Follow Topics

4 December 2012, 2.46pm EST

TB or not TB? A second opinion on Ian Gawler’s cancer

Late last year, two oncologists went public with a theory that cancer survivor Ian Gawler’s secondary cancer may not have been cancer at all but tuberculosis instead. At the time, the story made front page news but expert testimony recently reported in The Age strongly disputes the claim. Gawler lost…

Authors

George Jelinek

Director, Emergency Practice Innovation Centre at St Vincent's Hospital Melbourne
Guy Allenby

Masters candidate, Media and Communications at University of Sydney

Disclosure Statement

George Jelinek runs retreats for people with MS at the Gawler Foundation. He has received philanthropic funding to research the outcomes of these retreats.

Guy Allenby wrote a biography of Ian Gawler.

University of Sydney does not contribute to the cost of running The Conversation. Find out more.

The Conversation is funded by CSIRO, Melbourne, Monash, RMIT, UTS, UWA, Canberra, CDU, Deakin, Flinders, Griffith, JCU, La Trobe, Massey, Murdoch, Newcastle. QUT, Swinburne, UniSA, USC, USQ, UTAS, UWS and VU.

Dk5jxvp5-1354579003 — Ian Gawler recovered from secondary cancer after conventional and unconventional treatments, including meditation. Sebastien Wiertz

Gawler lost a leg to cancer in 1975. He was diagnosed with secondary cancer in his pelvis and chest at the end of that year and it was treated with an experimental course of powerful chemotherapy for a few months in 1976. Following conventional and less conventional treatments – including meditation and a strict diet – he fully recovered.

In 1984, Gawler wrote the bestselling book You Can Conquer Cancer. Gawler’s approach has found increasing support over the years, but he also has his critics. The TB hypothesis put forward by Ray Lowenthal and Ian Haines was based on information taken from the public record. While there’s no dispute that Gawler did in fact suffer from TB, it appears he caught it later than Drs Haines and Lowenthal supposed.

Retired thoracic surgeon, Professor Peter Clarke, told Guy Allenby the chemotherapy Gawler was treated with would have caused him to die “because it would have rubbed out all his defences against the TB.” Chemo disrupts the body’s immune system. That Gawler somehow managed to shrug off TB during this treatment is an exceptional claim.

But let’s suppose he did – what other pointers are there to show that TB wasn’t present at the time? Dr Jonathan Streeton has re-assessed records and X-rays taken of Gawler’s secondary tumours specifically for evidence of TB. Streeton is a highly-respected chest physician based in Melbourne, was advisor to the Victorian government on tuberculosis and treated Gawler for over 30 years.

Together with some of his radiology colleagues at Melbourne’s Mercy Private Hospital, Streeton examined an X-ray of Gawler’s pelvis from the time when Gawler was diagnosed with metastatic disease (secondary cancer). In a letter to Ian and Ruth Gawler, Streeton said the general consensus was that the X-rays showed what was typical of an evolving osteogenic sarcoma metastasis.

Streeton also scrutinised a later X-ray showing damage to Gawler’s lower spine, which Haines and Lowenthal also hypothesised was TB. Significantly, the disc spaces between the verterbrae were well preserved. Streeton writes that this “would tend to be a specific excluder of a tuberculous process involving the lumbar verterbrae” and a TB infection of the spine would also typically evolve into an abscess inside the back wall of the abdomen. Gawler had no such abscess.

Streeton also notes that when Gawler later contracted TB and was finally treated in 1978, he was found to be resistant to Isoniazid – a drug used to treat the local strain of the disease. Such a resistance was usual in the Philippines and other parts of Asia but almost unheard of in Australia at the time. Gawler had never been out of Australia when he developed secondary cancer late in 1975. He visited the Philippines in March 1976 and January 1977 and India in March 1977 and March 1978 and likely contracted TB on one of the trips.

Gawler’s website lists ten pieces of evidence that throw doubt on the TB theory put forward by Haines and Lowenthal.

So, a fit young veterinarian is told by medical specialists that his cancer has returned after the amputation of his leg, and that he will shortly die. He survives against overwhelming odds, writes a book about it to give people in the same situation hope that it is possible, and starts a program of providing holistic care and support for these people.

Over 30 years later, two specialists – without referring to him, his medical records, or his doctors – say that his recovery wasn’t from cancer at all. Then, to top it off, the media frame this as the patient “claiming” he had cancer. Indeed, the suggestion that Ian Gawler was claiming he had secondary cancer implies some deceit on his part.

And the controversy isn’t over. A few days ago, The Age reported Dr Ian Haines saying Dr Streeton’s new assessments are incorrect and should be tested in a peer-reviewed journal.

In the bigger picture, there’s no such controversy – large-scale integrative cancer support centres are opening up in Australia and the rest of the world, driven by enormous consumer demand.

Ian Gawler has always been respectful of conventional cancer treatments and he’s the first to acknowledge that his retreats are not just about surviving, they’re about living and dying well. He has now retired from The Gawler Foundation, which works according to his principle of offering optimal lifestyle-based approaches to complement conventional medical therapy. Tens of thousands of people have lived better and died better as a result of its work.

You are free to republish this article both online and in print, as long as you follow some simple guidelines, which are summarised here:

Unless you have express permission from the author, you can’t edit our material, except to reflect relative changes in time, location and editorial style. To make material edits contact us
You have to credit our authors and partner institutions — ideally in the byline.
You have to credit The Conversation — ideally at the top of the article and include our logo — with a link back to either our home page, The Conversation, or (preferably) the specific article URL on The Conversation website.
If space is tight, you can run the first few lines of the article and then say: “Read the full article at The Conversation” with a link back to the article page on our site.
If you’re republishing online, you must use our page view counter, link to us, and include links from our story.
It’s okay to put our articles on pages with ads, but you can’t sell our material separately.
You have to confirm that you're licensed to republish images in our articles. Some sources, such as AAP, don't allow their images to be republished without permission.

The full article is available here as HTML.

Join the conversation

30 Comments sorted by

Grendelus Malleolus

Senior Nerd

Article needs a subtitle: "Muddying the waters by paddling your own canoe".

6 months ago report
Mia Masters

pensioner

I find the article useful and needed (to restore balance into the 'Gawler-debate').

I find the attempts to undermine the work of the Gawler Foundation and its founder pathetic and unhelpful.

The question on validity of this 'approach' was answered by Dr Karl Kruszelnicki (not in reference to the 'Gawler'):
"One study showed that a healthy lifestyle could act on the DNA in the prostate cancer and trigger genetic changes.

In other words, information could flow from outside the cell (good diet and exercise) and modify the DNA to slow down the prostate cancer."
http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2009/11/04/2733310.htm

6 months ago report
1. Reema Rattan
  
  Editor at The Conversation
  
  In reply to Mia Masters
  
  Hi Mia,
  
  I was struck with the words "One study..."
  
  Thanks,
  Reema
  
  6 months ago report
2. Pip Cornall
  
  logged in via email @gracegawler.com
  
  In reply to Mia Masters
  
  Dear Mia - with respect. Nobody is undermining the work of the Gawler Foundation or it's co-founder, Ian Gawler. But there was another founder, Grace Gawler who spent many years of her life as 24/7 care giver to Ian when he was too sick to do anything. She was also co-director of the Foundation until she resigned in 1996.
  
  When this other founder has shown proof that an 2008 MJA article about Ian Gawler's remission written by Prof Jelinek and Dr Ruth Gawler has multiple errors - we should investigate.
  
  Grace undoubtedly helped save Gawler's life - surely cancer patients deserve the whole truth and nothing but the truth beforfe deciding to base treatment choices on Gawler's misreported story.
  
  If you peruse all the conversations about this topic you'll find no 'attacks' on the foundation or Ian Gawler - just attempts to clarify his remission story.
  
  6 months ago report
3. Ruth H Gawler
  
  Medical Practitioner
  
  In reply to Mia Masters
  
  Exactly Mia. Where is the discussion about all or the research that supports the Lifestyle Medicine taught at The Gawler foundation. The work of Prof Dean Ornish and Elizabeth Blackburn. It's there if you look. Plenty of evidence-based medicine. Maybe what the real aversion to here is actually not the lack of science but the heart in it, the care.
  
