors carried out new examinations and had to declare that they too could not help her. The complete repertoire of mainstream medicine was used up but the tumour growth continued.
At this point her parents heard about Ukrain by chance and contacted Dr. Wassil Nowicky. On 21 January 1984 treatment with Ukrain was begun (Lohninger et al, 1992).
After 6 months of treatment with Ukrain the girl was examined again at St. Anna Children's Hospital and to the great astonishment of the doctors not only had the tumour growth been stopped but even better, the tumour had become smaller. However, there was still no interest in Ukrain.
Treatment with Ukrain was continued and every six months the progression of the disease was checked at St. Anna Children's Hospital at the instigation of Dr. Nowicky. In this way Dr. Nowicky wanted to arouse the interest of doctors in Ukrain (unfortunately to no avail).
Gradually the tumour disappeared completely and at an X-ray examination on 31 October 1990 it was seen that even the bone which had been eaten away had regenerated (Ukrain: results of the preclinical and clinical studies). Despite this the interest of doctors was not aroused and they completely ignored the fact that the girl had been treated with Ukrain.
In vitro studies (studies on cell cultures) by scientists at the University of Tübingen have demonstrated the effectiveness of Ukrain with Ewing's sarcoma. These studies and clinical successes, such as with Dr. Aschhoff, were repeatedly submitted to the Ministry of Health. At Dr. Aschhoff's clinic "Cancer patients were treated whose disease had already been treated with all mainstream medicine therapy protocols and as a result of relapse and/or progress of the disease no further mode of therapy was available for them and who had thus "exhausted all modes of therapy". (Aschhoff 2000) And with these patients who had been given up by mainstream medicine with the help of Ukrain Dr. Aschhoff achieved a full remission rate of 50% for Ewing's sarcoma.
Why, despite everything, was an investigation of the medicament never instigated and this opportunity not used?
Why was there no interest in Ukrain despite these sensational successes in hopeless cases?
Why is Ukrain not recommended in those cases where mainstream medicine has failed?
"There can be nothing worse for parents than to have to accept the diagnosis of cancer for their child and then watch how this child is subjected to the physical as well as psychological strains of chemotherapy... Can one continue to look on and do nothing while child and adult cancer patients who have been given up by traditional medicine are denied a very promising form of treatment?" Preface to the book Who's Afraid of Ukrain? The struggle for an alternative cancer drug by Dr. Eleonore Thun-Hohenstein.
Polish scientists were surprised by this success and wanted to clarify whether it was chance or the logical consequence of the efficacy of the preparation.
In the meantime 71 Polish scientists have published 70 specialist publications on Ukrain (Publications) and made 71 presentations on the subject at 31 congresses (Congresses). The research studies have included all fields – chemistry, cell-line studies, animal tests, toxicology and clinical studies. Ukrain is still an important research subject for Polish scientists.
However, in Austria, Ukrain's country of origin, the preparation has been totally ignored. Because of the disparaging evaluation parents are persuaded to refrain from using the preparation (The story from Dr. Mikael Stenborg, Copenhagen, Denmark).
At the time when the Polish girl was treated, around 150 case histories of successful treatment with Ukrain were submitted to the Austrian Ministry of Health. In the case of the Polish girl the examinations at St. Anna Children's Hospital were repeated especially to draw the attention of medical circles to the preparation Ukrain to enable research to be carried out on it in Austria and made available to other sick children.
All to no avail. On the contrary, "The accusation was even made by civil servants against [the inventor] that he had manipulated clinical studies... Because of the decades-long, unsuccessful procedure at the Ministry of Health they see [him] as something like a continual 'cantankerous trouble-maker'." (e-mail Dr. C. Hauer)
Why have Austrian civil servants at the Ministry of Health taken no notice of this case and why have none of them instigated the investigation of the preparation where the remission rate for patients with Ewing's sarcoma who have exhausted all modes of therapy is 50% and the fact that it is not a risk to health has not only been demonstrated by eastern European scientists but also by the Austrian Research Centre Seibersdorf? With such therapeutic successes and in accordance with the law in force at the time the preparation should be promptly approved because it is produced from two substances which were already approved (Letter to Dr. Hauer). Why was no attention drawn to this preparation and why were warnings even given against it? In whose interest?
The Austrian civil servants involved owe the answer to this question to Austrian tax payers. Who did the individual civil servants want to serve with this disregard?

With best regards, Dr. Wassil Nowicky