If Ian Gawler did it then I can do it too | The Painful Unraveling of False Cancer Cure Claims

“If Ian Gawler did it, then I can do it too” is a worrying phrase; yet it is almost an expected mantra from patients who pursue the alternate cancer path or who have read You Can Conquer Cancer and consider taking the same approach.

Part 1:  “If Ian Gawler did it, then I can do it too” is a worrying phrase; yet it is almost an expected mantra from patients who pursue the alternate cancer path or who have read You Can Conquer Cancer and consider taking the same approach.

As someone who was personally involved in the Gawler recovery story from the very beginning; I consider I have a Duty of Care to patients and the community at large to keep on telling the story in context and correct the many errors and omissions made over the years in reporting it; even in medical journals! Being an advocate for patient rights and speaking the truth has come at great personal cost. It is also unfortunate that the young people who have been swayed by the natural cancer cure meme have paid a greater cost – they have paid with their lives.

The Ian Gawler cancer remission phenomenon is very much related to what has been happening in the Cancer “cure” news since my last blog on Survivorship where I discussed Jess Ainscough – alias The Wellness Warrior who recently died from her advanced cancer. A passionate follower of the modern Gerson Diet regimen – Jess was perhaps too young and easily influenced in her choices by elders in the “cancer movement” who should have known better. The best advice would be if you want to follow the Gerson Diet, do it in combination with the best medical treatment you can find!

Just as quickly as Social media viraling took patients like Jess to Facebook/internet fame – the materials and links associated with her Gerson diet cancer cure, have disappeared at the same light speed. I have just tried to download links to the following at: http://iangawler.com/youtube.html “A young person’s perspective- Interview with Ian Gawler by Jess Ainscough – Wellness Warrior: Jess chats on Skype with Ian informally about his experience with recovery and what was most important.” But – it has been taken down. The same of http://www.jessainscough.com/2013/03/healthtalks-speaking-at-ian-gawlers-surviving-cancer-event/ To read the actual PDF that has been removed: Select the following: JESS ainscough Gawler healthtalks

As you will read further in this blog, the same is happening with Belle Gibson Whole Pantry developer who claims she has had various cancers and, as a fundraiser, was supposed to donate large funds from her work to charity. Now the media has investigated her cancer claims – most of Belle Gibson’s 2010 – 2012 blogs are no longer available and a more in depth investigation is now underway.

Lantern Publishing stated that they published Belle Gibson’s recipe book in good faith without fact checking. For your interest, our own Grace Gawler Institute research into authors of natural cancer cure claims resulted in NOT ONE author who was able to substantiate their claims that they actually had cancer- although their books are written on how they recovered from it.  Astoundingly, no one could produce medical proof of diagnosis. There were a few others who claimed they had a natural cancer cure – but when there cases were examined  they had received medical treatments that they discounted as being helpful.

Maybe the dawn of ethics is upon us as we uncover the hidden truths about these people. Just check out the Lance Armstrong story to get a handle on that! Before publishing or promoting “stories” the media and book publishers surely have a duty to ensure that the “True Stories” they are publishing are indeed “true”.

Personally, despite the hype; in 40 years I have not seen the Gerson diet benefit cancer patients nor have I seen it create the remissions that are talked about and promoted. From personal experience; the Regimen is far too rigid and contains too many juices – I mean really; think about it –  is it natural to consume up to 9kg of vegetables in one day – juiced or otherwise?

Here is a brief summary of the story:
Early in Ian Gawler’s cancer diagnosis when it seemed that hope for his survival was exhausted; both he and I travelled the Gerson Diet path. I need to be clear that we did so because there was NO medical treatment on offer, so it wasn’t as if we had to choose one or the other……there was no other to choose from. It concerns me greatly that today cancer patients choose the Gerson Diet  INSTEAD of scientifically-based medicine.

My experience of The Gerson diet is best described in my Memoir Grace Grit and Gratitude: Contact me via the contact page and I will send you 2 free chapter downloads on this topic. We put a lot of effort into the Gerson Diet but Ian had a poor result. As Ian’s sole carer/girlfriend, at 21 years of age, it became my responsibility to organise the food and juices for him as he was too ill. It was the most stressful period of my life!

You can conquer cancer new edition
Me – Grace Gawler – disappointed with the new edition of You Can Conquer Cancer

As we progressed with the Gerson Diet and intensive Meditation that he practised according to the Meares method; his deterioration accelerated. He became bedridden. His weight peeled off day after day.  He experienced colic and severe pain with his condition deteriorating to such an extent that he was given a prognosis of 6 weeks. However, was his massive weight loss associated with his cancer? No: in reality it was a result of the Gerson Diet. We ceased the diet and over the coming months he gained weight although unknown to us at the time; he was carrying perhaps a far more silent and lethal killer than bone cancer; a condition that was to remain undiagnosed for the next 2.5 years!

To complicate things even further throughout the time of the Gerson Diet; there were other symptoms that were unaccounted for; massive night sweats, a productive cough and back pain, hydronephrosis; symptoms that were not medically related to Ian’s bone cancer. The fact is that Ian’s bone cancer diagnosis in 1975, proven by biopsy is likely unrelated to the development of the calcified masses in his groin, lung and on his chest that at the time were thought to be metastatic cancer.

Turn the clock forward to 2010, when two oncologists read my Correction of errors letter published in the MJA (Medical Journal of Australia). Once they knew there had been no biopsy for what was thought to be secondary cancer; the real diagnosis came to light. Amidst threats and controversy they eventually published their significant findings in the IMJ HAINES AND LOWENTHAL (2). What were the bony masses? They were calcified abscesses from Tuberculosis. The original TB remained undiagnosed for some time. The calcified abscesses were eventually dissolved by the body and the TB moved into his bones where it was diagnosed in 1978 and treated with conventional medicine.

I refer you to “Ian Gawler Cancer?” on the menu of this blog.

What really concerns me; I meet a lot a patients like Jess Ainscough who come to my practice with  the most horrendous of cancer conditions – mostly with weeping and  fungating tumours but also people ravaged by advanced cancer internally who have followed Gerson or similar to the exclusion of medical treatment.  Often they find me because of my “Gawler” name which I have kept intentionally to help put right the misconceptions about Ian Gawler’s recovery story. Because like Jess Ainscough they too believed they would be cured. They inevitably all say: “If Ian Gawler did it, then I can do it too!”