  6 months ago report
4. Sue Ieraci
  
  Public hospital clinician
  
  In reply to Mia Masters
  
  Dr Hall, in her MJA article, referred to a low-fat, essentially vegan diet with no added salt, sugar or caffeine"" (which she said lacked a solid evidence base and was particularly harsh for people suffering mouth ulcers and nausea" and was "combined with juicing vegetables six times a day ")
  
  I haven's heard anything but praise for the attempts to connect people with others experiencing similar things, to give them a sense of empowerment, and to teach meditation.
  
  It is possible, however, that…
  Read more
  
  Dr Hall, in her MJA article, referred to a low-fat, essentially vegan diet with no added salt, sugar or caffeine"" (which she said lacked a solid evidence base and was particularly harsh for people suffering mouth ulcers and nausea" and was "combined with juicing vegetables six times a day ")
  
  I haven's heard anything but praise for the attempts to connect people with others experiencing similar things, to give them a sense of empowerment, and to teach meditation.
  
  It is possible, however, that the dietary approach is potentially harmful, and likely stricter than evidence suggests. There are also secondary harms possible from people feeling like a failure if they are unable to maintain the strict regimes, and particularly if they fail in "curing themselves".
  
  I don't suspect the motivation of the organisation, but I do suspect that the dietary practices are more severe and more rigid than they need to be for benefit, and have the potential to cause harm.
  
  Has the organisation considered reviewing the dietary approach while maintaining the benefits of the lifestyle and meditation approaches?
  
  6 months ago report
Pip Cornall

logged in via email @gracegawler.com

Accuracy about the Ian Gawler story is crucial due to his profile and influence over treatment choices made by cancer patients. My comment should shed more light into ‘muddied waters.’

The recent controversy about Ian Gawler’s secondary cancer or TB arose from a 2008 MJA article, ‘True Stories’ written by Ruth Gawler and George Jelinek and peer reviewed by Dr Sandra Neate.

The article contained many errors noted by a former patient of Grace Gawler, who notified her in 2009. Grace had been…
Read more

Accuracy about the Ian Gawler story is crucial due to his profile and influence over treatment choices made by cancer patients. My comment should shed more light into ‘muddied waters.’

The recent controversy about Ian Gawler’s secondary cancer or TB arose from a 2008 MJA article, ‘True Stories’ written by Ruth Gawler and George Jelinek and peer reviewed by Dr Sandra Neate.

The article contained many errors noted by a former patient of Grace Gawler, who notified her in 2009. Grace had been Ian Gawler’s 24/7 care giver during his cancer and TB illnesses and wife for 22 years. Grace wrote a letter to the MJA, published in Sept, 2010, in which she exposed multiple errors and inversions of medical timelines. Ian Gawler later publicly acknowledged some of the timeline errors as well as those in Ainslie Meares 1978 abstract about his remission.

The authors of the 2008 MJA Gawler and Jelinek were not present when Ian Gawler had his cancer and must have relied on the memory of Ian Gawler and what was written on the public records but an examination of public records reveals differing versions.

Intriguingly, Ruth Gawler, George Jelinek, Sandra Neate and Ian Gawler have all worked for the Gawler Foundation. Ruth is married to Ian and George is married to Sandra, who was advisor and reviewer of the 2008 MJA article. The marriages and the financial connections to the Gawler Foundation were not mentioned in the competing interest section of the MJA. See below... Acknowledgements: “...we are grateful .... to Dr Sandra Neate for her critical review and helpful suggestions.” Competing Interests: Professor Jelinek is a friend and colleague of the patient and Dr Ruth Gawler is related to the patient.

Since there had been no mention of TB in any editions of the 250,000 copies of Ian Gawler’s You Can Conquer Cancer, it was only after Grace Gawler’s 2010 MJA letter that Prof Haines and Lowenthal learned Gawler had dealt with TB. This fact and the fact that there had been no biopsy confirming his secondary cancer prompted them to write their well researched and thoroughly peer-reviewed hypothesis that Gawler’s secondary cancer may have been TB. Indeed hundreds of research articles table cases of TB mimicking cancer.

How could Jelinek/Gawler make so many errors in their 2008 MJA? Errors easily proven from information on the public record! The most critical errors in Jelinek/Gawler’s 2008 MJA are the inversion of the timeline implying that ‘only’ after chemotherapy and radiation failed, did Gawler consult Meares to learn meditation. They state that this, along with a vegan diet, had been a key component in his recovery.

In fact it was the other way around as demonstrated by Grace in her 2010 MJA letter. Gawler had chemo and radiation after meditation failed to reduce his pain (Gawler progressively got worse during his 6 week mediation course with Meares, could barely walk and had to lie down when Grace drove him to sessions. He was eventually became bed ridden) Gawler had experimented with the Gerson diet for 3 months (not vegan) but became increasingly emaciated and abandoned it.

Gawler/Jelinek also state ‘he also adhered faithfully to a vegan diet’. Grace said in her 2010 MJA letter that ‘the patient never had a vegan diet’ (not in the 22 years she was his cook)
Gawler later publicly admitted he not adhered to a vegan diet and that timeline errors existed in both MJA articles about him (Meares 1978 and Gawler/Jelinek 2008)

Grace has also written publicly that after she resigned from the Gawler Foundation (another intriguing story) Ian Gawler’s remission story began to change. For example - he’d never promoted himself as vegan before, nor had the Gawler Foundation promoted a vegan diet when Grace was still co-director.

This change may have been influenced by Jelinek after he began running courses for the Foundation. He was later joined by his wife, Dr Sandra Neate who assisted him. Neate has written publicly that Jelinek was a strict vegan when they met but over time he had convinced her to become vegan despite her misgivings. Ruth and Ian Gawler may have become vegans around this time, followed by the foundation promoting veganism in their courses.

Like Lance Armstrong who had protection provided by celebrity and national hero status and the moral high ground given by his cancer charity work, getting to the bottom of the true Ian Gawler story has proved difficult.

Up until Grace’s 2010 MJA letter, she had found it impossible to get media attention to the changed remission story. Dr Tanya Hall said Gawler Foundation course participants accepted his teachings in a ‘quasi-religious’ fashion.

Dr Tanya Hall stated in her 2012 MJA article ...”my main concerns were the low-fat, essentially vegan diet with no added salt or sugar and no caffeine, and the idea that those with a certain psychological profile were more likely to develop cancer. “No one would disagree that addressing lifestyle factors is important for cancer patients; my concern is that in my opinion the Gawler program goes too far, making far reaching suggestions that do not appear supported by evidence.”

Dr Hall wrote that while criticism of conventional medicine was accepted as part of the program, “there is an almost complete lack of critical analysis among participants of Gawler’s methods”.

Has Gawler been telling the truth about his remission story? Reported by Adam Cresswell in the Australian, Oct 2010, “First wife Disputes Cancer Guru....” Gawler said he believed it was "inappropriate" of the MJA to allow him to be identified, and that the journal had breached medical ethics by publishing the letter.

However the Gawler/Jelinek 2008 MJA article was posted on the Gawler Foundation website from Dec 10, 2008, before it was published in the MJA. It was also posted as a Media Alert to the press on their website in Jan 2009 –(proof can be supplied) long before Grace’s 2010 MJA letter named him!

Finally, since Guy Allenby is a co author of this conversation, I’ll leave you with the following...
In 2008, Grace and I attended a 6.5 hour interview with Allenby for Gawler’s biography. She spoke of likely errors in Gawler’s healing story, she showed him accurate timelines and introduced new information to him. After seeing his edits, Grace insisted he give more credibility to her information. He refused and so Grace believes crucial information in the biography was omitted or inaccurate.

In his blog Gawler stated of his biography “In my opinion, The Dragon’s Blessing is accurate, so anyone interested in the proper timelines will find them there.” However, Jelinek/Allenby’s current Conversation article conflicts with information about the TB timeline on page 164 in Gawler’s biography. So many conflicting remission stories on the public record - I’ll let you make up your own mind.

