In finalising the documentary “The Last Battle” (sequel to “The Doctor Who Refused To Give Up”), I am also reviewing how Wikipedia (infiltrated by ”Sceptics”), posts texts which are false and contain insinuations and slanders against Dr Erik Enby.

After several suggestions to make a documentary about a doctor completely unknown to me, I searched for information but found nothing about him on Swedish Wikipedia. Then I found an article on google, where a well-known sceptic, Dan Larhammar, was highly critical of Dr Enby. I sought an interview with Mr Larhammar but he refused my request.

Subsequently, I found an article about Dr Enby in English on Wikipedia. The text was sketchy, having been manipulated by sceptics from VoF, an organisation chaired at one time by Dan Larhammar. Most of the comments were attributable to senior figures within VoF. As a result, in the spring of 2015, I decided to write a factual article on Dr Enby for Swedish Wikipedia. Though very early in the morning, a well-known sceptic associated to Larhammar immediately reacted; I found that he had been assigned to lead the Wikipedia ‘‘guerilla attack’’ on Erik Enby.

Even before I had got to know Erik Enby, I had reacted to the manner in which VoF steered Wikipedia and I published several articles about this. The massive VoF attack that my initiative triggered was nevertheless surprising. Gradually, it became clear that Dan Larhammar had initiated the entire campaign by VoF against Dr Enby.

The current Swedish Wikipedia article (January, 2019) still contains content that can only be described as false and has been proven to be fabricated. Entries in an encyclopedia should not reflect any prejudice but adhere to fact.

I would mention here the decline of standards in journalism, where Swedish daily papers (especially Expressen) played an almost criminal role in the media witch-hunt against Dr Enby, with over 15 journalists slandering Dr Enby on a regular basis for over 10 years.

Looking at the current Wikipedia article on Erik Enby, it implies that using non-conventional methods is inappropriate, unapproved etc.

 ”Enby assumed that different kinds of morbidity were due to infections and began to treat chronic diseases, such as severe tumor diseases, with anti-infection non-conventional remedies. This continued despite repeated warnings from HSAN.” Wikipedia [9]

In over 40 years of dealing with chronic diseases, Dr Enby has adopted a holistic approach to treatment. His research has shown that chronic diseases stem from various forms of microbiological growth which, unlike in healthy individuals, occur in the tissues and body fluids of the chronically ill. This includes those affected by cancer. His initial research project was approved in 1983 by the ethics committee of the Faculty of Medicine at the University of Gothenburg. Due to a lack of competent supervision, he did not receive the appropriate support, leading him to proceed with the project on his own. This angered some of his colleagues and particularly incensed Dan Larhammar, which subsequent correspondence from him confirms. Larhammar can also be credited for Dr Enby losing his licence to practise. Larhammar even scared away researchers who had shown interest in Dr Enby’s studies and were prepared to be interviewed for the documentary. This is a serious breach of the principle of freedom of speech.

”Enby has treated patients with severe chronic diseases with vitamins and plant extracts” (Sw Wikipedia)

This text implies that the use vitamins and plant extracts has little medical value. However, vitamins are essential for health and nature provides the base for medicine. The Chinese researcher Tu Youyou was awarded the 2015 Nobel Prize in Medicine for her “discoveries regarding a new medicine against malaria” extracted from artemisia. This is based on traditional Chinese herbal medicine but which in Sweden is referred to as ‘‘alternative’’ and VoF sceptics continue to deprecate its value. That the Nobel Foundation still acknowledged Chinese natural medicine must have been a severe blow to Dan Larhammar, the current Third preses of the Swedish Academy of Science.

The treatments Dr Enby uses have detoxifying (cleansing) effects. His empirical data from treating more than 30,000 patients over 40 years is sufficient to establish what is called ‘‘scientific and verifiable experience.’’ Research and studies by several Nobel prize-winners confirm Dr Enby’s methods.

Wikipedia’s perhaps most grave attack against Dr Enby is based solely on hearsay and fabricated claims and certainly does not belong in an encyclopedia

 ”Two patients with cancer have died while receiving care from Enby. A woman was diagnosed with breast cancer but chose not to have surgery. Instead, she went to Enby, who supported her in her decision and said that the cancer “spreads if you cut into it.” Instead, he prescribed vitamins and nettle extract. Her condition worsened and she died of her illness after first trying to take her life.” [10] (Sw Wikipedia)

This text is based on accusations which, on the initiative by Dan Larhammar, led to Dr Enby losing his licence to practise medicine. A complaint was filed by the father of a woman who had had long-term cancer and who, in the summer of 2003, consulted Dr Enby twice and bought some medicines. A witness present at the consultation confirmed that Dr Enby had advised the patient to contact her doctor again and to undergo surgery. This is also noted in the patient’s records. This confirms that the claims in the Wikipedia article are based on fabrications. This key witness was never heard by the court as she did not support the complainant’s unsubstantiated allegations.

