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:
and
