Dr Brych says he faced threat of prosecution

Press, Volume CXIV, Issue 33527, 7 May 1974, Page 18

Dr Brych says he faced threat of prosecution

(Sew Zealand Press Association)

AUCKLAND, May 6.

Dr Milan Brych said at the cancer inquiry today that his refusal to answer questions about the drug, neuraminidase, and his private laboratory was because the Auckland Hospital Board, with the Health Department, had prepared a criminal court case against him without informing him.

In a surprise move, he also partially broke his silence by producing for the inquiry the programme of a scientific conference on neuraminidase which he attended in Germany in March.

Earlier, Dr Brych had refused to discuss the conference or name anyone present.

His disclosure of the conference document, setting out the names of participating scientists and the nature of their papers, was made during cross-examination in which Mr C. M. Nicholson, counsel assisting the inquiry, had told Dr Brych he was leaving himself open to a suggestion that he had been carrying out a confidence trick, and might be a charlatan.

Dr Brych angrily attacked: the inquiry, claiming at one point thai it was not an i attempt to seek the truth but I “a trial against me.” He told the inquiry that the) German seminar was not con- 1 cemed about the profitability of manufacturing the drug I “I do not think neuramini-■ dase would be a profitable i article except to the research workers who might use it,” he said. . I Professor R. D. Wright isj conducting the inquiry. Immunity given When the inquiry resumed 1 this morning, Mr J. D. Rabone, for the Health De- ( partment, said he had been instructed by the SolicitorGeneral (Mr R. C. Savage), that the public interest would be best served by a full disclosure by Dr Brych of facts about the drug, neuraminidase. Mr Rabone said that if Dr! Brych’s refusal to answer( questions on the subject was due to apprehension that he j might be prosecuted under' the Food and Drug Act, then, it was desirable that he should be given immunity. To this end, a form of indemnity signed by Mr Savage was available. Professor Wright said he thought this was very satisfactory. If Dr Brych still persisted in not answering, the matter of contempt of the inquiry would have to be raised again. Dr Brych then went to the witness stand, and immediately told Mr H. C. Keyte, | representing Professor J. G.i Buchanan and Dr R. S. Hill, | that he would be given exactly the same answers as he ( had received on Friday. I In contempt Mr Keyte: Did you take! blood from patients in Ward: 11 and administer it to other! patients? Dr Brych: 1 refuse! to answer. Mr Nicholson (to Professor Wright): I advise that you i find he (Dr Brych) is in contempt. Professor Wright: I so find. It should be brought officially to the appropriate law officers of this country. Dr Brych repeated to Mr Keyte that he would not answer any questions about the use of neuraminidase.

Asked it it was correct that he had hired computer time for some of his work, Dr Brych said he refused to answer because this would be in his private time.

To a question about the address of his private laboratory, Dr Brycn asked Professor Wright whether he had to answer. When Professor Wright directed that he should. Dr Brych said it was in Candia Road, Swanson.

When Mr Keyte asked Dr Brych to explain some aspects of his treatment of

specific patients whose case i records Mr Keyte produced, : Dr Brych said the first one ( was a" woman patient who ( came to him “scared to death” because she had been ! told by another that she could expect to die of cancer any day. “I had to first convince her that this was not so, and that there was a real hope for her to recover fully,” Dr Brych said. “She was treated by us, and is now perfectly fit at the present time.” Case histories Dr Brych said the second case quoted to him concerned a man whose cancer had involved the brain, and who was completely paralysed. This man was now recovered, and was able to drive his car.

Asked about the third case, : Dr Brych said it involved the i daughter-in-law of a woman i who was in the audience. ! This woman had been ■ treated by two reputable (surgeons and told she had I only six weeks to live. She | was completely paralysed, and had been sent to a nursing home. The woman was now completely fit after 18 I months as a paraplegic. A short time later there was an emotional scene when a woman attempting to ask Dr Brych a question burst into tears as she explained that she had a relative who was suffering from cancer. Questioned by Mr Nicholson, Dr Brych denied that he had surrounded his treatment with secrecy and had constantly avoided giving demils when asked. Answers refused Mr Nicholson asked Dr Brych why, in that case, he would not tell the inquiry about the “so-called immunoI therapy preparation” he had been giving to patients. Dr Brych: I am prepared 'to answer any question about chemo-immunotherapy. I am I not prepared to answer any (questions concerning a specific enzyme, neuraminidase, and I am not prepared to answer anything concerning my private laboratory and my private life. After more questions, Dr Brych said that the Hospital Board evidence on the first day had convinced him that the board did not really regard it as an inquiry. It was for this reason he had sought (legal help. I “I re-thought the whole (thing and came to the con- | elusion that I will not answer I these two questions during (the inquiry,” Dr Brych said. I*T will be more than ready [to discuss it with Professor (Wright or anyone else afterI wards, but definitely not dueling the inquiry. I am quite (open to answer any other i questions.”

Asked about publication of his research work, Dr Brych said that as soon as he got something extra on cancer and as soon as he was satisfied that “the something” could be safely used on others, he would rush immediately to publish it. Until then there was no point in discussing it. Mr Nicholson: But you (must realise that if you do not take advantage of presenting such information as you have at this stage, the I medical profession may regard you as a charlatan who | won’t come to terms when I asked. I Dr Brych reiterated that I the work was not yet finished. He said it was correct that in treating cancer (patients at Auckland Hospital he had in most cases (given patients “something exI tra” over and above what 'other doctors administered. i Mr Nicholson: What was (it? Just name some of the (substances and we will take lit from there.