6 months ago report
1. Ruth H Gawler
  
  Medical Practitioner
  
  In reply to Pip Cornall
  
  Has any one asked the question about why it took Grace Gawler nearly 20 years or more to decide that her husband did not have secondary cancer. Surely one has to ask why it was such a slow and timely realisation. How come she worked for so many years at The Gawler Foundation in the very programs she now criticises. Where is the credibility here?
  
  6 months ago report
Grace Gawler

Founder/Director the Grace Gawler Institute

True , Gawler lost a leg to cancer in 1975. But then waters get very muddied indeed. I was Gawler’s companion then wife who was present 24/7 to attend to his needs. We were together from 1974 – 1997. In other words quite enough time to be a key witness to all that transpired, plus I was the record keeper who took all the photographs throughout Ian’s recovery. There are no quarrelling wives in this story; a smokescreen that almost successfully buried the facts and the science of Gawler’s recovery…
Read more

True , Gawler lost a leg to cancer in 1975. But then waters get very muddied indeed. I was Gawler’s companion then wife who was present 24/7 to attend to his needs. We were together from 1974 – 1997. In other words quite enough time to be a key witness to all that transpired, plus I was the record keeper who took all the photographs throughout Ian’s recovery. There are no quarrelling wives in this story; a smokescreen that almost successfully buried the facts and the science of Gawler’s recovery.
In the absence of plausible explanations aligned with the facts that Gawler had very few “treating physicians” during his three and a half year illness battle, a ‘remission’ from cancer was thought to be the only explanation. Diagnostic methods were more basic in the 1970’s in comparison to what would occur today. But, importantly there were ALWAYS question marks from his original surgeon DR John Doyle who at the time said it was not a “typical” location (groin) for a metastatic osteogenic sarcoma. He is also on the record in “ Cancer experts challenge Gawler's 'cure', Melbourne Age 31st December 2011: ''If I was doing it again I would certainly do a biopsy,'' he said. ''We didn't do them in those days to the same extent we do now. To be honest I didn't consider any other diagnosis because he had a highly malignant tumour before.'' Dr Doyle said the report was ''a hypothesis that is very worthy of consideration''.''I would still tend to adhere to my original diagnosis. But I would also agree that if it happened today I would order a biopsy. This is far from a definitive opinion.

Another error is that you make several statements about it not being possible for Gawler to have had TB earlier and that chemotherapy would have killed him. My memory confers with the records of radiation oncologist, Dr Alistair Robertson who comments – Gawler had TB for at least 2 years prior to seeing him in June 1978 when Gawler’s ‘remission’ was declared, meaning, Gawler already had TB by June 1976. I note Gawler did not begin chemotherapy until October 1976 and it is on the record - he survived although he had TB!

On page 164 in Gawler’s biography (A Dragons Blessing) Guy Allenby quotes Dr Alistair Robertson regarding timing of TB diagnosis; he writes: “Ian dug out his old chest xrays from when he had been diagnosed with a secondary growth in his left lung. Sure enough, when Robertson examined them, although difficult to see, there was evidence of TB being present two years previously.”
And then, enter Dr Jonathon Streeton. He was not per say involved with Ian’s case for 30 years. This statement implies a close, ongoing therapeutic relationship. In fact, there were very sporadic visits during my time as Gawler’s wife.
New information that Ian was resistant to Isoniazid a TB drug, astounds me as I remember it being prescribed for him.

For the reocord again; Meares meditation and Gerson’s diet had failed Gawler; he deteriorated. He failed radiation Feb March1976-no improvement in pain.
Gawler’s trip to the Philippines 12 March of 1976 is significant. Incidentally this was also our honeymoon. Prior to leaving Australia he had severe night sweats, back pain, massive weight loss, a cough; then hydronephrosis. While in the Philippines he began coughing blood. At the time he blamed it on air pollution. Clearly these are all symptoms of TB and remember - there was NO biopsy. With regards to TB, it is also not mentioned that Gawler undertook a course of experimental live TB vaccines early in 1976 for immune stimulation against what was thought to be metastatic osteogenic sarcoma. Another cause could be regular handling of tuberculin for cattle in our veterinary practice.

Gawler did not begin the cancer groups alone. I had an enormous input into the Gawler Foundation and the Yarra Valley centre was my concept and idea. However back then we recommended patients to good GPs ,oncologists, endocrinologist etc. The Foundation was balanced in education and awareness for cancer patients. Something changed around the time I left the organisation in 1996 (for reasons concerning ethics and on the public record).
I was disappointed to see that Gawler authored a very dangerous paper April 2006 CHEMOTHERAPY: Increased survival only 2.8% after 5 years! This paper has been quoted to me often. Doesn’t sound like the work of someone promoting chemotherapy; in fact it has deterred many patients from taking potentially curable treatments for their cancer. After attending several Gawler Foundation programs last year, Dr Tanya Hall a Melbourne psychiatrist said she was troubled by the strict diet and excessive juicing regime taught to cancer patients and was surprised to hear a program leader say there was no evidence to show chemotherapy was effective. ''This was nothing less than astonishing, patently untrue, and highly disrespectful to those of us undergoing chemotherapy,'' she wrote of her experience in the Medical Journal of Australia.

Add to all the above, the December 2008 MJA paper that you co authored with Ruth Gawler. In that Journal you stated that Gawler adhered faithfully to a vegan diet. He never had a vegan diet in all the years that I was the cook. (a fact he later admitted to in his blog). Also that only AFTER chemotherapy and radiation failed, did Gawler then consult Ainslie Meares. Wrong again. Gawler first consulted Meares 12 December 1975-not AFTER chemotherapy which finished in December 1976-This was Gawler’s choice as there was little change in the size of the calcified bumps on his chest after chemotherapy. (See Australian Doctor September 1993 authored by Ian Gawler “Cancer patients find strength in self help approach”) The Meares timelines were incorrect ( another fact Gawler admitted to after my published refute letter MJA September 2010 “Cancer Patients at risk from inaccurate clinical reporting in a high profile alternative treatment story-Comments and corrections” where I tabulated most of the errors in your MJA True Stories. And, there is much more, but this will suffice for now.Gawler’s story is without doubt the most misreported cancer recovery story that is on the record. A thorough, independent review of his case is overdue.

6 months ago report
Sandra Neate

Doctor

In response to Pip Cornall
I know Ian Gawler. He is a friend of mine. He is a gentle soul. At the moment I imagine him in his vegetable garden or something similar. I know Ian survived cancer and that he has done a life time's work trying to help others. I am not sure what Ian eats or how he would classify what he eats. He is a friend. I have never worked at the Gawler Foundation although it seems like it would be a lovely place to work. I have been to a couple of courses there. They were wonderful…
Read more

In response to Pip Cornall
I know Ian Gawler. He is a friend of mine. He is a gentle soul. At the moment I imagine him in his vegetable garden or something similar. I know Ian survived cancer and that he has done a life time's work trying to help others. I am not sure what Ian eats or how he would classify what he eats. He is a friend. I have never worked at the Gawler Foundation although it seems like it would be a lovely place to work. I have been to a couple of courses there. They were wonderful.

I know George Jelinek. In fact I am married to him. He has survived his own illness and has worked tirelessly since his diagnosis to try to inform and assist others. George and I do work together at times, but not at the Gawler Foundation. George is not a vegan and has never claimed to be a vegan. He eats a healthy wholefood plant based diet plus seafood and avoids saturated fat. When George and Ruth Gawler wrote the article for the MJA, he asked me to proof read it, which I did. I was not an "advisor" and would not be in the position to be an advisor as I know no more about Ian's health than most of his friends. Nor was I a peer reviewer (that would be done by someone external). George and Ruth acknowledged my contribution at the end of the article which, at the time, I thought was very kind of them.

Although I help George with his work at times and try to assist him in his endeavours with MS, I have my own career. I am not a vegan and have never been a vegan. I am amused by the term vegan being used almost as a weapon. I admire people who are vegan for their conviction and good health. I am not sure where I have said "on the public record" that George had convinced me to become vegan despite my misgivings. I find that humorous as, as anyone who knows us would attest, it is hard to make me do anything about which I have misgivings!