Moving on from Jess – yet another cancer entrepreneur hits the spotlight today and yesterday: Today’s Australian newspaper has a front page article about Belle Gibson titled: “Mega-Blogger casts doubt on Cancer Claim” by Richard Guilliatt: “A MELBOURNE social media entrepreneur Belle Gibson, whose story of miraculous survival from terminal cancer helped launch a global “health and wellness” business, has admitted that her claim of suffering multiple life-threatening cancers may be false”.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/mega-blogger-belle-gibson-casts-doubt-on-her-own-cancer-claims/story-e6frg8zx-1227255933051

And…..Yesterday’s Sydney Morning Herald also had an article – but the emphasis was different with funds to Charities not delivered by Bell Gibson:

http://www.smh.com.au/digital-life/digital-life-news/charity-money-promised-by-inspirational-health-app-developer-belle-gibson-not-handed-over-20150308-13xgqk.html

In recent times social media has played a pivotal role in the promotion of non proven cancer “cure” cases. It has become a breeding ground for spreading false stories and raising funds. It makes it challenging for genuine people seeking funding for cancer treatment. How does one separate the wheat from the chaff?  You need to use critical thinking skills and ask trusted sources. You might not always like what you hear. It’s hard to believe that people cheat, lie, fabricate, self delude, deceive through omission etc when it comes to cancer – but they do and it is not new! They used to be called Snake oil salesmen and saleswomen.

The recent exposure of deception and fraud in natural cancer medicine serves an important community lesson – buyer Beware!

Other Links of Interest:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/health-science/first-wife-disputes-cancer-guru-ian-gawlers-survival-story/story-e6frg8y6-1225935666765

http://www.smh.com.au/national/health/too-good-to-be-true-20120420-1xcgn.html

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/opinion/opinion-advocates-of-alternative-therapies-are-gambling-with-patients-lives/story-fnihsr9v-1227252912780

Take care and be safe with your one precious life!

Grace

To Meditate or Medicate – That is the Question? Voice America Experience with Meditation and Cancer Recovery

Can meditation be powerful enough to impact chronic illness? Is there any conclusive evidence that the mind via meditative practices can “cure” or influence the growth of cancer”? With rising healthcare costs more and more people are turning to self-help books and natural methods in an attempt to ‘cure’ cancer.

PART ONE : Can meditation be powerful enough to impact chronic illness? Is there any conclusive evidence that the mind via meditative practices can “cure” or influence the growth of cancer”? With rising healthcare costs more and more people are turning to self-help books and natural methods in an attempt to ‘cure’ cancer. ‘The mind can cure cancer concept’ is not new. Every few decades, the notion of meditation as a ‘cure’ for cancer, seems to be recycled into public awareness. In today’s show, with 40 years experience, I will share personal insights from clinical practice & discuss the historical timeline of meditative practices and cancer. I also discuss in general terms, the realistic impact of meditative practices on health and wellbeing and help to put into perspective; it’s role in healing.
Listmeditationen free to air or download from iTunes:

http://www.voiceamerica.com/episode/78194/to-meditate-or-medicate-that-is-the-question-experiences-with-meditation-and-cancer-recovery

Background:

As I researched the latest finding on what meditation can and cant do; the aspects that stood out are as follows:

1. When we look at stories of ‘cures’ associated with Meditation or other event such as prayer healing  etc – There are many anecdotes where blind faith comes into play. Over centuries people have had a need to believe in a greater force that gives us faith and hope to go on and to make sense of life. When we examine these stories we often have no idea of their true origin. Was someone mistaken when they diagnosed a cancer? Beliefs run strong, as do people’s ideologies and need to see & believe in miracles; it is difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff. Just because something is written or appears to be so – doesn’t mean it is fact.

A humorous story illustrates how easy it is to base an opinion on incomplete facts. John Locke (1632-1704) related this story about the Dutch ambassador and the king of Siam: While describing his country, Holland, to the king, the ambassador mentioned that at times it was possible for an elephant to walk on water. The king rejected the idea and felt that the ambassador was lying to him. However, the ambassador was merely describing something that was beyond the king’s personal experience. The king did not realize that when water freezes and becomes ice, it can support the weight of an elephant. This seemed impossible to the king because he did not have all the facts.

The issue with meditation in terms of health value  is that it has been promoted in some literature and journals to be a cure or a significant part of a cure for cancer.  A wide range of meditative practises clearly can assist cancer patients or those with serious illness – helping with improving life quality and awareness contemplation as life itself is challenged – that is by a diagnosis of a serious illness. However, Claims of cancer being cured by meditation alone are often misguided or misreported.  Look for the science. Was there proof by biopsy? Has the whole story been reported? Could there be other logical reasons for a recovery? This is important as for example, cancer patients quote again and again … “If Ian Gawler can do it ( cure himself of cancer ) then I can do it too”. More on this in next blog.

That brings me to looking at some the facts of how meditation/stress reduction techniques can be proven to impact the miracle of mindfulnesssome of our body’s restorative systems and how it can be simply and practically used everyday by simply being you. See Resources below. I like what Thich Nhat Hanh, author The Miracle of Mindfulness said  about meditation:

“Hanh warns that meditation should not be an escape from reality. On the contrary, it should lead to an increased awareness of reality.

Hanh summarizes the lessons by presenting a story about the three wondrous answers to the questions — What is the best time to do a thing? Who are the most important people to work with? and What is the most important thing to do at all times?


Hanh suggests that we treat each of our activities as an opportunity for being aware: Walking, we should be aware that we are walking. 

Breathing,-we should be aware of our breathing. We should not focus on anything other than the thing that we are doing.  One of the key methods that Hanh presents is learning to be aware of breathing.

Resources to read:

http://www.globalhealthandtravel.com/health/TheBenefitsofDeepBreathing   Value of Breath

http://www.relaxationresponse.org/  Herbert Benson studies and book

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Kabat-Zinn

Thich Nhat Hanh

To Be continued……..More Tomorrow on meditation and cancer with Resources.

Enjoy ……..

Grace

Too Good to be True? Meditation's role in cancer recovery…Grace Gawler comments

Grace Gawler is a prominent advocate for helping guide patients through the cancer maze by assisting them to create a health restoration plan that teaches patients how to access the best of conventional medicine while using complementary medicine as an adjuct to their compassionate care.