Dr Brych: I cannot recall just now.

German seminar

Mr Nicholson asked Dr Brych about a medical conference he was said to have attended in Germany in March. He challenged Dr Brych to “re-establish the faith people may have had in you” by presenting something, even a piece of paper, to show that the conference had actually taken place, and that Dr Brych had partici pated. Dr Brych: No, sir. (Pause.) This is very easy. I could

show you a list of names, including myself, but I won’t do it.

Mr Nicholson: Do you realise the anguish you are causing people? (Cries of “No,” from the audience.)

Mr Nicholson (to Dr Brych): People are coming to you begging you to treat them instead of their own doctors?—Yes.

Will you stand behind I your statement that you 'were going overseas?—l cannot see any reason why I should be forced to do so. Mr Nicholson pressed Dr Brych again to explain why he was refusing to name the people he claimed had attended the German medical conference.

Dr Brych: Because I feel that my privacy should not be invaded by force—by moral blackmail.

Dr Brych then stepped (from the witness stand and handed Mr Nicholson a document. This, he said, set out the scientific committee of the meeting in question on neuraminidase held at Marburg, Germany, from March 10 to 12.

Dr Brych said that all the medical people at the symposium had spent between two years and 12 years doing research work specifically on the question of neuraminidase. “There were also a large group of cancer therapists who were there to listen and learn,” he said. Asked by Mr Nicholson whether he would also present to the inquiry any of the findings from the symposium, Dr Brych said he declined to do so.

“A trial”

“This inquiry was not conducted as an inquiry to seek the truth—it was conducted as a trial against me,” he said. Mr Nicholson: Do you think this commission might misjudge your information? Dr Brych: 1 think every inhabitant of this country has his privacy. On Friday you ruled that I had to answer questions on my holiday and about my annual leave one month after this inquiry was announced. It would go on and on. The next question would be how many intercourses a week—and you would justify that.

Mr Nicholson: Do you seriously suggest that? Dr Brych: It could happen. Mr Nicholson: It would not happen. Mr Nicholson: You still did not answer this question (about neuraminidase). Are you afraid people will then ask you the way you administered it? Why won’t you say? Dr Brych: The fact is that with the Health Department, the Hospital Board prepared a criminal court case against me without letting me know.

Mr Nicholson: Is that your reason? —Yes, sir. What evidence have you? —The evidence of Dr Moody (Dr R. F. Moody, medical superintendent-in-chief of the Auckland Hospital Board). Mr Nicholson: The fact that if you had been using neuraminidase, this was against the law? —That was

one of the reasons. It was also said I could also be prosecuted under another pararaph. I was only concerned with the real dirt of questioning a colleague without warning him of the danger behind it. I know I have to leave this inquiry being black. I know that in the beginning this inquiry was designed to paint me black. Mr Nicholson: Are you going to trust any fellow member of the medical profession? —No, sir. But I will pass my results on by the accepted way of publishing something when I think I have got something worth while. Mr Nicholson: Do you think what you have done at Auckland Hospital is worth while?—Oh yes, sir. “Science fiction” Mr Nicholson questioned Dr Brych about the accuracy of the description of his treatment in the GiffordCarter report. Dr Brych said the description had been drawn up without reference to him, and he had not even been shown a copy of the report until the inquiry had begun. Some parts of the description were “nonsene,” and other sections were “science fiction.”

Dr Brych said his hope, like that of everyone doing research on cancer, was to have his findings put into practice for the benefit of patients. However, he claimed, no theoretical work could be applied ethically without a reorganisation of the present “idiotic” channels of the hospital board. Mr Nicholson: What do you mean by “idiotic channels?” Dr Brych said he meant the sort of channels which enabled “this type of description of immunology” (the Gifford-Carter report) to be taken seriously by two committees, and finally to form the basis of curtailment of his immunotherapy by the hospital board. “And no-one has asked me until today for an explanation.” Dr Brych said he had told the head of his department, Dr Ross Burton, all the details of the cancer treatment he was using at Auckland Hospital, and he had never asked that details of the treatment be kept confidential.

It was not necessary to help the hospital board by releasing his techniques, because they had been discovered in 1951 and were available in libraries, Dr Brych said. Mr Nicholson asked how much neuraminidase Dr Brych had administered to. how many patients, and how Dr Brych had paid for it, but Dr Brych refused to answer. Mr Nicholson: Do I take it that you have never charged any patients for treatment you have given them? Dr Brych: Yes, sir.

When Dr Brych paused before answering a question on the German seminar, Mr Nicholson mentioned that the seminar had been only about two months ago. Dr Brych said he could remember the seminar clearly. Mr Nicholson: But not the names of some of the authorities at the seminar? Dr Brych: Oh, that was just to make it difficult for Mr . . . Threat alleged Mr Nicholson: Did you tell a lie to make it difficult for Mr Keyte? What did you mean by the words “Just to make it difficult for Mr . . ?” Dr Brych said that he had not named authorities for Mr Keyte because he did not want time spent on the German seminar when it was out of the terms of reference of the cancer inquiry. He was not going to proceed with any discussion on the seminar because Mr Nicholson had threatened him.

Professor Wright told Dr Brych that no-one was being threatening. Attention had been drawn to inconsistencies in the evidence, and Professor Wright suggested that Dr Brych should co-oper-ate with the inquiry.

Dr Brych again said he would not discuss a private holiday which was outside the terms of reference of the inquiry. Mr Nicholson asked why Dr Brych had spoken freely to the public on a radio programme, but would not speak to the inquiry. Dr Brych: The public didn’t threaten me.