However, another witness who had not been present at the consultation when the medications had been purchased had provided a statement that clearly contained a large number of errors; this was probably based on a meeting that the cancer patient had previously had with a completely different therapist. Though the content of this testimony had nothing to do with Dr Enby, it was of great significance in the judgement and the subsequent media witch-hunt. These two witnesses have now been interviewed and their accounts are included in the documentary “The Last Battle.”

The cancer patient had not wanted her angry father to blame or attack Dr Enby. She died a year after the consultation with Dr Enby and, according to her father, by her own hand. Yet the media blamed Dr Enby for her death. This defamation also influenced the decision to remove his licence.

FACTS: It was over 14 months from the first sign of the tumour to the initial consultation with Dr Enby. Prior to this, the patient had been in contact with a total of nine hospital doctors, three private doctors and several therapists and had refused to go through with breast cancer surgery scheduled at Helsingborg’s Hospital. Dr Enby only met the patient twice and already by that time the cancer was well advanced.

In the other case, Wikipedia also implies that Dr Enby is to blame.

”A woman in the last stages of liver cancer sought out Enby who prescribed vitamins and coral minerals. The treatment did not help and she died within a few weeks. ” [11] (Sw Wikipedia)

The cancer patient in this case received no treatment at the hospital, as she was considered beyond help. As a last resort, she consulted Dr Enby and purchased a course of medication. However, she died before starting the treatment and her daughter received a full refund for any unopened packages. This case was used as emotional propaganda to dramatically extend the media witch-hunt against Dr Enby, a campaign endorsed by Dan Larhammar in newspaper articles and on TV and radio.

Several severely ill patents in similar circumstances have been helped by Dr Enby’s treatments. They have survived and been declared well by the same health service that earlier had ‘‘sentenced’’ them to death. Some of these cases are reported in the documentary “The Doctor Who Refused To Give Up.”

 ”In 2006, TV3 showed an episode of the series Insider that was about Enby. It shows how he, filmed with a hidden camera, prescribes blueberry extract and horseradish for a woman who claims to have cancer in the lymph nodes.” [12] (Sw Wikipedia)

Dr Enby has never prescribed nettle extract, blueberry extract or horseradish in the treatment of patients. Again, there is factual error in the Wikipedia text, with the obvious intention to discredit Dr Enby. To conduct research on extracts and to prescribe them is totally different.

The woman mentioned in the TV3 episode was subsequently interviewed by Börje Peratt and her testimony recorded. It shows that TV3 had put words in the woman’s mouth, directed her and then failed to report that Dr Enby had repeatedly said that he could not treat her as she could not provide her diagnosis or name the hospital she claimed had examined her. In fact, the woman now says that she was a victim of manipulation by TV3.

”In September 2008, more than a year after his medical licence was revoked, Göteborgs-Tidningen revealed that Enby continued to treat cancer patients, which is illegal for anyone other than a licenced healthcare professional.” (Sw Wikipedia)

The fact that Wikipedia does not refer to the correct name of the newspaper (GT) is perhaps not surprising, as this section is full of false claims. Dr Enby does not treat cancer but adopts a holistic approach, primarily treating the blood. This can provide the body with the opportunity to ‘‘repair’’ itself. Dr Enby’s successes with patients are well documented and some results could be regarded as extraordinary.

The Gothenburg Police raided Dr Enby’s home on 4th December 2014, the result of combined abuse by the authorities and journalists on the Swedish Radio programme Body & Soul on 1st April 2014 This was initiated by Dan Larhammar. The series was subsequently dropped following an investigation by the Public Media Review Board.

After almost 19 months of interviewing his patients, the prosecutor could not find any malpractice or violations by Dr Enby. Having failed to produce any evidence for prosecution, the preliminary investigation was terminated on 27th October 2015. In effect, the preliminary investigation acquitted Dr Enby; however, it nonetheless contributed to the continuing scandal waged against Erik Enby.

Erik Enby has turned to various courts to get his medical licence back. The National Board of Health had applied to HSAN (the Swedish Health and Medical Services Board) to charge Dr Enby but by this stage, the statute of limitation had long since taken effect. This meant that Dr Enby could not have been liable for the offences that the National Board of Health and Welfare had alleged.

Dr Enby’s case has now reached the Supreme Administrative Court. Among the reasons for re-opening the appeal is that the initial documentation is riddled with irregularities and characterised by confusion and corruption. The charge against Dr Enby was, as mentioned above, filed long after the limitation period had expired and is thus without legal authority and lacks validity.

Any encyclopedia worthy of the name (Wikipedia) should review contributions rather than giving support to prejudice and personal (Larhammar’s) interests.

Börje Peratt