Meditation or I prefer to use the name relaxation can be a useful adjunct to a health restoration plan; however many patients expect more from meditation or relaxation than it can deliver.  The Grace Gawler Institute assists cancer patients to discover and take advantage of authentic cancer therapies i.e. the best of conventional medicine whilst using proven complementary medicine. Relaxation methods are a helpful aaddition to a patient’s recovery program. Please pass on this blog’s URL address on so that we can spread the word about helping cancer patients.

Each week, large numbers of clientele approach the Grace Gawler Institute for help after they have taken an exclusive Alternative Medicine role; sometimes for years, in order to treat their cancer. As a result,we see some horrendous cases of physical tissue destruction; where self-help and self empowerment in combination with the internet, books or workshops including the thought that meditation alone can cure their cancer; has led to self destruction.

By that stage often afraid to visit a doctor/oncologist, these patients often fall though the gaps in all systems of care and spend their final moments in palliative care, often in pain, isolated from friends or family and wondering where it all went wrong for them. People often ask me if working with cancer patients is sad or depressing – I have always said an emphatic no! However during the past 10 -12 years with the tremendous shift in how patients choose to treat their cancer & information available to them, I have found new feelings arising. Not depresssion – but anger towards  those who  influence patients down such a self destructive path in the name of healing. Yes – anger is an appropriate action- even for a meditator!

This brings me to the subject of today’s blog which is dedicated to the subject of the role of meditation in cancer recovery. In response to patients questions on my email since the Melbourne Age’s recent article “Too Good to be True“- that challenged the fact that Ian did not have secondary cancer; primary bone cancer yes…but secondary cancer no!  I offer the following which will answer the majority of questions.
For several months now I have been trying to convince a woman from the Sunshine Coast to seek a surgical solution for her advancing breast cancer. We have never met, but she maintains contact and occasionally sends a photograph of her suppurating breast: swollen, red, about to fungate and as tight as a basketball; she has had faith for 2 years that meditation in particular, and alternative medicine will cure her. Sadly she has reached a point where she can no longer cope with the pain! As well the cancer has likely spread internally.

Why do some cancer patients make ideological choices that override rationale? Many patients tell us they are inspired by the late Ainslie Meares work with cancer patients and most patients who come to see me believe strongly in Ian Gawler’s story – of how he conquered his cancer using meditation, diet and positive thinking. But patients do not know the necessary details of this now famous story. So they can make wise choices about what meditation or relaxation can achieve in reality; it is important to examine Ian’s case history – first published by Meares in an October 1978 MJA Abstract, 1978 Meares article  Although the article launched the idea that intensive meditation could influence the growth of cancer – the information that Meares published was severely flawed. He may not have been aware of this when the article went to print.

  1. A important timeline had been reversed – an error 19 months in the clinical timeline gave an impression that the patient, Ian Gawler had more disease than he actually had. When he “first saw Meares”- Dcember 1975 – there were no visible tumours as had been reported in the MJA – these “bony lumps” were in fact in line with the date on “famous chest wall photos” photographs published for the first time in the same article and labelled July 7 1977. Meares did not mention that at that stage Ian had advanced TB-likely he did not know or thought it incidental or post chemotherapy immune deficiency as Ian had not formerly had sessions with Meares since February 1976.
  2. This error – obvious if you do the maths; has never been challenged but has dangerously been a factor in creating the myth that meditation was a pivotal factor in Ian’s Gawler’s cancer being cured. The Meares Abstract title “Regression of osteogenic sarcoma associated with intensive meditation” says it all. This has had a huge influence in promoting unrealistic benefits of meditation. No wonder patients not privy to Ian’s actual story have been misled – believing if Ian can do it then they can do it too!
  3. Only recently (published in the Australian Doctor), did Ian agree that Meares had indeed been wrong with timelines and that he saw no need to correct it!
  4. Has anyone thought to ask that if Ian Gawler actually had lethal secondary bone cancer… and it went away…then why didn’t the meditation also influence the TB to disappear?
    Even a quote in A Dragon’s Blessing – Ian’s Biography-Page 164 states that when he had his “all clear” – June 1978, when the TB was first discovered; that the TB was visible on x-rays for at least 2 years prior! i.e it was at least visible June 1976 – meaning Ian would have definitely had TB before his chemotherapy which began in October 1976. Now IMJ 2012 Haines and Lowenthal, two oncologists suggest that there was no secondary cancer – just advanced TB creating calcified abscesses mimicking bone cancer. With no biopsy- they are likely right! Many health professionals now have no doubt including prof Alex Herzog from famous integrative oncologist from Germany.

Too Good to be True? Meditation’s role in cancer recovery…Grace Gawler comments

Grace Gawler is a prominent advocate for helping guide patients through the cancer maze by assisting them to create a health restoration plan that teaches patients how to access the best of conventional medicine while using complementary medicine as an adjuct to their compassionate care.

Meditation or I prefer to use the name relaxation can be a useful adjunct to a health restoration plan; however many patients expect more from meditation or relaxation than it can deliver.  The Grace Gawler Institute assists cancer patients to discover and take advantage of authentic cancer therapies i.e. the best of conventional medicine whilst using proven complementary medicine. Relaxation methods are a helpful aaddition to a patient’s recovery program. Please pass on this blog’s URL address on so that we can spread the word about helping cancer patients.

Each week, large numbers of clientele approach the Grace Gawler Institute for help after they have taken an exclusive Alternative Medicine role; sometimes for years, in order to treat their cancer. As a result,we see some horrendous cases of physical tissue destruction; where self-help and self empowerment in combination with the internet, books or workshops including the thought that meditation alone can cure their cancer; has led to self destruction.

By that stage often afraid to visit a doctor/oncologist, these patients often fall though the gaps in all systems of care and spend their final moments in palliative care, often in pain, isolated from friends or family and wondering where it all went wrong for them. People often ask me if working with cancer patients is sad or depressing – I have always said an emphatic no! However during the past 10 -12 years with the tremendous shift in how patients choose to treat their cancer & information available to them, I have found new feelings arising. Not depresssion – but anger towards  those who  influence patients down such a self destructive path in the name of healing. Yes – anger is an appropriate action- even for a meditator!

