Too Good to be True? Ian Gawler ‘Cure’ Mebourne Age today: Grace Gawler

Too Good to be True? Ian Gawler ‘Cure’ Mebourne Age today: Grace Gawler comments
http://www.theage.com.au/national/health/too-good-to-be-true-20120420-1xcgn.html

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

Following on from “Cancer cure” claim – Ian Gawler – A Current Affair, Good Friday;  http://aca.ninemsn.com.au/article/8447811/cancer-cure-claim
this week saw the Melbourne Age newspaper publish not one, but two articles on the controversial subject of Ian Gawler’s remission from bone cancer in 1978.

On Monday 16 April, Dr Rod Anderson, a Melbourne GP said “…he had supported Dr Gawler since he read You Can Conquer Cancer, in which Dr Gawler tells of how he survived secondary cancer, despite being given just months to live. Among other things, Dr Gawler, a veterinarian, says meditation, coffee enemas and controversial alternative healers in the Philippines and India helped cure his cancer. Having been diagnosed with melanoma, Dr Anderson said he wanted to know that there was another option if he ever suffered advanced cancer, but had changed his attitude towards Dr Gawler’s story since he studied the tuberculosis hypothesis.”
http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/gawler-did-not-have-cancer-gp-20120415-1x1vi.html

Today the Melbourne Age published their third article; an in depth feature story about the likelihood that Ian Gawler suffered from advanced TB and not cancer. Gathering more support from various doctors including the eminent integrative  oncologist Prof Alex Herzog from Germany who has revealed a similar case of advanced TB masquerading as bone cancer that he also published in Medical journal said: ”It was clear from the beginning the Gawler case was TB. This was a misdiagnosis.” Herzog said “Gawler’s patients may have been ”misled” into believing they too could be cured by alternative means.”

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

Today’s article provides several opinions that lend weight to the fact that Ian Gawler was critically ill with advanced TB and not cancer. Although I was involved with Ian Gawler’s case first hand/24/7, a fact which many seem to ignore; I have always suspected that TB played a role in his recovery. In these early days there was no internet – so research had to be carried out in libraries. I have always been interested in the science aspect of healing and recovery and thrived on the teachings of Prof Julius Sumner Miller’s TV program ‘Why is it so’ when I was in primary school.

I have always asked this question around Ian’s recovery. This whole scenario began without intent to mislead anyone. Misdiagnoses happen all the time – it’s a fact of life. But when we know or suspect there has been an illdocumented case- it is a serious matter…. especially if it becomes famous.
The case demonstrates why I practise the way I do today.

1. Ongoing collaboration between treating practitioners is essential
2. Accurate case notes and records of scans etc need to be catalogued
3. Second or third opinions need to be sought after if any doubt re diagnosis
4. Biopsies must be used to rule out other conditions especially in difficult cases
5. Patient authenticity and disclosure is essential for best results
6. Conventional and complementary treatment concurrently is essential.
7. Consistent monitoring and follow up is necessary – wishful thinking that all is well – is dangerous

As stated before – this is not an attack, not a Spanish Inquisition, not a personal issue from a past marriage breakdown – this is a much overdue scientific appraisal of an issue that affects the decsion making of  the cancer public. In my practice – 4-5 times each week I hear patients saying ” If Ian did it – then I can do it too.” Well – if Ian was misdiagnosed – then surely this has to be the public health issue of the century. The Melbourne Age with true investigative journalism has done a valuable service in letting the public know. More on this in next blog.

You can read the majority of my self-published  memoirs Grace, Grit and Gratitude online at google books for free It is also available from Brumby books Melbourne or on my website in hard copy or e-Book at www.gracegawlerinstitute.com  Email : institute@gracegawler.com

Too Good to be True? Ian Gawler 'Cure' Mebourne Age today: Grace Gawler

Too Good to be True? Ian Gawler ‘Cure’ Mebourne Age today: Grace Gawler comments
http://www.theage.com.au/national/health/too-good-to-be-true-20120420-1xcgn.html

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

Following on from “Cancer cure” claim – Ian Gawler – A Current Affair, Good Friday;  http://aca.ninemsn.com.au/article/8447811/cancer-cure-claim
this week saw the Melbourne Age newspaper publish not one, but two articles on the controversial subject of Ian Gawler’s remission from bone cancer in 1978.