I feel sad that Ian's diagnosis and work has been the subject of such controversy and that he has been criticised and discredited. I feel genuine concern for those who feel the need to so vehemently continue this debate and to see conspiracies where there are none and so venomously attack others. I continue to suggest that those who continue this debate should re-examine their own motivation and get their facts straight.

6 months ago report
Comment removed by moderator.
Sue Ieraci

Public hospital clinician

As a regular reader and commenter on this site, I find the exchange on this thread so far very curious. On health topics, we are not normally debating who said what or what happened when, but whether health claims are based in evidence, and the various issues related to health care ethics, economics and science.

So, the essential questions that we would normally discuss in relation to Gawler's approach (or "regime", some might say), would be:
- What evidence is the approach based on?
- Does…
Read more

As a regular reader and commenter on this site, I find the exchange on this thread so far very curious. On health topics, we are not normally debating who said what or what happened when, but whether health claims are based in evidence, and the various issues related to health care ethics, economics and science.

So, the essential questions that we would normally discuss in relation to Gawler's approach (or "regime", some might say), would be:
- What evidence is the approach based on?
- Does the approach have the potential to cause harm? and
- Should the practice be regulated?

Ian Gawler's website (http://www.iangawler.com/) has the banner headline "You Can Conquer Cancer". If Gawler's story is presented as "he healed himself", then the implication is "and you can too".

In my view - observing from outside - there are two potential harms to this approach.

The first is that, in saying "yes, you can", the many many people whose cancers are not reversed by lifestyle change can be made to feel personally responsible. This is a heavy burden to bear, on top of the existing burden of the disease, of leaving loved ones, of having "lost the battle".

Secondly, there is potential that some of the modalities promoted as "healthy lifestyle" are potentially harmful.Tanya Hall's comments in the MJA earlier this year provide some insight:

"In fact, while criticism of conventional medicine is noticeable, there is an almost complete lack of critical analysis among participants of Gawler's methods - which are supported in a quasi-religious fashion."
and
"Dr Hall said although the program gave her a sense of autonomy during her illness and taught her useful meditation, the low-fat, essentially vegan diet with no added salt, sugar or caffeine lacked a solid evidence base and was particularly harsh for people suffering mouth ulcers and nausea. When combined with juicing vegetables six times a day and meditation, it became ''extremely time consuming''.

So, here is the dilemma. I don't see anyone criticising the use of meditation, peer support, counselling or any other wellbeing or relaxation techniques in the overall care of cancer patients. Indeed, these are (thankfully) becoming mainstream in cancer care. The concept of workshops that link people with similar issues, provide friendship and support and teach wellness strategies is admirable and should be supported.

But what about the health care approach? Are participants given appropriate information about cancer treatment modalities? Is the nutritional approach evidence-based? Is there a risk of harm in strict dietary adherence - especially in patients who already have cancer? How well is the advice tailored to the individual cancer histology, let alone the individual person suffering the cancer?

In the spirit of The Conversation, I would propose that we move away from who had what and who was married to who, and towards a discussion of what has become The Gawler Method.

The concept of retreats, relaxation, counselling, relaxation etc is great. But two questions remain:
1. Is the "you can do it" message potentially harmful to those who found that, ultimately, they couldn't? and
2. Is the health advice evidence-based and should it be subject to regulation?

6 months ago report
1. Edward John Fearn
  
  Edward John Fearn is a Friend of The Conversation.
  
  Hypnotherapist and Naturopath
  
  In reply to Sue Ieraci
  
  Thanks Sue
  The few people I know who attended Ian’s meditation retreats were all continuing conventional medical treatment. All found the experience a largely positive one, however I would be interested to see if this result is a valid representation of the majority of participants attending these retreats.
  Supporting evidence for the use of mindfulness meditation in cancer can be found here.
  http://www.cam-cancer.org/CAM-Summaries/Mind-body-interventions/Mindfulness/Does-it-work
  A copy of the article by Dr Tanya Hall can be found on Grace Gawler’s website;
  gracegawler.com/Institute/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Perspective-on-Gawler-Foundation-program-by-course-participant-psychiatrist-Tanya-Hall-MJA-2012.pdf
  
  6 months ago report
2. Ian Haines
  
  Adjunct Clinical Associate Professor & Senior Medical Oncologist and Palliative Care Physician at Monash University
  
  In reply to Sue Ieraci
  
  ..Hear hear Sue! You have identified the issues here and separated them from the distractions and 'red herrings.' You expressed yourself eloquently.....as you so often do.on these important discussions.
  Dr Streeton's statements about :
  1. Spinal TB always sparing intervertebral discs
  2. Being able to distinguish evolving TB of bone from metastases from osteosarcoma on plain xrays.
  3. Being able to properly assess intervertebral discs anyway on old plain xrays
  4. Only catching the less common…
  Read more
  
  ..Hear hear Sue! You have identified the issues here and separated them from the distractions and 'red herrings.' You expressed yourself eloquently.....as you so often do.on these important discussions.
  Dr Streeton's statements about :
  1. Spinal TB always sparing intervertebral discs
  2. Being able to distinguish evolving TB of bone from metastases from osteosarcoma on plain xrays.
  3. Being able to properly assess intervertebral discs anyway on old plain xrays
  4. Only catching the less common strains of TB in foreign lands and not in Australia from exposure to people here carrying those less common strains,
  5. Being certain to die of TB if you have had chemotherapy and radiation,
  6. There being no evidence of a psoas abscess.
  
  are all incorrect. Some have already been refuted in our article and letter replies in the IMJ. We will produce mulpiple supporting journal references to rebut the others if and when they are submitted to a recognised and respected peer-reviewed journal and we are invited to respond.
  Jelinek is a friend and professional associate of Gawler and this is not, and doesn't appear to pretend to be, a balanced scholarly article.
  Our intention in writing our hypothesis was to arrange the facts about Ian Gawler's medical history, provided by Jelinek, Ian and his current wife Ruth, and Guy Allenby into a timeline that would clearly show that he had removal of a leg cancer in 1975 and then a protracted illness that was diagnosed in 1978 by his friend Alistair Robertson as widespread TB that Alistair said had been present for at least 2 years. This was appropriately treated and Ian Gawler has remained well since. Sometimes medical diagnoses such as TB take some time to make and often we believe the presentaion may be of metastatic cancer until the biopsies and tests are done. I have had many patients with past histories of cancer referred to me with 'widespread metastases' who have turned out to have TB of the spine, benign hemangiomas, sarcoidosis, new lymphomas etc. Medicine and Oncology in particular depends entirely and 100% on diagnostic biopsies using many sophisticated staining and immunohistchistry and molecular biology tests.
  When the CT scanner arrived in Melbourne in 1979, so many of the recorded diagnoses and lesions of our leading neurologists, based on clinical assessments, were shown to be very wide of the mark. The same happened to the clinical diagnoses of our greatest cardiologists when echocardiograms arrived and so many long-term cardiac abnormalities were completely rediagnosed. Since Galileo and Copernicus and the enlightenment, science has advanced by evidence and testing and retesting of hypotheses.
  Correcting the misconceptions about Ian Gawler's diagnosis matters because so many people have been encouraged, to their detriment, to believe that they can cure their own cancer.
  Science only advances by evidence, by scepticism, by the challenging of unproven claims and beliefs, by testing hypotheses over and over and by the robust contest of ideas.
  Ian Gawler had a leg cancer removed by conventional surgery and then had TB, delayed 2-3 years in diagnosis, treated appropriately by conventional medicine. There is no need at all to squeeze an episode of unproven, self-cured metastatic cancer, into the middle of this history. Medicine evolves and has has moved on dramatically since 1975.
  
  6 months ago report
3. Grace Gawler
  
  Founder/Director the Grace Gawler Institute
  
  In reply to Sue Ieraci
  
  Back to Basics - Evidence or No Evidence – : Sue - I agree. I can only endorse psycho oncology including relaxation methods to enhance the lives of cancer patients. Pre 1996 patients were supported in their medical care while partaking of the Gawler approach. This changed after 1996, as stated in my response letter on this blog.
  The questions you bring forward need to be addressed. I will focus just on one crucial journal abstract about this case.
  What evidence is the Gawler approach based on…
  Read more
  
  Back to Basics - Evidence or No Evidence – : Sue - I agree. I can only endorse psycho oncology including relaxation methods to enhance the lives of cancer patients. Pre 1996 patients were supported in their medical care while partaking of the Gawler approach. This changed after 1996, as stated in my response letter on this blog.
  The questions you bring forward need to be addressed. I will focus just on one crucial journal abstract about this case.
  What evidence is the Gawler approach based on?
  To answer this in the case of Ian Gawler, before looking more widely at other patients, we need to look back to the beginning of the “Gawler phenomenon” and it’s first reporting. Then many answers become apparent.
  October 21st 1978 the MJA published an abstract authored by Ainslie Meares, “Regression of osteogenic sarcoma metastases associated with Intensive meditation”. This abstract or report was not peer reviewed and Meares was consulting as a non medical practitioner at that stage. This was the paper that launched the link between meditation and cancer regression and it was the paper that launched Ian Gawler’s cancer 'remission' fame.
  
  1976: To be fair to Meares, he ceased “treating” Gawler in February 1976 after a 6 week meditation trial for his 'metastases' cancer had failed to produce results. Gawler had deteriorated with weight loss, night sweats, sciatic pain and pursued many other methods against Meares’ advice. They occasionally kept in touch. Also to be fair, I presume Meares did not know about Ian’s TB since it was not mentioned in his abstract.
  
  1978: Meares could only have written the Abstract with information supplied by Gawler including obtaining and permission for publication of his famous chest wall ‘tumour’ photographs (photographed by me). Meares writes a footnote: “Since this report was written the patient has been declared free of neoplastic disease.” Therefore there must have been mail communication when the chest wall calcified lumps disappeared (April 1978) which inspired Meares to write the Abstract.
  
  However - here is where the problems begin: Meares’ entire first paragraph in the 1978 MJA abstract is factually incorrect!
  These are key points/noted errors from the 1978 abstract:
  
  1. After publication, Ian refused to correct a major error in Meares’ published abstract i.e. the timelines were reversed making it appear that he had more “tumour” load than he had when Meares first saw him.
  2. Expectorating of “bony spicules” blood and lung opacities were also reported incorrectly on the Gawler’s timeline
  
  3. Meares must have obtained the photographs from Gawler – they were dated by Gawler and reproduced in the article. In 2012 Gawler disputes the dates that have been quoted for 30 + years saying Meares made a mistake they were taken a year earlier. (Gawler reproduced the Meares’ published photos of his chest wall in 250,000 copies of You Can Conquer Cancer but has only recently said that the published Meares dates are incorrect)
  
  4. In their reply to my September 2010 MJA where I questioned timelines quoted in Jelinek and R Gawler’s MJA “True Stories” they stated that yes, Meares’ timelines were incorrect - and Ian Gawler also admitted that the Meares timelines were incorrect but thought it irrelevant. Altering the timeline in this case is crucial to the evidence and investigations that are currently going forward.
  
  Perhaps this is the place to begin examining the evidence. where one needs to look to see how an incorrectly reported case gave the basis for evidence that intensive meditation can be associated with remission from secondary cancer.
  
  6 months ago report
Luke Weston

Physicist / electronic engineer

Know what they call "integrative medicine" that only "integrates" healthcare modalities that have been assessed in a scientific fashion and found to have a good evidence base?

6 months ago report
Pip Cornall

logged in via email @gracegawler.com

Dear Sandra (apologies Sue) since this conversation article was co-authored by your husband let’s stick to the medical implications and science indicating Ian Gawler likely had TB instead of secondary cancer and not whether Gawler is a nice chap meditating in his vegetable garden.

Of concern is why your husband continues to write on this topic having co-authored that 2008 MJA article about Gawler later shown to contain multiple errors. Grace Gawler’s 2010 MJA letter tabled these errors.
Thanks…
Read more

Dear Sandra (apologies Sue) since this conversation article was co-authored by your husband let’s stick to the medical implications and science indicating Ian Gawler likely had TB instead of secondary cancer and not whether Gawler is a nice chap meditating in his vegetable garden.

Of concern is why your husband continues to write on this topic having co-authored that 2008 MJA article about Gawler later shown to contain multiple errors. Grace Gawler’s 2010 MJA letter tabled these errors.
Thanks for your explanation clarifying your non-advisor role and non-peer critical reviewer position however it is written in the MJA that you were. I’m confused! Shall we add this mistake to the others? With so many errors perhaps the article should be removed?

Glad to hear George is not a vegan however Dr Ruth Gawler, states (The Age - Jill Stark, March 7, 2010) “We never use the word ‘heal’ in relation to the no-salt, no-sugar, plant-based vegan diet provided in conjunction with meditation and ''mind training'' at the $3500, 11-day residential retreats. (Gawler Foundation) Dr Ruth Gawler says countless patients have had ''spontaneous remissions'' after undergoing their programs, which have a two-month waiting list.

Sandra, in the oncology world and at the cancer coalface where we work, we have all been concerned at the large numbers of emaciated cancer patients following vegan diets and socially isolating while trying to meditate for long hours to beat their cancer believing that is what Gawler did. Your husband’s 2008 MJA strongly supports the erroneous belief “[the patient] adhered faithfully to a vegan diet”. Oncologists the world over will rejoice as the vegan cancer cure myth is dismantled because of the harm it has done to their patients.
Neither Grace Gawler nor the public has had a statement or letter from him correcting that MJA article error that Gawler ‘adhered faithfully to a vegan diet.’

With all this talk (for many years) of veganism at the Gawler Foundation I must have drawn my conclusions from their 2007 Newsletter in which Ian Gawler says –“ Ruth and I had the pleasure recently of attending the marriage of our dear friends and colleagues, George Jelinek and Sandy Neate. Both emergency medicine physicians and George is well known for his invaluable contribution in MS and the residential program presented at The Foundation. “Speaking at the reception, Sandy recollected first meeting George and becoming aware of what she thought then was his rather restrictive diet (which she now shares with George and really enjoys). Her question was “Do you ever cheat on the diet George?” Sandy said that he responded with a somewhat puzzled look, as if he did not understand the question. So she repeated “Do you ever cheat?” This time George did reply “Why would I cheat on the diet when there is so much at stake?”

Coming back to the question of TB or not TB I find the IMJ hypothesis by Profs Haines and Lowenthal most plausible! It was only possible after Grace Gawler revealed the multiplicity of errors in your husband’s 2008 MJA article, reviewed by you. Having given many years of her life to helping Gawler survive his cancer and TB, Grace wants the story to be accurate for the sake of cancer patients. But it is her story as well. He was the patient; she was the nurse and care giver as well as co-practitioner.

Nobody is attacking Gawler as he widely states on his blogs and you seem to imply. Nobody is suggesting lifestyle medicine can’t play a role in cancer healing. But now that the Ian Gawler miracle story has been challenged, attendees at Gawler Foundation courses will attend for reasons other than the false hope – “If Ian can do it – so can I”

Conversely Haines and Lowenthal have been most generous and kind to Gawler. But in return, for daring to suggest there was a plausible explanation to his widely promoted miracle cure, Haines and Lowenthal along with Grace Gawler (after her 2010 MJA letter) have been repeatedly threatened and demeaned. If I showed you all that was written (some privately) you’d be shocked but I don’t want to demean this conversation.

However can I ask you to cease using words like vehemently and venomous in criticising those who want to get the Gawler facts straight. Modern science can often go back in time and review what has been previously revered as folklore. I believe this is the case here but it does not diminish what Grace and Ian did in their fight for his survival.

Perhaps I was wrong about George’s vegan diet and you doing courses with him at the Foundation, I can own that. But can you three, (Sandra, George and Ruth) own that you got the 2008 MJA wrong and there may be plausibility to the Haines/Lowenthal hypothesis? That would give you great credibility as a scientist and doctor.

Can you own that you were all too close to the patient to present a balanced scientific paper and that you got it wrong? This would be healthy debate. Yet you finish your comment with “I suggest that those who continue this debate should re-examine their own motivation and get their facts straight.”

Well Sandra in that light, since you are listed in your husband’s 2008 Gawler MJA as the ‘critical reviewer’ with no declaration of your marriage to him, I find your letter to the age in support of Ian Gawler after the Haines/Lowenthal hypothesis went public, most curious – especially your title - http://www.theage.com.au/national/letters/benefits-aplenty-in-lifestyle-change-20120101-1ph6v.html

Beware of biases - AS A friend of Ian Gawler, I hope I am aware of my conflict of interest and motivation. I am also an emergency physician and consultant physician to the Coroner's Court of Victoria. Unlike Professor Ian Haines, who sees ''beautiful young girls'' who undertake holistic therapies and who ''all eventually get to us'', I see patients of both genders, all ages and of varying beauty who end up with ''us'' at both the emergency department and Coroner's Court as a result of the toxic effects of their traditional medicine, some of whom die directly from their treatment. However, I don't condemn chemotherapy as I am aware of the selection bias influencing the cohort of patients I see. Is Professor Haines aware of his bias? Ian Gawler accepted and encourages others to partake of all therapies, chemotherapy included. I encourage the authors to examine their motivation and biases. Sandra Neate, Carlton North

In your conversation comment - final paragraph - you use the words ‘vehemently, venomous, criticised and discredited’ when referring to ongoing debate about Australia’s most famous and possibly most misreported cancer cure. I suggest these are emotive words implying an emotional not scientific motivation. So in your own closing theme words, please re-examine your motivation. I encourage you that if you are going to be listed as the critical reviewer of an MJA article about a friend, co-written by a friend and a husband who is also a friend, then please check you all get your facts ‘straight’ as you advise.

I imagine the debate will die out when accuracy, transparency and truth are evident.

As to Haines, Lowenthal and Grace Gawler - when they are not cleaning up the ‘messes’ of cancer patients trying to emulate Gawler’s miracle myths, alt/med rescue we call it, you might find them in their organic gardens.

6 months ago report
Ruth H Gawler

Medical Practitioner

There is a whole other aspect to this discussion which is best summed up by the points that Dr Kathryn Irving made in the IMJ in December 2011.
"It relates to whether we can place our emphasis on protecting vulnerable patients from exploitation - advocating some degree of paternalism and asserting the superiority of biomedicine - a "doctor knows best" approach. Or we can remain agnostic about the limits of knowledge- biomedical and otherwise and place greater faith in the capacity of our fellow…
Read more

There is a whole other aspect to this discussion which is best summed up by the points that Dr Kathryn Irving made in the IMJ in December 2011.
"It relates to whether we can place our emphasis on protecting vulnerable patients from exploitation - advocating some degree of paternalism and asserting the superiority of biomedicine - a "doctor knows best" approach. Or we can remain agnostic about the limits of knowledge- biomedical and otherwise and place greater faith in the capacity of our fellow citizens to choose for themselves. My preference for the latter approach should be clear. In this context, Haines and Lowenthal's mission to debunk Gawler's cure runs the risk of sounding like a paternalistic attack on a therapeutic competitor. I suggest that Haines and Lowenthal's article written about an episode that occurred more than 30 years ago, can best be explained by some oncologists' discomfort with losing their authority to dictate patient choices."
My proposition is that a compromise be reached that rejects paternalism and accepts the possibility of patients being more directive in the therapies and included in the decision making. After all who really thinks we are going to be able to afford many of these oncology treatments in the future. Much more expensive than $3500 for 11 days of full inclusive psychotherapy in a residential facility with organic food.

6 months ago report
Edward John Fearn

Edward John Fearn is a Friend of The Conversation.

Hypnotherapist and Naturopath

Thanks Ruth
I was hoping that the discussion would move more towards the Gawler methods instead of just the Man.
I have been quite interested in Blackburn’s experiments with diet and lifestyle changes in promoting telomere integrity and length.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2599779/
I am also aware of the 1-year randomized controlled clinical trial of 93 patients with early-stage prostate cancer which included a low-fat, plant-based diet that Dean Ornish was associated with and…
Read more

Thanks Ruth
I was hoping that the discussion would move more towards the Gawler methods instead of just the Man.
I have been quite interested in Blackburn’s experiments with diet and lifestyle changes in promoting telomere integrity and length.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2599779/
I am also aware of the 1-year randomized controlled clinical trial of 93 patients with early-stage prostate cancer which included a low-fat, plant-based diet that Dean Ornish was associated with and I have read the results of the 2 year follow up. The results of the trial did appear quite promising.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18602144
A review of earlier studies looking at plant-based diets and plant nutrients on both the progression and clinical outcome of prostate cancer also seemed to show positive outcomes.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17958206
However the focus of these papers related to prostate cancer, can we be certain that a low fat, vegan diet is the best choice for all types of cancer, or all individuals for that matter.
To take Sue’s point “How well is the advice tailored to the individual cancer histology?”
To take the other extreme, there may even be a role (at least in theory) for carbohydrate restriction in the treatment and prevention of some cancers. (Further studies would of course be needed to validate this theory.)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3267662/

6 months ago report
1. Ruth H Gawler
  
  Medical Practitioner
  
  In reply to Edward John Fearn
  
  I agree that it's a good question of "how much is the advice tailored to the individual cancer histology" that Sue asks, is also relevant to all the treatments people are offered - chemotherapy, radiotherapy and trial drugs. And thi question can be extended to asking how much is the advice tailored to their ages and personalities and circumstances. There is a kind of blindness in many oncologists to some of the consequences of the treatments. They are often called "side effects" when they are often "known common effects" and many people are pushed by their frightened families to "just do it" when it involves a lot of hardship and genuine suffering for minor gains. The Foundation attracts many people with common sense and intelligence who think deeply about their situations.
  
  6 months ago report
Ray Lowenthal

Professor of Oncology at University of Tasmania

The point needs to be made that Dr Jelinek’s "criticism" of Ian Haines and me—that we didn't consult Gawler's doctors or his original medical records—is no criticism at all. Indeed it is surprising that Jelinek, a medical practitioner himself, should make such a charge. We did not act in such a way for very good reason, that to have attempted to do so would have been a serious breach of medical ethics and would have amounted to interference with doctor-patient confidentiality. Rather, we relied entirely on the comprehensive details of Gawler's medical illness that were on the public record, almost all made public or endorsed by Gawler himself.

Gawler chose to make his medical history public as a basis for certain quasi-scientific claims. Like any other public statement, it is thus a legitimate topic for fair commentary.

6 months ago report
Edward John Fearn

Edward John Fearn is a Friend of The Conversation.

Hypnotherapist and Naturopath

Thanks for the reply Ruth;
There is a growing body of evidence that supports the view that dietary interventions may lead to improved patient survival rates and may be protective against cancer progression.
For example;
Increasing vegetable and fruit intake and may lead to an increased survival rate in non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3110752/
Looking at breast, bowel and prostate cancer there is also some evidence from observational studies that suggests that…
Read more

Thanks for the reply Ruth;
There is a growing body of evidence that supports the view that dietary interventions may lead to improved patient survival rates and may be protective against cancer progression.
For example;
Increasing vegetable and fruit intake and may lead to an increased survival rate in non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3110752/
Looking at breast, bowel and prostate cancer there is also some evidence from observational studies that suggests that a low-fat, high-fibre diet might be protective against cancer recurrence and progression.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3251953/
and as I discussed earlier there is supporting evidence for the use of meditation practices in an integrative cancer approach.
So I don’t doubt that some of your interventions have the potential to improve patient outcomes.
Some years ago I discussed yours and Ian’s work with a friend who was undergoing conventional cancer treatment. The person was a respected academic in a science field, a long term meditator and vegetarian. Despite his long experience in meditation, he believed that the approach taken at your centre was of tremendous value in his recovery. Again he continued to work with his oncologist and maintained a conventional treatment regime, however he was exceedingly grateful to me for passing on your details.
Those who I had spoken to after attending Ian’s retreats all spoke highly of their experience, and all continued to work with their oncologists in a conventional sense.
In respect to the issue you raised regarding adverse effects of conventional cancer treatments, there is also some evidence that CAM therapies have at least the potential of mitigating some of these effects.
Studies of hypnotherapy show reduced levels of anticipatory nausea and vomiting during medical procedures
http://www.cam-cancer.org/CAM-Summaries/Mind-body-interventions/Hypnotherapy/Table-1-Anticipatory-nausea-vomiting
A randomised, double blind, placebo controlled pilot study in 49 children with acute lymphoblastic leukaemia found that a silymarin extract. (5mg/kg/day silibinin) the day after chemotherapy and then for 28 days reduced hepatic toxicity, despite poor compliance.(1)
A large trial funded by the US National Cancer institute involving 644 cancer patients were included in a double blind trial in the use of ginger in chemotherapy nausea. All tested doses of ginger significantly reduced nausea compared to placebo.(2)

(1) Ladas EJ, Droll DJ, Oberlies LH et al Cancer 2010;116 (2) 506-513
(2) Ryan JL, Heckler C, Dakhil SR, et al J Clin Oncol 2009; 27

6 months ago report
Kaye Ellis

Meditation Teacher

I heard Ian Gawler speak in Albury 20 years before I had cancer myself. He inspired me then as he continues to inspire all these years later. No "evidence" could convince me that Ian is other than a caring individual who has shown remarkable courage, determination and dedication, firstly to getting well himself and secondly to helping others do the same. Clearly there is an unworthy agenda behind the efforts of those who try to discredit his work. Three years ago my oncologist told me he could only help me when it came to the time for palliative care. The Gawler Foundation gave me the courage and the tools with which to fight for my wellness.
I feel great! Thank you Ian and those who continue to give hope to vulnerable people

6 months ago report
caroline campbell

colon hydrotherapist / wedding planner

Here, here Kaye. I have been a participant in three Gawler programs all of which have assisted on my journey through breast cancer. Twenty two months ago I was diagnosed with a small tumour in my left breast. This was completely removed with all parameters clear. I have learnt a great deal since that time. There is no history within my family anywhere. The Gawler foundation ,using evidence based practice , empower intelligent people to make their own choices. They educate,support, encourage and at times just hold your space. I could not speak more highly of them. I am organic Vegan and proud of this , and I am well! From my initial ten day retreat a group of girls have formed an ongoing support group and we speak over facebook daily. The Gawler foundation are doing incredible work .

6 months ago report
Pip Cornall

logged in via email @gracegawler.com

Ruth Gawler – said “The Foundation attracts many people with common sense and intelligence who think deeply about their situations.”

A tragic email below found on the ‘Gawlerites’ conversation string, (Foundation course participants) demonstrates how desperate cancer patients can neglect ‘common sense and intelligence’ in wishing to believe that the vegan diet/meditation will work ‘miracles’ for them as implied it did for Ian Gawler - in Ruth Gawler & George Jelinek’s 2008 MJA article.

Ian…
Read more

Ruth Gawler – said “The Foundation attracts many people with common sense and intelligence who think deeply about their situations.”

A tragic email below found on the ‘Gawlerites’ conversation string, (Foundation course participants) demonstrates how desperate cancer patients can neglect ‘common sense and intelligence’ in wishing to believe that the vegan diet/meditation will work ‘miracles’ for them as implied it did for Ian Gawler - in Ruth Gawler & George Jelinek’s 2008 MJA article.

Ian Gawler’s influence is enormous; regular TV appearances, 250,000 copies of You Can Conquer Cancer, the Foundation’s 10 day courses - I suspect this poor care giver is just one of thousands who have bought into the ‘myth and folklore’. As Prof Haines said - These people all come to us in the end. But they come emaciated from extreme diets and with massive tumour loads.

Hi Guys,
This is just a general query to see if anyone has had any success with the
diets and meditation so far. ‘D’ meditates daily and has been sticking to the diet reasonably well (at least 98% - she misses the occasional juice), but all her markers have been going up and her recent PET and CT scans show she has numerous instances of new growth along with additional growth in her previous tumours.

As such, the diet and meditation do not appear to be working for Deb so I guess I am asking, is it worth continuing? ‘D’ wants to but she is now down to 49kg so I am worried.

My comment – Although it didn’t work for Ian Gawler, patients are desperate to believe ‘If Ian can do it; so can I.”
Their expectation was that diet and meditation would reduce D’s tumour markers. Undoubtedly patient self-help and participation can be beneficial but not when the information they base their treatment plans upon is not factual or accurate.

5 months ago report
1. Edward John Fearn
  
  Edward John Fearn is a Friend of The Conversation.
  
  Hypnotherapist and Naturopath
  
  In reply to Pip Cornall
  
  Pip
  Although the query on Ian’s website was posted on what could be considered a public forum, I am not sure that the ethics of discussing this case is sound. How would the carer or the patient involved feel about us using their details in this context. How would it affect their emotional wellbeing?
  In respect to Dr Hall’s comments that the program leader claimed there was no evidence to show chemotherapy was effective, she is well within her rights to complain to The Office of the Health Services Commissioner. I also agree that the comments made by the staff member could also be potentially harmful. However it does appear to be the viewpoint of the one individual involved and according to the age article all staff had been counselled on this issue.
  http://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/bhcv2/bhcarticles.nsf/pages/Complaints_about_health_services
  
  5 months ago report
Pip Cornall

logged in via email @gracegawler.com

Some phrases by Ruth Gawler – ‘Haines and Lowenthal’s paternalistic attack on a therapeutic competitor’ – ‘oncologists' discomfort with losing their authority to dictate patient choices’ – ‘blindness in many oncologists to some of the consequences of the treatments’ – ‘involves a lot of hardship and genuine suffering for minor gains’

Ruth’s proposition – ‘that a compromise be reached that rejects paternalism and accepts the possibility of patients being more directive in the therapies and included…
Read more

Some phrases by Ruth Gawler – ‘Haines and Lowenthal’s paternalistic attack on a therapeutic competitor’ – ‘oncologists' discomfort with losing their authority to dictate patient choices’ – ‘blindness in many oncologists to some of the consequences of the treatments’ – ‘involves a lot of hardship and genuine suffering for minor gains’

Ruth’s proposition – ‘that a compromise be reached that rejects paternalism and accepts the possibility of patients being more directive in the therapies and included in the decision making.’
Dr Tanya Hall - After attending Gawler Foundation programs last year, Dr Tanya Hall said she was troubled by the strict diet and excessive juicing regime taught to cancer patients and was surprised to hear a program leader say there was no evidence to show chemotherapy was effective.

''This was nothing less than astonishing, patently untrue, and highly disrespectful to those of us undergoing chemotherapy,'' she wrote of her experience in the Medical Journal of Australia.
http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/doctor-denounces-gawler-programs-harsh-healing-20120608-201qp.html#ixzz2En2lS7I1

Ruth Gawler’s comments clearly indicate a ‘separatist,’ almost ‘elitist’ attitude to oncologists and the effectiveness of their treatments. (a lot of hardship and genuine suffering for minor gains)

The compromise Ruth asks for is a pipe-dream if she continues demeaning two of Australia’s leading oncologists simply because they proposed a plausible scientific hypothesis instead of the miracle story that was far from the original. Suggesting their IMJ ‘hypothesis’ (peer reviewed by highly credible cancer experts) was a ‘paternalistic attack....’ limits meaningful dialogue and sustains the gap between conventional cancer medicine and the approach Ruth Gawler and her foundation promotes.

Haines and Lowenthal are certainly not opposed to complementary treatments that are shown to work.

Perhaps we should all meet sometime and begin to build bridges that would benefit cancer patients in a meaningful way?

5 months ago report
Grace Gawler

Founder/Director the Grace Gawler Institute

The actual title of the topic and content of the Jelinek/Allenby article TB or not TB is not being addressed. The question remains an "elphant in the living room" that eveyone pretends isn't there. Did Ian Gawler have TB or metastatic osteosarcoma? The burden of proof should not fall on cancer patients, or employees or friends of the Gawler Foundation to say yay or nay when they don't have access to all the pieces in the puzzle. Surely this is the most crucial aspect of this case. For the record…
Read more

The actual title of the topic and content of the Jelinek/Allenby article TB or not TB is not being addressed. The question remains an "elphant in the living room" that eveyone pretends isn't there. Did Ian Gawler have TB or metastatic osteosarcoma? The burden of proof should not fall on cancer patients, or employees or friends of the Gawler Foundation to say yay or nay when they don't have access to all the pieces in the puzzle. Surely this is the most crucial aspect of this case. For the record, I have always recounted the Gawler story to cancer patients with the inclusion of Ian's TB, so it is not a new phenomena for me to do so. Knowing there was not a biopsy to diagnose secondary cancer and then the unusual walkway of symptoms has always left me wondering - I know that Ian Gawler also wondered what the role of TB was in his recovery. Fortunately I have maintained an open mind on Ian's disease and recovery process because during his illness, there were more questions than anyone had answers for. In 2012 with all the science now available, I believe we have an opportunity to detach from the folklore and the personalities and give serious consideration to the most plausible reasons for Ian Gawler's remission as written in the Haines/Lowenthal hypothesis. This takes a level of scientific maturity. It is now up to Ian Gawler to prove his case by undertaking rigorous investigation - I think he has a public duty of care to do that.

5 months ago report
Jo Rankin

logged in via email @bigpond.com

My goodness gracious me. What a lot of waffle about who has what and who has not, qualifications and intentions, past history, honesty and dishonesty, promises and guarantees. As a past participant in a retreat and an ongoing member of, and attendee at, the Gawler foundation the only thing of importance here is the wonderful support given to those, like myself, who have been through major illness and debilitating treatment and left floundering in a morass of sickness and depression with nowhere…
Read more

My goodness gracious me. What a lot of waffle about who has what and who has not, qualifications and intentions, past history, honesty and dishonesty, promises and guarantees. As a past participant in a retreat and an ongoing member of, and attendee at, the Gawler foundation the only thing of importance here is the wonderful support given to those, like myself, who have been through major illness and debilitating treatment and left floundering in a morass of sickness and depression with nowhere to turn.
When the Gawler Foundation was recommended to me I had been operated on for a Stage 3 Bowel Cancer, suffered frightful infections which required a pump being attached to my wounds for over a month followed by 6 months of intensive Chemotherapy. Then all support stopped. There was no follow up assistance for the feelings of loss when treatment is complete and no medical assistance for the after effects of the chemotherapy. I felt abandoned, depressed and very sick. Then, I was lucky, The Gawler Foundation stepped in. In my time there I was not offered treatment, I was not promised a cure. I was offered friendship, love, care, information, diet, meditation, peace and above all else HOPE. Nothing else matters. If any of you conversing here ever get really sick be very very glad that Gawler exists. You may need them, and if you do, they will be there for you to, and until you are in the position of needing them, you can't know how important they can be.

4 months ago report
1. Grace Gawler
  
  Founder/Director the Grace Gawler Institute
  
  In reply to Jo Rankin
  
  First of all Jo – As Ian Gawler’s 24/7 carer throughout his illness and his wife for 2 decades, as well being the co Founder whose original idea created the Yarra Valley Centre; if you as an individual have had the experience you describe at the Gawler Foundation – then I am happy for you. However peace, care, friendship, compassion etc is not in question here. Many orgs offer this kind of support today and at no cost to the patient..
  The fact is you ARE a patient and there have been a few other…
  Read more
  
  First of all Jo – As Ian Gawler’s 24/7 carer throughout his illness and his wife for 2 decades, as well being the co Founder whose original idea created the Yarra Valley Centre; if you as an individual have had the experience you describe at the Gawler Foundation – then I am happy for you. However peace, care, friendship, compassion etc is not in question here. Many orgs offer this kind of support today and at no cost to the patient..
  The fact is you ARE a patient and there have been a few other patient comments on this Conversation.
  I have been very concerned about media and TV coverage of late where a growing number of patients believe they have to stand up for the truth of Ian Gawler’s work or the work of the Gawler Foundation. Ethically speaking – as cancer patients, this is neither your task nor responsibility. This is an unfair burden.
  However, patients are reading the Conversation piece “TB or not TB? A second opinion on Ian Gawler’s cancer “by George Jelinek and Guy Allenby, as it is featured on the Gawler Foundation’s website homepage sidebar, so clearly patients feel enticed to read the 'true summary' of Ian Gawler’s remission. Unfortunately, once again it does represent the story of what actually happened. Cancer patients who are not privy to the ongoing debate and published medical journal articles on this matter would likely find it impossible to critique this article. On the other side of the Gawler Foundation webpage is Ian Gawler’s latest edition of You Can Conquer Cancer.
  Now this is where the truth becomes even more important to the tens of thousands of patients who may never attend a workshop or consult anyone at the Gawler Foundation but just buy the book, believing if Ian Gawler conquered cancer naturally then I can do it too! (Note-already 250,000 copies have been sold) “Who cares”? - Ian’s surprising answer when questioned about facts concerning the accuracy of his story. Well cancer patients should care if they are using his story as a lifeline and Ian Gawler should care. I care, oncologists care! Ian Gawler’s “Who cares”?- is irresponsible and quite simply not a good enough answer.
  If Ian Gawler did not have secondary cancer then it is questionable ethically to re publish a book stating you have conquered cancer by taking a vegan diet (that he did not have), meditation (that did not assist him in crisis time) and positive thinking (that did not cure the TB he actually had for more than two and a half years). Prof George Jelinek and Dr Ruth Gawler made many errors in their 2008 MJA True Stories report on Ian Gawler’s remission. A key factor in this highly erroneous paper was a reversed medical symptoms timeline plus incorrect dates and facts.
  But - it gets more questionable. The erroneous medical journal report is now also included in the new edition of You Can Conquer Cancer despite Ian Gawler admitting that it contained significant errors of fact. However cancer patients have no frame of reference to recognise these errors.
  One has to ask why Ian Gawler has continued to side-step and smokescreen the all important issue of TB or not TB? That is the only medical, scientific and ethical question that needs to be answered.
  If you are thinking that the 'Streeton letter' provided the proof - then I urge you to reconsider. Ian was long past his illness experience before he even saw Dr Streeton and even then it was only a few times. Streeton clearly did not have access to all the evidence and medical history when he put pen to paper.
  If an innocent misdiagnosis took place, then so be it- but the world of cancer patients needs to know. I would sure like to know 100%....at the moment I am erring 99.9%.on the side of Haines’ and Lowenthal’s hypothesis
  Far from ‘waffle’, integrity in medicine and in medical reporting is essential – this most inconvenient truth resembles the Lance Armstrong story more and more every day. Secondary cancer or TB? That is the question which one day soon; I hope, will be answered.
  
  Footnote: for those who believe that the GF or IG support conventional therapy - read Ian Gawler opinion piece:
  April 2006 CHEMOTHERAPY: Increased survival only 2.8% after 5 years! This well quoted article has caused many patients to turn away from conventional treatment that holds potential for life extension. I regularly see ex GF patients who chose not to have conventional medicine based on what they had been told at a GF retreat. I am yet to see one of these clients who does not have advanced metastases.
  
  4 months ago report

Follow Topics

TB or not TB? A second opinion on Ian Gawler’s cancer

Republish

Join the conversation

30 Comments sorted by

Grendelus Malleolus

Mia Masters

Reema Rattan

Pip Cornall

Ruth H Gawler

Sue Ieraci

Pip Cornall

Ruth H Gawler

Grace Gawler

Sandra Neate

Sue Ieraci

Edward John Fearn

Edward John Fearn is a Friend of The Conversation.

Ian Haines

Grace Gawler

Luke Weston

Pip Cornall

Ruth H Gawler

Edward John Fearn

Edward John Fearn is a Friend of The Conversation.

Ruth H Gawler

Ray Lowenthal

Edward John Fearn

Edward John Fearn is a Friend of The Conversation.

Kaye Ellis

caroline campbell

Pip Cornall

Edward John Fearn

Edward John Fearn is a Friend of The Conversation.

Pip Cornall

Grace Gawler

Jo Rankin

Grace Gawler

The Conversation

Community

Company

Contact

Subscribe to our Newsletter

Want to follow The Conversation?

Republish

Join the conversation

Community

Company

Contact

Subscribe to our Newsletter