This brings me to the subject of today’s blog which is dedicated to the subject of the role of meditation in cancer recovery. In response to patients questions on my email since the Melbourne Age’s recent article “Too Good to be True“- that challenged the fact that Ian did not have secondary cancer; primary bone cancer yes…but secondary cancer no!  I offer the following which will answer the majority of questions.
For several months now I have been trying to convince a woman from the Sunshine Coast to seek a surgical solution for her advancing breast cancer. We have never met, but she maintains contact and occasionally sends a photograph of her suppurating breast: swollen, red, about to fungate and as tight as a basketball; she has had faith for 2 years that meditation in particular, and alternative medicine will cure her. Sadly she has reached a point where she can no longer cope with the pain! As well the cancer has likely spread internally.

Why do some cancer patients make ideological choices that override rationale? Many patients tell us they are inspired by the late Ainslie Meares work with cancer patients and most patients who come to see me believe strongly in Ian Gawler’s story – of how he conquered his cancer using meditation, diet and positive thinking. But patients do not know the necessary details of this now famous story. So they can make wise choices about what meditation or relaxation can achieve in reality; it is important to examine Ian’s case history – first published by Meares in an October 1978 MJA Abstract, 1978 Meares article  Although the article launched the idea that intensive meditation could influence the growth of cancer – the information that Meares published was severely flawed. He may not have been aware of this when the article went to print.

  1. A important timeline had been reversed – an error 19 months in the clinical timeline gave an impression that the patient, Ian Gawler had more disease than he actually had. When he “first saw Meares”- Dcember 1975 – there were no visible tumours as had been reported in the MJA – these “bony lumps” were in fact in line with the date on “famous chest wall photos” photographs published for the first time in the same article and labelled July 7 1977. Meares did not mention that at that stage Ian had advanced TB-likely he did not know or thought it incidental or post chemotherapy immune deficiency as Ian had not formerly had sessions with Meares since February 1976.
  2. This error – obvious if you do the maths; has never been challenged but has dangerously been a factor in creating the myth that meditation was a pivotal factor in Ian’s Gawler’s cancer being cured. The Meares Abstract title “Regression of osteogenic sarcoma associated with intensive meditation” says it all. This has had a huge influence in promoting unrealistic benefits of meditation. No wonder patients not privy to Ian’s actual story have been misled – believing if Ian can do it then they can do it too!
  3. Only recently (published in the Australian Doctor), did Ian agree that Meares had indeed been wrong with timelines and that he saw no need to correct it!
  4. Has anyone thought to ask that if Ian Gawler actually had lethal secondary bone cancer… and it went away…then why didn’t the meditation also influence the TB to disappear?
    Even a quote in A Dragon’s Blessing – Ian’s Biography-Page 164 states that when he had his “all clear” – June 1978, when the TB was first discovered; that the TB was visible on x-rays for at least 2 years prior! i.e it was at least visible June 1976 – meaning Ian would have definitely had TB before his chemotherapy which began in October 1976. Now IMJ 2012 Haines and Lowenthal, two oncologists suggest that there was no secondary cancer – just advanced TB creating calcified abscesses mimicking bone cancer. With no biopsy- they are likely right! Many health professionals now have no doubt including prof Alex Herzog from famous integrative oncologist from Germany.

Too Good to be True-Melbourne Age: Grace Gawler Answers Readers Questions

The Melbourne Age has alerted Cancer Patients patients across Australia and around the globe that Ian Gawler likely had TB and not secondary cancer during the 1970’s. Patients are confused, shocked, alarmed and asking questions about the recent controversy

The Melbourne Age has alerted Cancer Patients patients across Australia and around the globe that Ian Gawler likely had TB and not secondary cancer during the 1970’s. Patients are confused, shocked, alarmed and asking questions about the recent controversy. Does Ian Gawler’s ‘cancer-cure’ program work or not?
gracegawlermediablog readers have emailed a number of  questions which I will answer during the next week…..

Mary writes: I attended early groups at the Gawler Foundation; the diet was really helpful to me ,but it seems that at some point, the thrust of the Gawler message changed. I did not have a vegan diet but found the relaxation good. Grace, I am struggling to understand what has happened and why?

Hello Mary….The work of Ian Gawler, myself and the Foundation we co founded in the early 80’s; set a precedent in the way that lifestyle factors could be incorporated into a cancer recovery program. During those early days, the majority of our patients were having conventional therapy or had completed conventional therapies; adding our lifestyle changes as an adjunct to treatments.  Patients were assisted by stress reduction strategies, sensible changes to diet i.e. lowering saturated fats and processed foods, increasing fruit & vegetable consumption and fibre, while lowering red meat & increasing fish consumption. Basically a mediterranean style diet.  We made no claims that the lifestyle cahnges in themselves could or would cure cancer.
I eventually qualified in nutritional studies at distinction level in 1986 and had significant input into the diet presented  at our  residential programs during  the  founding years and up until I resigned in 1996.

At our residentials, a lacto-ovo vegetarian style diet was utilised for convenience- some people on chemo were sensitive to cooking smells such as fish so we did not include it. However a vegetarian diet was recommended as a short-term option for those whose diet was sub optimal before attending a program. I counselled patients in one on one sessions about how they could individualise their diets for optimum help when they returned home. I also referred patients to oncologists, radiation therapists, endocrinologists and GPs recognising they would likely need ongoing assistance and monitoring.

 I resigned in 1996.  In 1997 I was occupied with my own survival and recovery from complications associated with a routine surgery that had left my entire pelvic area and colon paralysed. During the following years significant changes had occurred that deviated from our original story –  the things that Ian and I did to help keep him alive and bring about his recovery had been changed.

A 2008 MJA “True Stories” article was reproduced on the Gawler Foundation website. A former patient alerted me to anomalies in the story and suggested I should investigate. Although I was in recovery from my last surgery performed in Singapore, I researched the article and was shocked by what I read. I wrote to the MJA and suggested they had to correct the errors in the story – lest it become an inaccurate record thereby negatively influencing choices that desperate cancer patients might make. The premise of the article was that:

1. “…Meares and the patient attributed the remarkable recovery to intensive meditation….” 
2. “…He still regularly meditates and teaches others with cancer to do so. His fastidious adoption of the Gerson diet for 3 months, followed by adherence to a plant-based wholefood ‘vegan diet’ may also have played some part. Such a lifestyle approach, incorporating meditation and a vegan diet, has recently been shown to cause significant modulation of gene expression and biological processes associated with tumour growth…”

Regarding these points

1: As a result of my refute letter MJA 2010 – Ian admitted that Meares published incorrect timelines in his 1978 MJA abstract that implied Intensive Meditation had been associated with his remission. The timelines were inverted making it appear that Ian had more ‘tumours’ than he actually did when he first saw Meares. Please refer to Ian Gawler Cancer “Cure’  on the main menu. This fact significantly alters the entire history. It also appears Meares was not informed of Ian’s TB diagnosis in 1978 and the fact it had been present for more than 2 years  as he did not mention it in his abstract. Thirdly, Ian attended Meares sessions for just 6 weeks and could not continue as meditation had not helped his condition-in fact his deterioration caused us to move on from Meares. Against Meares specific advice; Ian experiemented with imagery, mindfulness and many forms of meditation….yet claimed Ian’s recovery was associated with his style of meditation.
Relaxation is very helpful for cancer patients – but I do not believe it to be in any way curative for cancer.