On Monday 16 April, Dr Rod Anderson, a Melbourne GP said “…he had supported Dr Gawler since he read You Can Conquer Cancer, in which Dr Gawler tells of how he survived secondary cancer, despite being given just months to live. Among other things, Dr Gawler, a veterinarian, says meditation, coffee enemas and controversial alternative healers in the Philippines and India helped cure his cancer. Having been diagnosed with melanoma, Dr Anderson said he wanted to know that there was another option if he ever suffered advanced cancer, but had changed his attitude towards Dr Gawler’s story since he studied the tuberculosis hypothesis.”
http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/gawler-did-not-have-cancer-gp-20120415-1x1vi.html

Today the Melbourne Age published their third article; an in depth feature story about the likelihood that Ian Gawler suffered from advanced TB and not cancer. Gathering more support from various doctors including the eminent integrative  oncologist Prof Alex Herzog from Germany who has revealed a similar case of advanced TB masquerading as bone cancer that he also published in Medical journal said: ”It was clear from the beginning the Gawler case was TB. This was a misdiagnosis.” Herzog said “Gawler’s patients may have been ”misled” into believing they too could be cured by alternative means.”

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

Today’s article provides several opinions that lend weight to the fact that Ian Gawler was critically ill with advanced TB and not cancer. Although I was involved with Ian Gawler’s case first hand/24/7, a fact which many seem to ignore; I have always suspected that TB played a role in his recovery. In these early days there was no internet – so research had to be carried out in libraries. I have always been interested in the science aspect of healing and recovery and thrived on the teachings of Prof Julius Sumner Miller’s TV program ‘Why is it so’ when I was in primary school.

I have always asked this question around Ian’s recovery. This whole scenario began without intent to mislead anyone. Misdiagnoses happen all the time – it’s a fact of life. But when we know or suspect there has been an illdocumented case- it is a serious matter…. especially if it becomes famous.
The case demonstrates why I practise the way I do today.

1. Ongoing collaboration between treating practitioners is essential
2. Accurate case notes and records of scans etc need to be catalogued
3. Second or third opinions need to be sought after if any doubt re diagnosis
4. Biopsies must be used to rule out other conditions especially in difficult cases
5. Patient authenticity and disclosure is essential for best results
6. Conventional and complementary treatment concurrently is essential.
7. Consistent monitoring and follow up is necessary – wishful thinking that all is well – is dangerous

As stated before – this is not an attack, not a Spanish Inquisition, not a personal issue from a past marriage breakdown – this is a much overdue scientific appraisal of an issue that affects the decsion making of  the cancer public. In my practice – 4-5 times each week I hear patients saying ” If Ian did it – then I can do it too.” Well – if Ian was misdiagnosed – then surely this has to be the public health issue of the century. The Melbourne Age with true investigative journalism has done a valuable service in letting the public know. More on this in next blog.

You can read the majority of my self-published  memoirs Grace, Grit and Gratitude online at google books for free It is also available from Brumby books Melbourne or on my website in hard copy or e-Book at www.gracegawlerinstitute.com  Email : institute@gracegawler.com

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 – A Survivor’s Bemusement?

The fact that Ian Gawler survived his wrangle with osteogenic sarcoma (bone cancer) is highly significant, however when a cancer suvivor becomes famous for just that – surviving, there are public responsibilities inherent in the role. One of them is accuracy about the story, time-lines and incidents crucial to their survival. A high profile patient must be transparent with the details, medical history, photographic and radiographic evidence and needs to be answerable to the public and the medical community – especially if obvious flaws are brought to their attention. These “flaws” were made very obvious in an article about the patient under the banner of “True Stories” – a 2008 Australian Medical Journal (MJA) article. Medical journal articles give enormous credibility to ‘alternate cancer cure claims’ and are supposedly peer reviewed and accurate.

This blog was never intended for speaking out against the story that I was so intimately a part of – however when one can see that the MJA story in question had such a makeover as to make it almost unrecognizable – then for me not to make a statement and rectify the errors in a public forum would be reprehensible.

