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”

Gawler and Jelinek – MJA Cancer Patients at Risk with Errors of Consequence

 Visit Grace Gawler’s personal website at www.gracegawler.com

Thankyou Healthyliving.middaily for publishing this MJA report http://healthyliving.middaily.com/the-gawler-foundation-conference-opportunity-to-discuss-flawed-mja-report.html

As stated in “healthyliving.middaily” – I too believe a public enquiry needs to be held into the 11 Dec 2008 MJA errors authored by Ruth Gawler and George Jelinek – not my preference but if my diligent attempts to discuss, mediate and secure a public statement have failed, then it must be achieved through other channels. As I have said before, patients usually don’t read medical journals and they are the ones who need to be informed.
The waters of communication and transparency have become very muddied indeed. I emailed detailed proof to the authors of the MJA 2008 article hoping they would make a public statement – but, no reply. Ruth Gawler and George Jelinek work for the Gawler Foundation – however the Gawler Foundation believes that the MJA article has nothing to do with them?  This is even more amazing because the Foundation uploaded the MJA 2008 link to their website on 10 December and it has been there since.  http://gawlerfoundationmedia.com.au/2008/12/ Note – The day before their article in MJA was officially published.
The new-look Gawler Foundation bases their programs on the content of the 2008 article in question – the article that is incorrect! So they all need to get the story right because it is told around the world via the internet, at their national support groups, conferences, in books, workshops and most importantly now – in medical journals. See blogspot thesecondsight
http://thesecondsight.blogspot.com/2010/11/when-facts-meet-merchandising.html

I have spent time emailing and faxing my irrefutable proof to the CEO of the Gawler Foundation. In response she posted a letter on the gawlerfoundationmedia site. It fails to address the issues but of great concern is her last sentence.  “These articles are in no way helpful to the important work of the Foundation nor to those people suffering from cancer.”
Well, if letting cancer patients and doctors know that incorrect material has been published in a reputable medical journal when it comes to this issue of a high profile cancer remission such as Ian Gawler’s, I would think it to be very helpful indeed!   
Despite the challenges I remain undaunted in my duty to get this medical maze sorted out. I am hopeful that A Current Affair who filmed an interview with me in early October will eventually go to air…it is currently deferred until they can interview Ian and Ruth Gawler and or George jelinek. This week video footage relevant to the clinical timelines ( taken in the Philippines between March 1976 – May 1979)  has been subject to complaint and removed from you tube – seemingly with no recourse from me as the owner and with permission from all to be filmed including Ian. As well my email has been corrupted and still in process of restoration. And now the Gawler Foundation is threatening defamation via a legal letter requesting that I immediately cease publishing material defamatory of the Foundation. I ask – Is the truth defamatory?
The Yarra Valley Living Centre was my vision for cancer patients & I devoted years of my life to establishing it.  As Gawler Foundation co founder, ex director, therapist and the person who was there 24/7 for years for Ian Gawler as dedicated caregiver, I could never have imagined that my own Foundation would threaten to sue me for being involved with misreporting a part of my own story that, of necessity ran parallel with Ian’s.  Now that takes some inner processing!
The following is reported on Healthyliving.middaily
“Cancer patients are amongst our most vulnerable community members. Fear driven by horror stories of chemo suffering and words for alt/med like ‘ cut, burn and poison they put faith in alternative cancer cure stories.

So when significant errors about a high profile alternative cancer cure story are found in the prestigious Medical Journal of Australia (MJA) article by Dr Ruth Gawler and Prof George Jelinek from the Gawler Foundation about the cancer healing history of Australia’s most famous cancer patient, Ian Gawler (IG) it is cause for a public enquiry…”  Read more at
http://healthyliving.middaily.com/the-gawler-foundation-conference-opportunity-to-discuss-flawed-mja-report.html

 visit my personal website www.gracegawler.com

The Gawler Story – Why Correcting a Misreported Case of Cancer Remission is in the Public Interest

My recently published letter in The Medical Journal of Australia highlights the need for a makeover of the alternative and complementary cancer movements not only in Australia but worldwide.  In recent years there has been a groundswell of  cancer entrepreneurs – some who claim to have recovered from it by natural means and others that have never had cancer but espouse they know how to treat it. I believe that everyone who places themselves in the public area of cancer cures, must come under scrutiny regarding accuracy/legitimacy of their claims.
For those who know me – I am eternal optimist and possibility thinker and I am well aware of all the facets of the intangibles and unknown that can surround unexpected recoveries and remissions. However, where possible we must all do our due diligence on gathering as much information – medical and otherwise to support any claims. Why? Because people’s lives depend on it! 

With our case being so unbelievably misreported in an article in the Medical Journal of Australia – It shows that as well as the CAM movement, that all systems of medicine should be on alert for people misreporting medical events.

“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- pp 371-372
http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/193_06_200910/letters_200910_fm-1.html

Furthermore, if you look at the sales figures for the myriad of cancer-cure books, CDs and products – we are looking at a billion dollar industry. Many of these people do not work at the coalface of cancer and do not see the results of misinformation. As I have matured in my self and work, and as my experience has increased – I now see the truth in what some oncologists, considered cynics at the time: were saying 20-30 years ago when the tsunami of CAM was on the rise.

Recently I had a another “cancer-cure-all” blurb arrive in my email inbox – now almost a daily event. The advertisement said Amazing Non-Toxic Liquid Kills Cancer Cells. Its cancer-killing ability was also confirmed by researchers at the National Cancer Institute.  As I am prone to do with every “cure” promotion, I checked out the quotes and did the research, finding it to be very flaky indeed. The new wave or 2010 style of alternative cancer-cure promo is far more sophisticated than in the past and attempts to blind the recipient with psuedoscience disguised as science. 

Next time something like this arrives on your email. Look at the quotes from reputable sources then use your internet to check it out. Another recent email blurb advertised ” Try this product – 90 day risk free”. Risk-free? Is it?
It is difficult because most people aren’t trained to disssect many of the articles & books that appear in  the popular media. Yes we need free speech and free choice – but with cancer on the rise – we need some guildelines and criteria by which people can assess fact from fiction and myth from reality. I intend to develop such a book/ebook of guildelines and make it available at no cost. The great thing about having a health promotion charity again is that I will have access to resources that will enable me to work in the way that I originally thought when I pioneered this supportive care work in the early eighties.

In the meantime, my best advice based on 35+ years in the cancer healing arena, follows…. Think carefully, do your own research, be treated as an individual (not a one size fits all approach) and go by your gut feeling. Dont’ throw out mainstream medicine and use the best of complementary approaches – especially the safe tactile therapies eg massage, Reiki for example; methods that don’t cost the earth, bring relief and help to de-stress. Important in healing is the element of one-to-one human contact, listening, understanding and compassion are all therapeutic! Avoid buckets of costly supplements & fancy hi tech machines that diagnose & treat and take away the human element. More on this again soon.
Go Well…Grace