2. Ian never had a vegan diet during the time of his recovery 1975-1978….through until 1997. I pointed this out in my refute letter published in the MJA September 2010. Ian has  since conceded in one of his blogs, that he has never had a vegan diet.

3. His adherance to the Gerson diet played no part in his recovery…he lost weight and deteriorated to the point of being immobilised while on the diet. following our experience, in the early days Ian and I strongly advised cancer patients not to follow the Gerson Diet Regimen.

Meryn writes: Did Ian really have TB or are these oncologists out to get him?

Hello Meryn – I am pleased you asked this question. I am the only living person who was present 24/7 for Ian throughout his illness and so the only one that can truly speak to this controversy. First of all –  It was presumed Ian had secondary cancer- but there were not proper investigations – no biopsy, but his condition was deemed at the time as “not typical of secondary osteogenic sarcoma“. Back then – this was no one’s fault – biopsies weren’t as routine as they are now.

No one is doubting Ian had primary osteogenic sarcoma- he may have even had TB in his bone way back then as we had lots of exposure to Tuberculin, used in our veterinary work to TB test cows. He was likely cured by his primary treatment – leg amputation. Many people were cured by leg amputation in the 1970’s and before that time. But when someone has such an influence on thousands maybe millions of cancer patients saying:  “If I can do it you can do it to…” and… if there is reasonable doubt that the diagnosis even 30 years on was incorrect – this becomes an important public health matter.

There is one way to solve the issue but unfortunately Ian has refused to have the “bone spicules” he coughed up during his recovery, examined. He also has a remaining calcified lymph node in his groin – the first ‘bump’ to appear  in November 1975. This could be biopsied – plus his actual history from the 1970’s could be examined if he wanted to set the record straight.  The latter day accounts of medical interventions that Ian is quoting as proof of his illness are of little relevance to what happened during the 70’s as he had no bony deposits in his lung or chest from 1978 until he left our marriage  in 1997.

In my practice I see a large number of patients who present with horrendous tumours. They have tried meditation, veganism, positive thinking and alternative medicine instead of conventional medicine. Many have spent tens of thousands of dollars on alt med supplements and infusions. Many die as a result of their choice – we help them where possible- but many become palliative patients. This is very sad as some of them would have high potential to be cured by conventional medicine instead of the pain, depression and misery that often results.
As an original inspirer and founder of the Gawler Foundation and the person who assited Ian throughout his illness – I have a public duty of care to raise concerns should any new and plausible view of Ian’s condition be put forward as has been done by Haines and Lowenthals IMJ paper.

Read more at http://gracegawler.com/Institute/?page_id=3454
The Gawler Story is recorded in my Memoirs:  Grace Grit and Gratitude – a self published book.  You can read most of this book online for free via Google books. It is also available from Brumby books Melbourne or via my website Bookshop.

 

 

Ian Gawler 'Cancer Cure': report TB mimicks cancer Professor Alex Herzog – Grace Gawler comments

Professor Alex Herzog is recognised by most cancer patients who have researched integrative oncology or hyperthermia (oncotherm) in Germany. Professor Herzog’s paper “Dangerous Errors in the Diagnosis and Treatment of Bony Tuberculosis” describes a patient who was misdiagnosed with metastatic cancer when in fact he had TB of the bone.

Multiple foci TB spine compression fractures vertebrae

This case demonstrates that even today, misdiagnoses can be made.  Professor Herzog’s report, published in 2009, makes for fascinating reading in relation to the recent case of Ian Gawler.

Since the 31 st December 2011 when the Melbourne Age published the headline: Cancer experts challenge Gawler’s ‘cure’   there has been interest from cancer patients, the general public and some doctors, as to what happened in Ian Gawler’s case. How could TB be mistaken for cancer and the obvious question; why it has taken 30 years to explore an unexpected remission from Australia’s most famous cancer patient?

To answer the above as briefly as possible. No one questioned Ian Gawler’s diagnosis. It was presumed he had metastatic disease. There had only been one diagnostic biopsy in Ian’s medical timeline 1974 – 1978 and that was in January 1975. That biopsy positively identified as osteogenic sarcoma (bone cancer), resulted in his right leg being amputated. From those times there is a lot of evidence in the medical literature, that amputation alone was a cure for some with this disease. 

Because Ian’s prognosis was thought to be poor (if in fact it had been bone cancer) very few medical practitioners became involved in his case during that period; we were mainly in charge of whatever resources we could muster! When Ian first consulted Ainslie Meares in December 1975, Meares also presumed Ian’s illness to be metastatic cancer. When he wrote his famous MJA published abstract in 1978, Regression of osteogenic sarcoma metastases associated with intensive meditation;  it is likely he had no idea Ian had suffered from TB, he certainly had little of the case history; Ian had only attended Meares groups for 6 weeks, stopping the sessions due to his rapid deterioration. His symptoms at that time were not typical of osteogenic sarcoma but with later knowledge were symptoms of TB. Unknown to Meares, Ian had practised a smorgasbord of techniques including imagery, yoga and Buddhist methods forbidden by Meares, as his method was based on stillness and silence. Without an adequate medical history and  background, as well as publishing copious errors of fact;  Ainslie Meares’ acknowledgement and endorsement of Ian Gawler, gave his ‘remission’ story great credibility and served as the fuel that fired an entire alternative medicine movement.

That credibility has never been questioned until now; Prof Haines and Lowenthal have come forward as the only two oncologists who had followed the story, throughout the decades suspecting error. My 2010 MJA letter addressing errors in the story provided them with a series of anomalies that they suspected existed, but were never able to track down.

Famous photos:July 1977 Advanced TB or cancer?

The question of timing – why now? Why explore a remission from 30 years ago? If Haines and Lowenthal are correct with their recent IMJ published hypothesis; and I believe from first-hand  being there experience, that they are; then the medical history books must be re-written and Ian must subject himself to appropriate medical scrutiny with regards to his history, presenting his samples for independent pathological examination. Cancer patients base their treatment decisions on Ian Gawler’s story; I hear it in my practise from people with advanced cancer at least 4-5 times per week – “Well if Ian did it , then so can I!” If it wasn’t secondary cancer that he had – cancer patients must know this fact.

This is a scan of a person with TB - mediastinal calcifications are evident

It is interesting to compare these two images. Above left Ian Gawler’s chest wall 7 July 1977. Left: Scan image of a patient with TB (not Ian Gawler) Note: tubercular adenopathy  – abscesses of the lymph nodes. These can become calcified abscesses.

Now – back to Professor Herzog’s paper: This is a medical journal report that highlights the fact that TB can mimick cancer Please select the link to read the PDF: Herzog – Dangerous Errors in the Diagnosis and Treatment of Bony Tuberculosis

In brief: Prof Alex Herzog published a journal article about a patient with tuberculosis of the bone mistaken as metastatic cancer.
The patient had been in a University hospital in Germany and had started induction chemotherapy before he visited Professor Herzog who diagnosed that there was no metastatic cancer but tuberculosis. The patient received treatment and was cured with a combination of antibiotics over 2 years. The article can also be found on the public medical record at:  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19890413  The message is clear – biopsies and accurate diagnostics are necessary when dealing with any cancer related situation.

 

 

Ian Gawler ‘Cancer Cure’: report TB mimicks cancer Professor Alex Herzog – Grace Gawler comments

Professor Alex Herzog is recognised by most cancer patients who have researched integrative oncology or hyperthermia (oncotherm) in Germany. Professor Herzog’s paper “Dangerous Errors in the Diagnosis and Treatment of Bony Tuberculosis” describes a patient who was misdiagnosed with metastatic cancer when in fact he had TB of the bone.

Multiple foci TB spine compression fractures vertebrae

This case demonstrates that even today, misdiagnoses can be made.  Professor Herzog’s report, published in 2009, makes for fascinating reading in relation to the recent case of Ian Gawler.

Since the 31 st December 2011 when the Melbourne Age published the headline: Cancer experts challenge Gawler’s ‘cure’   there has been interest from cancer patients, the general public and some doctors, as to what happened in Ian Gawler’s case. How could TB be mistaken for cancer and the obvious question; why it has taken 30 years to explore an unexpected remission from Australia’s most famous cancer patient?

To answer the above as briefly as possible. No one questioned Ian Gawler’s diagnosis. It was presumed he had metastatic disease. There had only been one diagnostic biopsy in Ian’s medical timeline 1974 – 1978 and that was in January 1975. That biopsy positively identified as osteogenic sarcoma (bone cancer), resulted in his right leg being amputated. From those times there is a lot of evidence in the medical literature, that amputation alone was a cure for some with this disease. 

Because Ian’s prognosis was thought to be poor (if in fact it had been bone cancer) very few medical practitioners became involved in his case during that period; we were mainly in charge of whatever resources we could muster! When Ian first consulted Ainslie Meares in December 1975, Meares also presumed Ian’s illness to be metastatic cancer. When he wrote his famous MJA published abstract in 1978, Regression of osteogenic sarcoma metastases associated with intensive meditation;  it is likely he had no idea Ian had suffered from TB, he certainly had little of the case history; Ian had only attended Meares groups for 6 weeks, stopping the sessions due to his rapid deterioration. His symptoms at that time were not typical of osteogenic sarcoma but with later knowledge were symptoms of TB. Unknown to Meares, Ian had practised a smorgasbord of techniques including imagery, yoga and Buddhist methods forbidden by Meares, as his method was based on stillness and silence. Without an adequate medical history and  background, as well as publishing copious errors of fact;  Ainslie Meares’ acknowledgement and endorsement of Ian Gawler, gave his ‘remission’ story great credibility and served as the fuel that fired an entire alternative medicine movement.

That credibility has never been questioned until now; Prof Haines and Lowenthal have come forward as the only two oncologists who had followed the story, throughout the decades suspecting error. My 2010 MJA letter addressing errors in the story provided them with a series of anomalies that they suspected existed, but were never able to track down.

Famous photos:July 1977 Advanced TB or cancer?

The question of timing – why now? Why explore a remission from 30 years ago? If Haines and Lowenthal are correct with their recent IMJ published hypothesis; and I believe from first-hand  being there experience, that they are; then the medical history books must be re-written and Ian must subject himself to appropriate medical scrutiny with regards to his history, presenting his samples for independent pathological examination. Cancer patients base their treatment decisions on Ian Gawler’s story; I hear it in my practise from people with advanced cancer at least 4-5 times per week – “Well if Ian did it , then so can I!” If it wasn’t secondary cancer that he had – cancer patients must know this fact.

This is a scan of a person with TB - mediastinal calcifications are evident

It is interesting to compare these two images. Above left Ian Gawler’s chest wall 7 July 1977. Left: Scan image of a patient with TB (not Ian Gawler) Note: tubercular adenopathy  – abscesses of the lymph nodes. These can become calcified abscesses.

Now – back to Professor Herzog’s paper: This is a medical journal report that highlights the fact that TB can mimick cancer Please select the link to read the PDF: Herzog – Dangerous Errors in the Diagnosis and Treatment of Bony Tuberculosis

In brief: Prof Alex Herzog published a journal article about a patient with tuberculosis of the bone mistaken as metastatic cancer.
The patient had been in a University hospital in Germany and had started induction chemotherapy before he visited Professor Herzog who diagnosed that there was no metastatic cancer but tuberculosis. The patient received treatment and was cured with a combination of antibiotics over 2 years. The article can also be found on the public medical record at:  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19890413  The message is clear – biopsies and accurate diagnostics are necessary when dealing with any cancer related situation.

 

 

Out on a limb – the importance of re-examining the cause of Ian Gawler's 'remission' – Grace Gawler comments

Visit:  https://theconversation.edu.au/coffee-enemas-dont-cure-cancer-reviewing-the-remarkable-claims-of-ian-gawler-5242

Hopefully this series of blogs will answer the many questions that cancer patients and the public are asking about how Ian Gawler might have been misdiagnosed?

After Meares and Gerson diet: Mid March 1976 – Ian Gawler

 After all, we would normally think of TB being associated with a ‘shadow’ on the lung, not large calcified lumps such as the those photographed on July 7 1977 – Ian’s chest wall…(below left).
In my next blog we will look at how misdiagnosis can happen and how TB can mimic even bone cancer. The following will form a background and framework for what has happened and make sense of this complex story.

Famous photos:July 1977 Advanced TB or cancer?

 I was once quoted as saying “I would rather be married to a live anecdote than a dead statistic.” At that stage I had no idea that our story would become so famous and that people would try to emulate what we did throughout the course of Ian’s illness. I had neither the maturity nor expertise to tease apart various medical incidents that had always left me wondering.

Now in 2012, having walked in the world of cancer medicine for 38 years; by logic, you would have to think that I have seen a thing or two! Add to that my experience as sole caregiver/partner for Ian Gawler throughout his illness; first in 1974 as girlfriend when he was diagnosed with osteogenic sarcoma; then supporting him throughout his assumed recurrence; marrying him when he’d been given a few weeks to live, and following through with support until he returned to full health. Given that background, you would have to think that I know a thing or two!

Coming back to current time, Ian Gawler and supporters mistakenly believe they are at war with the medical profession who are simply out to discredit because he recovered from secondary bone cancer despite them. This debate has reached the heights of blind emotionalism fanned by Gawler’s blogs calling it the Spanish Inquisition! Rather than welcoming enquiry, the Gawler Foundation has published links to these emotive blogs on their front page! Has anyone from this group stopped for moment to consider why, as an ex wife I would expose myself to public and medical scrutiny by correcting errors of fact about Ian Gawler’s ‘remission’ in a medical journal? We separated long ago – so although it makes for exciting press, there are no duelling Mrs Gawler’s as has been implied. I have been preoccupied since 1997 with a medical condition myself and family responsibilities, so could well do without the hassle. We should also ask why two eminent professors of oncology would risk their reputations publically and medically by investigating Ian Gawler’s recovery 30 years on? Bringing a tone of logic to the matter, it is recommended that Ian Gawler’s supporters read the evidence as written in the IMJ report before making assumptions about wars and conspiracies. Haines and Lowenthal’s report is well written and scientifically intelligent and for me who was intimately involved in Ian Gawler’s recovery; in 2012 ‘science-speak’ – it sure makes a lot of sense!

We must remember that medicine was a very different entity in the 1970’s. Sophisticated scanning wasn’t around and diagnostics were perhaps more dependent on the patient’s reporting of symptoms. There were very few medical practitioners involved in Ian Gawler’s case; they were not of long duration and, as well, we had much geographical relocation during his illness. No one picked up the symptoms of TB, no one knew of the BCG vaccines he had used as immune stimulants and no one knew of the tuberculin he used for TB testing cows in veterinary practice in those days. No one asked if indeed there had been a biopsy performed 11 months after amputation when a bony lump appeared in his groin. No one asked about biopsies for the duration of his illness; it was presumed they had been done. Maybe this assumption was due to the fact that Ian Gawler was a Veterinarian who would know these things. In a nutshell, this is how much of his story/history, simply passed under the medical radar without questions and eventually became a well reported ‘anecdotal cure.’

When Ainslie Meares reported Ian’s story in 1978 in the MJA – there was one missing piece to the puzzle – Meares did not know Ian had been diagnosed with advanced TB in June 1978. Meares had written and submitted the abstract when the calcifications on Ian’s Chest disappeared – he too presumed the growths had been metastatic cancer – in the absence of knowledge about Ian’s TB. He also inverted Ian’s medical timeline which has helped fuel the current confusion in terms of what happened when?

The ‘Dragon’s Blessing’, Ian’s biography was published October 2008. Dr Alistair Robertson is quoted in the book. He had reviewed Ian Gawler’s case in 1978 and made the diagnosis of TB.  This was the first time Ian had consulted him, so he had little or no background about the case. He looked at x-rays from previous years; back to 1976 and compared them with the current-time June 1978 films.  Robertson said: “TB had been evident for at least two years” however, the lung ‘shadow’ was evident early in 1976 on x-ray. I remember asking Ian’s radiation oncologist about it in February 1976 but I had never seen TB; as a veterinary nurse in wasn’t in my repertoire. Continue reading “Out on a limb – the importance of re-examining the cause of Ian Gawler's 'remission' – Grace Gawler comments”

Out on a limb – the importance of re-examining the cause of Ian Gawler’s ‘remission’ – Grace Gawler comments

Visit:  https://theconversation.edu.au/coffee-enemas-dont-cure-cancer-reviewing-the-remarkable-claims-of-ian-gawler-5242

Hopefully this series of blogs will answer the many questions that cancer patients and the public are asking about how Ian Gawler might have been misdiagnosed?

After Meares and Gerson diet: Mid March 1976 – Ian Gawler

 After all, we would normally think of TB being associated with a ‘shadow’ on the lung, not large calcified lumps such as the those photographed on July 7 1977 – Ian’s chest wall…(below left).
In my next blog we will look at how misdiagnosis can happen and how TB can mimic even bone cancer. The following will form a background and framework for what has happened and make sense of this complex story.

Famous photos:July 1977 Advanced TB or cancer?

 I was once quoted as saying “I would rather be married to a live anecdote than a dead statistic.” At that stage I had no idea that our story would become so famous and that people would try to emulate what we did throughout the course of Ian’s illness. I had neither the maturity nor expertise to tease apart various medical incidents that had always left me wondering.

Now in 2012, having walked in the world of cancer medicine for 38 years; by logic, you would have to think that I have seen a thing or two! Add to that my experience as sole caregiver/partner for Ian Gawler throughout his illness; first in 1974 as girlfriend when he was diagnosed with osteogenic sarcoma; then supporting him throughout his assumed recurrence; marrying him when he’d been given a few weeks to live, and following through with support until he returned to full health. Given that background, you would have to think that I know a thing or two!

Coming back to current time, Ian Gawler and supporters mistakenly believe they are at war with the medical profession who are simply out to discredit because he recovered from secondary bone cancer despite them. This debate has reached the heights of blind emotionalism fanned by Gawler’s blogs calling it the Spanish Inquisition! Rather than welcoming enquiry, the Gawler Foundation has published links to these emotive blogs on their front page! Has anyone from this group stopped for moment to consider why, as an ex wife I would expose myself to public and medical scrutiny by correcting errors of fact about Ian Gawler’s ‘remission’ in a medical journal? We separated long ago – so although it makes for exciting press, there are no duelling Mrs Gawler’s as has been implied. I have been preoccupied since 1997 with a medical condition myself and family responsibilities, so could well do without the hassle. We should also ask why two eminent professors of oncology would risk their reputations publically and medically by investigating Ian Gawler’s recovery 30 years on? Bringing a tone of logic to the matter, it is recommended that Ian Gawler’s supporters read the evidence as written in the IMJ report before making assumptions about wars and conspiracies. Haines and Lowenthal’s report is well written and scientifically intelligent and for me who was intimately involved in Ian Gawler’s recovery; in 2012 ‘science-speak’ – it sure makes a lot of sense!

We must remember that medicine was a very different entity in the 1970’s. Sophisticated scanning wasn’t around and diagnostics were perhaps more dependent on the patient’s reporting of symptoms. There were very few medical practitioners involved in Ian Gawler’s case; they were not of long duration and, as well, we had much geographical relocation during his illness. No one picked up the symptoms of TB, no one knew of the BCG vaccines he had used as immune stimulants and no one knew of the tuberculin he used for TB testing cows in veterinary practice in those days. No one asked if indeed there had been a biopsy performed 11 months after amputation when a bony lump appeared in his groin. No one asked about biopsies for the duration of his illness; it was presumed they had been done. Maybe this assumption was due to the fact that Ian Gawler was a Veterinarian who would know these things. In a nutshell, this is how much of his story/history, simply passed under the medical radar without questions and eventually became a well reported ‘anecdotal cure.’

When Ainslie Meares reported Ian’s story in 1978 in the MJA – there was one missing piece to the puzzle – Meares did not know Ian had been diagnosed with advanced TB in June 1978. Meares had written and submitted the abstract when the calcifications on Ian’s Chest disappeared – he too presumed the growths had been metastatic cancer – in the absence of knowledge about Ian’s TB. He also inverted Ian’s medical timeline which has helped fuel the current confusion in terms of what happened when?

The ‘Dragon’s Blessing’, Ian’s biography was published October 2008. Dr Alistair Robertson is quoted in the book. He had reviewed Ian Gawler’s case in 1978 and made the diagnosis of TB.  This was the first time Ian had consulted him, so he had little or no background about the case. He looked at x-rays from previous years; back to 1976 and compared them with the current-time June 1978 films.  Robertson said: “TB had been evident for at least two years” however, the lung ‘shadow’ was evident early in 1976 on x-ray. I remember asking Ian’s radiation oncologist about it in February 1976 but I had never seen TB; as a veterinary nurse in wasn’t in my repertoire. Continue reading “Out on a limb – the importance of re-examining the cause of Ian Gawler’s ‘remission’ – Grace Gawler comments”

Ian Gawler: Out on a limb – science investigates a miracle 'cure' Grace Gawler comments

Read the latest blog from the USA – Science-based medicine: an intelligent review & comments on the Gawler ‘cure’.
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/the-cancer-cure-anecdote/

The cancer public needs to be aware of the previously inexplicable anomalies of Ian Gawler’s clinical history and the content and reason behind the  publication of a well researched report that for the first time in more than 3 decades, provides a different perspective & hypothesis for his ‘cure’.
Misinformation is being generated about the motive and intentions behind the latest e-published paper however, cancer patients have not yet had the opportunity to see or the review the full report and discern for themselves the motive and the importance of the publication for the cancer community.

If the history books have written that Ian Gawler had metastatic bone cancer, and…. if it is proven that he actually had widespread TB instead – isn’t this a matter in the public interest?  Many patients say ” If Ian did it – I can do it too!” Many give away conventional oncology believing that lifestyle medicine methods as reported by Gawler & Jelinek in the MJA Dec 11 2008 can impact cancer, and in Ian’s case; likely cured his metastatic cancer.

However that report  is chronologically incorrect with many errors of fact – most patients are not aware of this. Patients should be aware that 2 flawed versions published in the MJA are still listed on the Gawler Foundation media website, despite Ian commenting that the timeline in 1978 & 2008 articles were incorrect. He has also stated on his blog that  he never had a vegan diet…..other issues remain unadressed by the authors. Case report in the December 2008 edition of the Medical Journal of Australia

So getting back to the current IMJ paper –  there is no Spanish Inquisition, no medical profession out to get Ian, and no one in the latest scientific article  is disputing Ian Gawler personally or work wise; the paper is a professional scientific document that takes account of  previously unconnected history surrounding Ian Gawler’s medical timeline and exposes a new and likely hypothesis for his “cure’.

To also be clear – this matter of Ian’s ‘remission/cure’ is not personal. Because I was with Ian throughout his entire recovery process 24/7 – my experience is valid and first-hand. My recorded original medical history is indesputable. I have always had more questions than answers when it came to Ian’s disease process.  I too have devoted my life to assisting cancer patients and those with life challenging illness and I am interested to explore the science and know the truth as this was also a momentus part of my life. What really happened throughout Ian Gawler’s recovery and what was the relationship between his TB and his cancer? This is a scientific and now public issue – not an emotional question. Being a fan of Professor Julius Sumner Miller when I was young – I learned to question and ask his famous question: “Why is it so?”

From my perspective; there are no ‘ex-wives quarrels or duelling Mrs Gawlers’ – as previously reported in the popular press when Ian’s history was challenged previously -in fact such headlines served to smoke-screen important professional issues with regards to my corrections/refute  letter MJA 2010

RE TB – Gawler & Jelinek’s 2008 MJA states that Ian Gawler : “….developed pulmonary tuberculosis in June 1978 and was treated for this condition for 12 months.”
Actually – Ian Gawler did have TB – but he had it for 2+ years – it remained undiagnosed until June 1978.
Haines and Lowenthal’s paper titled Hypothesis: The importance of a histological diagnosis when diagnosing and treating advanced cancer. Famous patient recovery may not have been from metastatic disease” is far from an inflammatory title. Prof Ray Lowenthal and Prof Ian Haines IMJ abstract.
 To be continued….

Cancer Experts Challenge Gawler’s Cure – The Age 31 december 2011 http://www.theage.com.au/national/cancer-experts-challenge-gawlers-cure-20111230-1pfns.html