So cancer patients beware:  Since most of you don’t have the luxury of reading refutes in medical journals spreading the true version this story is the value of my blog.

  • When open comment is sought after errors are brought to attention and there is silence – I am concerned.
  • When I write to Dr Ruth Gawler, Professor George Jelinek and Ian Gawler about the significant errors and I get no reponse – only silence – I am concerned.
  • When I read their rufute of my factual timeline letter in the MJA and they do not address or worse, show indifference to the facts – I am deeply concerned.
  • When I see comments like the following quote from Ian Gawler saying: – ” It is rather bemusing to be a long term cancer survivor and to have so many people claiming to be responsible for curing you and to have their own version of what you did” – having been instrumental in many of the treatments we tried and having walked the arduous path to his recovery alonside him – I am am not only concerned but shocked!
Ian Gawler - after Meares and Gerson diet Photo taken Philippines March 1976

So…. to you the patient or caregiver –  if this blog is serving its purpose to help you, it is imperative I address these critical errors in Ian Gawler’s story.

My new Institute’s charter is to provide cancer patients and caregivers with accurate cancer therapy information as well as information about the traps, tricks, scams and fraudulent statements in profusion on the internet and in the plethora of do-it-your-self cancer books and blogs now available to cancer patients – all at the touch of a “mouse.”

Therefore it would be unethical of me and certainly not in the public interest if I chose to ignore the version of Ian Gawler’s medical history and remission story that was published in Dec 11 2008 MJA ( Medical Journal of Australia). Incidentally about the same time Ian’s Biography, The Dragon’s Blessing was penned by Guy Allenby.

After almost a year of scrutiny, fact checking and cross referencing – the MJA decided to publish my refute of the story along with original photographs, correct dates and many other corrections. Ironically, Allenby’s biography actually validates the dates I have included in my refute letter!!

How could Dr Ruth Gawler and Prof George Jelinek got it so wrong?  All they had to do was read the Dragon’s Blessing or previous articles in the Gawler Foundation’s Inspiring People or read the timelines that were previously published on the Gawler Foundation website or even read a copy of the Australian Doctor September 3 1983 as I did when verifying what corresponded with my memory. If I find out the answer to the question – rest assurred it will be published here.

But – there is more…

1.    The Patient never adhered to a vegan diet – neither throughout his recovery period 1975 – 1978 nor for the following years we were married 1978 – 1997.

2. Inversion of timelines as evidenced by the photographs published by the MJA 2010. Even in their reply to my refute – Drs Gawler & Jelinek are still claiming these photographs were taken in 1976!!- They were unaware that I had provided the MJA with my originals at the last minute prior to publication. The new date on the photos happens to fit in with their version of the 2008 True story; which states …. only after Ian Gawler failed chemotherapy and other medical treatments – did he then consult Ainslie Meares. However Ian can’t have consulted Ainslie then because he first consulted Meares 12 December 1975. ( see page 74 The Dragon’s Blessing) This is a timeline error of 19 months and corresponds with my memory!

MJA published 20 September 2010
Ian Gawler - Photos with actual dates dsiplayed MJA 2010

Ian’s now very famous photographs are dated and have been reproduced many times in many publications including many of his own.
The date is clearly stated – they were taken 7 July 1977 when Ian Gawler was basically well – not when he was critically ill Feb 1976.

3.    The 3rd not so publicly known issue: That Ian failed to correct Ainslie Meares wrong version of our story in 1978. Meares also inverted critical medical timelines. He also states Ian had a mid thigh amputation. Ian is aware I have tried to correct this error since 1978.

1. The 1978 Meares article – misreported
http://gawlerfoundationmedia.com.au/2008/11/10/medical-journal-of-australia-case-study-by-ainslie-meares-1978
2. The 2008 MJA “True Stories article – even more errors
http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/189_11_011208/jel11032Cancer
3. Patients at Risk from Inaccurate Clinical Reporting in a High-Profile Story: Comment and Corrections’ 20 September 2010 MJA Volume 193 Number 6 20 September 2010- pp371-372
http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/193_06_200910/letters_200910_fm-1.html

I encourage you to look at the factsview the MJA articles online and then make up your own mind. The question of why the story changed after 1996 and why the makeover aoccurred just might be related to attempts to write me out of Ian’s story and the Gawler Foundation’s history. Failing to report the whole story in context and accurately presented is a great travesty for cancer patients and caregivers.

My advice – Choose CAM therapies wisely – check facts and claims – your life may depend upon it!  Grace Gawler: http://www.gracegawler.com
If you would like more information and an information package on this topic please email me via my website.

Ian Gawler – A Survivor's Bemusement?

The fact that Ian Gawler survived his wrangle with osteogenic sarcoma (bone cancer) is highly significant, however when a cancer suvivor becomes famous for just that – surviving, there are public responsibilities inherent in the role. One of them is accuracy about the story, time-lines and incidents crucial to their survival. A high profile patient must be transparent with the details, medical history, photographic and radiographic evidence and needs to be answerable to the public and the medical community – especially if obvious flaws are brought to their attention. These “flaws” were made very obvious in an article about the patient under the banner of “True Stories” – a 2008 Australian Medical Journal (MJA) article. Medical journal articles give enormous credibility to ‘alternate cancer cure claims’ and are supposedly peer reviewed and accurate.

This blog was never intended for speaking out against the story that I was so intimately a part of – however when one can see that the MJA story in question had such a makeover as to make it almost unrecognizable – then for me not to make a statement and rectify the errors in a public forum would be reprehensible.

So cancer patients beware:  Since most of you don’t have the luxury of reading refutes in medical journals spreading the true version this story is the value of my blog.

  • When open comment is sought after errors are brought to attention and there is silence – I am concerned.
  • When I write to Dr Ruth Gawler, Professor George Jelinek and Ian Gawler about the significant errors and I get no reponse – only silence – I am concerned.
  • When I read their rufute of my factual timeline letter in the MJA and they do not address or worse, show indifference to the facts – I am deeply concerned.
  • When I see comments like the following quote from Ian Gawler saying: – ” It is rather bemusing to be a long term cancer survivor and to have so many people claiming to be responsible for curing you and to have their own version of what you did” – having been instrumental in many of the treatments we tried and having walked the arduous path to his recovery alonside him – I am am not only concerned but shocked!
Ian Gawler - after Meares and Gerson diet Photo taken Philippines March 1976

So…. to you the patient or caregiver –  if this blog is serving its purpose to help you, it is imperative I address these critical errors in Ian Gawler’s story.

My new Institute’s charter is to provide cancer patients and caregivers with accurate cancer therapy information as well as information about the traps, tricks, scams and fraudulent statements in profusion on the internet and in the plethora of do-it-your-self cancer books and blogs now available to cancer patients – all at the touch of a “mouse.”

Therefore it would be unethical of me and certainly not in the public interest if I chose to ignore the version of Ian Gawler’s medical history and remission story that was published in Dec 11 2008 MJA ( Medical Journal of Australia). Incidentally about the same time Ian’s Biography, The Dragon’s Blessing was penned by Guy Allenby.

After almost a year of scrutiny, fact checking and cross referencing – the MJA decided to publish my refute of the story along with original photographs, correct dates and many other corrections. Ironically, Allenby’s biography actually validates the dates I have included in my refute letter!!

How could Dr Ruth Gawler and Prof George Jelinek got it so wrong?  All they had to do was read the Dragon’s Blessing or previous articles in the Gawler Foundation’s Inspiring People or read the timelines that were previously published on the Gawler Foundation website or even read a copy of the Australian Doctor September 3 1983 as I did when verifying what corresponded with my memory. If I find out the answer to the question – rest assurred it will be published here.

But – there is more…

1.    The Patient never adhered to a vegan diet – neither throughout his recovery period 1975 – 1978 nor for the following years we were married 1978 – 1997.

2. Inversion of timelines as evidenced by the photographs published by the MJA 2010. Even in their reply to my refute – Drs Gawler & Jelinek are still claiming these photographs were taken in 1976!!- They were unaware that I had provided the MJA with my originals at the last minute prior to publication. The new date on the photos happens to fit in with their version of the 2008 True story; which states …. only after Ian Gawler failed chemotherapy and other medical treatments – did he then consult Ainslie Meares. However Ian can’t have consulted Ainslie then because he first consulted Meares 12 December 1975. ( see page 74 The Dragon’s Blessing) This is a timeline error of 19 months and corresponds with my memory!

MJA published 20 September 2010
Ian Gawler - Photos with actual dates dsiplayed MJA 2010

Ian’s now very famous photographs are dated and have been reproduced many times in many publications including many of his own.
The date is clearly stated – they were taken 7 July 1977 when Ian Gawler was basically well – not when he was critically ill Feb 1976.

3.    The 3rd not so publicly known issue: That Ian failed to correct Ainslie Meares wrong version of our story in 1978. Meares also inverted critical medical timelines. He also states Ian had a mid thigh amputation. Ian is aware I have tried to correct this error since 1978.

1. The 1978 Meares article – misreported
http://gawlerfoundationmedia.com.au/2008/11/10/medical-journal-of-australia-case-study-by-ainslie-meares-1978
2. The 2008 MJA “True Stories article – even more errors
http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/189_11_011208/jel11032Cancer
3. Patients at Risk from Inaccurate Clinical Reporting in a High-Profile Story: Comment and Corrections’ 20 September 2010 MJA Volume 193 Number 6 20 September 2010- pp371-372
http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/193_06_200910/letters_200910_fm-1.html

I encourage you to look at the factsview the MJA articles online and then make up your own mind. The question of why the story changed after 1996 and why the makeover aoccurred just might be related to attempts to write me out of Ian’s story and the Gawler Foundation’s history. Failing to report the whole story in context and accurately presented is a great travesty for cancer patients and caregivers.

My advice – Choose CAM therapies wisely – check facts and claims – your life may depend upon it!  Grace Gawler: http://www.gracegawler.com
If you would like more information and an information package on this topic please email me via my website.

Australian Doctor – Grace Gawler comments on Ian Gawler’s Cancer Recovery

Gawler Australian Doctor
22 October 2010 Gawler Australian Doctor Article

Laptop users  – To  magnify use control + on your keyboard

Article reprinted from Australian Doctor with permission

For more new evidence about  Ian Gawler’s  cancer recovery see press media kit

If you, family or friends are seeking authentic  information about Integrated Cancer Solutions see Grace’s website

CAUTION: As you may now becoming aware, there are many stories about miraculous cancer cures circulating the internet and bookshops. Cancer support veterans like Grace Gawler, have seen ‘miracle cures’ come and go and sadly most were not valid.

Indeed it has taken Grace decades to correct errors in the Ian Gawler cancer cure story – a story she was involved in 24/7 .

Please fact check and cross check all ‘miracle cure claims’ and do not abandon conventional therapies. Some common cures persist such as MMS, Hydrogen Peroxide, Hulda Clark’s ‘Parasiste Cure’ (It is not widely known she died of cancer) The Gerson Diet and many others.

Pip Cornall

Australian Doctor – Grace Gawler comments on Ian Gawler's Cancer Recovery

Gawler Australian Doctor
22 October 2010 Gawler Australian Doctor Article

Laptop users  – To  magnify use control + on your keyboard

Article reprinted from Australian Doctor with permission

For more new evidence about  Ian Gawler’s  cancer recovery see press media kit

If you, family or friends are seeking authentic  information about Integrated Cancer Solutions see Grace’s website

CAUTION: As you may now becoming aware, there are many stories about miraculous cancer cures circulating the internet and bookshops. Cancer support veterans like Grace Gawler, have seen ‘miracle cures’ come and go and sadly most were not valid.

Indeed it has taken Grace decades to correct errors in the Ian Gawler cancer cure story – a story she was involved in 24/7 .

Please fact check and cross check all ‘miracle cure claims’ and do not abandon conventional therapies. Some common cures persist such as MMS, Hydrogen Peroxide, Hulda Clark’s ‘Parasiste Cure’ (It is not widely known she died of cancer) The Gerson Diet and many others.

Pip Cornall