Lawlessness as a Legal Norm: Situation in a „Democratic“ Country Germany
By Alexander Cherkasky
Steven Spielberg has made the films „Schindler's List“ and „Munich“, but it is certainly interesting how lives an inventor and biologist in a „modern“ Germany.
This person is the author of this article and was called „The Second Einstein“ in the press.
The journalistic comparison with Albert Einstein can be explained. Einstein, as theoretial physist, saw visions. Other parallels can be found with Nicola Tesla, who saw his inventions as visions and with the Nobelist Kary Mullis, who, as written on page 631 of „Molecular Biology. Understanding the Genetic Revolution“ by David Clark, (first edition 2006, Elsevier, „Kary Mullis Invents PCR after a Vision“), „conceived the idea while cruising“ in a car and „Mullis recalls seeing the PCR as clear as if it were up on a blackboard in his head. In lurid pink and blue. He pulled over and started scribbling“. PCR or Polymerase Chain Reaction is now one of the key techniques in molecular biology.
My theoretical biological problem solutions were also visions in my head, since 1998 as I was student at Goethe-Gymnasium of Dusseldorf. Thus my inventions for regeneration of nerves and vessels, for combating cancer, autoimmune diseases and viruses both in and outside of cells, as well as inventions of high-quality like natural synthetic diamonds arose not in a laboratory, but as result of inspiration by reading scientific and patent literature and thinking about problem solutions.
I started to file patent applications by the German Patent and Trademark Office in 1998 and by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) in the year 2006.
Now I have inventions for rejuvenation.
My patent documents were used and cited, thus recognized, in the patent documents of companies and research institutes from 11 countries, the United States, Canada, China, Japan, United Kingdom, Denmark, France, Belgium, Switzerland and Germany.
Over 50 such references can be found in the data banks for patent literature, including Google Patents and the data bank of the USPTO.
Since early youth I wanted to solve biomedical problems of human kind. I worked with literature still in Ukraine, in Zaporozhye where I was born in 1981 and continued my theoretical research in Germany since 1996.
In Germany, I participated on the scientific youth competition „Youth researches“ („Jugend forscht“) in the years 1999 and 2000 and presented fusion proteins for cleaving pathogenic proteins in order to treat autoimmune diseases by eliminating autoantibodies and other pathogenic proteins and I presented new fusion proteins for combating cancer cells.
It evoked interest of journalists and since there about me reported known newspapers and journals including Stern (the Star), Laborjournal (Laboratory Journal, editing in Germany and distributed in Germany Switzerland and Austria), Bild der Wissenschaft (Picture of Science), Westdeutsche Zeitung (Westgerman Newspaper), Neue Rhein Zeitung (New Rhine Newspaper), Rheinische Post (Rhein Post) and Juedische Allgemeine Zeitung (Jewish General Newspaper).
The articles, especially published in the years 2013 in New Rhein Newspaper and 2016 (November 2016) in Laborjournal, were results of journalistic investigations.
The competition „Youth researches“ was supervised by Bayer in the years 1999 and 2000. I heard from Bayer's experts requests for clinical data, whereby they knew, that clinical studies cost millions and cannot be asked from a student at a gymnasium.
I heard also, that I should finish the school, study at a university at first, and only after that, propose inventions for healing. I asked, what role plays a status of an inventor if his invention is required now for healing.
But my question was more a rhetorical question because Bayer's „experts“ had not a response for this my question.
I have finished Goethe-Gymnasium in 2000, won the bronze medal „For Outstanding Achievements“ and the honorary certificate of the largest international inventors competition in Germany IENA (Ideen-Erfindungen-Neuheiten, Ideas-Inventions-New Products) in Nuremberg in 2003, and finished Heinrich-Heine-University of Dusseldorf in 2007 and found during searches in internet, that a number of my inventions were used by others, both with and without citing my patent documents.
Thus the plagiarists used the situation, that there is no support in Germany. The logic is, if Bayer does not pay him, why should we pay him?
I have discovered interesting paradoxes. One paradox is, that the value of an invention described in a patent document can be both very high and non-existing at all at once. Very high is the value, because people need inventions for healing and regeneration.
Non-existing is this value, because a patent application or a patent, such as a German patent can be used or infringed, and if no license fees are paid to inventor and if inventor does not have finances for lawyers and suits, and for making a company or companies, the patent documents do not bring revenue and the value is nearly not existing. In many cases inventors do not reveal their know-hows to paper.
Another paradox is, that people need my inventions, but people do not get my inventions for healing and regeneration.
If only one inventor, for example me, is discriminated or concealed, it seems to be a small event, but as result of this discrimination millions of people suffer, because they do not get my inventions.
And suffering people need innovative biomedical help now, right now.
This is at least unfair, that persons suffer or pass away from diseases and do not get helping inventions only because their inventors do not have according financial support.
The paradox is also, that no one efficient organization for inventor status-independent open discussion, evaluation and realization of inventions exists and as result of this, many creative potentials are not unfolded, many causal therapies are still not realized or are not available or are not available in large scale and at low prices and thus people do not get efficient healing and regeneration at low prices and in large scale.
The description of the ancient Israeli society in the Old Testament, for example in the Book Exodus, 30, 1-11, reveals the social structure, in which visions given by God to Moses were made, by the support of the whole society.
Similar visions of God given to Noah, (Genesis 6; 22), have led to the rescue of the human kind and the interpretation of Joseph of Pharaoh's dreams has led to the rescue of Egypt, (Genesis 41).
I have published these discoveries in my articles in Juedische Zeitung (Jewish Newspaper, now Jewish Panorama, in the years 2011 and 2012).
The social model described in the Old Testament can be transfered to the modern times as the new system for inventor status-independent realizations of inventions as problem solutions and this system can add and work together with governmental agencies, companies and research institutes. Reseachers at companies and institutes are mostly focused on their own projects.
Industrial countries and companies based on intellectual property arose only because of patent laws were introduced and the first patent law is considered to be the Venetian Patent Statute of 1474. But I have discovered and published, that the Venetian Patent Law was not the first patent law because of the prior description in the Old Testament, in the Book Exodus, 30, 22-38 and this prior law description comprises three parts, the description (of anointing, unction oil and smoking mixture), prohibition of doing the same, i.e. prohibition of plagiarism and the legal punishment, such as imprisonment for the infringement of prohibition. Exactly these three parts constitute the Venetian Patent Law, which means, that the modern patent laws and the whole economy and progress are based on the Old Testament. In addition to patent law, the Old Testament, as the source of democratic laws comprising free elections, (Deuteronomy 1, 13), and independent and fair courts, (Deuteronomy 1, 17), offers to the human kind the optimal social system for large scale unfolding of creative potentials in order to solve problems of human kind very efficiently and dynamically.
I am convinced, that the introduction, the establishing of my proposed Institute for Open Discussion, Open Evaluation and Realization of Inventions Independently from Status of Inventors, is essential for the further development of human kind and for efficient solving scientific, technical and economic problems.
This project is still not realized, because of large scale racistic discrimination in Germany. Millions of people passed away or suffer from various kinds of leukemia and solid tumors, Alzheimer's disease, multiple sclerosis, diabetes, HIV and other diseases because of the wish of the German state to suppress the realization of inventions for healing.
After finishing the University of Dusseldorf in 2007 I wanted to make a PhD in theoretical biology and it seemed to be possible to make PhD at the University of Cologne (Universitaet zu Koeln), because this university supported theoretical and historical research of Ute Deichmann, who has written and published her „opus“ „Biologen unter Hitler“ („Biologists under Hitler“, Frankfurt am Main, 1995, ISBN 3-596-12597-9), for which Deichmann got her PhD degree.
Two possibilities were „available“ for making a PhD, one with and another without a supervisor, but twice the University of Cologne denied me getting a PhD degree and stated, that „inventions as scientific problem solutions are not scientific.“ Thus, also the above mentioned invention of the Polymerase Clain Reaction (PCR) of Kary Mullis, and for which he was awarded the Nobel Proze, should be considered as „non-scientific“.
The courts in Germany supported this decision of the University of Cologne.
After these denials from the University of Cologne to award me a PhD degree, I have looked into the book of Deichmann „Biologists under Hitler“ and found for example, that Deichmann stated, that Nazism lasted „too short (time period)“, (page 223), and „not long enough“, (page 369). These her statements are not only xenophobic, they are pseudoscientific or not scientific, and they are fraud in science, because no evidence is possible in order to confirm these her statements. Deichmann should make a pseudoscientific scale and write and explain, what duration of National Socialism would be „long“ and „long enough“ and why that durations would be scientifically considered as „long“ and „long enough“.
The University of Cologne denied to deprive Deichmann her PhD degree for a PhD thesis, that cannot be confirmed by evidence.
This decision was also supported and confirmed by the courts in Germany.
All these pseudoscientific and racistic decisions were aided and abetted by the parliaments of North Rhine Westfalia in Dusseldorf and Germany as well as by Dr. Felix Klein, who is „responsible“ in Germany for „combating“ anti-Semitism.
The „legal“ double standards contradict to the statements, that Germany is a democratic country.
For more information read my blogs: