Read the latest blog from the USA – Science-based medicine: an intelligent review & comments on the Gawler ‘cure’.
The cancer public needs to be aware of the previously inexplicable anomalies of Ian Gawler’s clinical history and the content and reason behind the publication of a well researched report that for the first time in more than 3 decades, provides a different perspective & hypothesis for his ‘cure’.
Misinformation is being generated about the motive and intentions behind the latest e-published paper however, cancer patients have not yet had the opportunity to see or the review the full report and discern for themselves the motive and the importance of the publication for the cancer community.
If the history books have written that Ian Gawler had metastatic bone cancer, and…. if it is proven that he actually had widespread TB instead – isn’t this a matter in the public interest? Many patients say ” If Ian did it – I can do it too!” Many give away conventional oncology believing that lifestyle medicine methods as reported by Gawler & Jelinek in the MJA Dec 11 2008 can impact cancer, and in Ian’s case; likely cured his metastatic cancer.
However that report is chronologically incorrect with many errors of fact – most patients are not aware of this. Patients should be aware that 2 flawed versions published in the MJA are still listed on the Gawler Foundation media website, despite Ian commenting that the timeline in 1978 & 2008 articles were incorrect. He has also stated on his blog that he never had a vegan diet…..other issues remain unadressed by the authors. “Case report in the December 2008 edition of the Medical Journal of Australia
So getting back to the current IMJ paper – there is no Spanish Inquisition, no medical profession out to get Ian, and no one in the latest scientific article is disputing Ian Gawler personally or work wise; the paper is a professional scientific document that takes account of previously unconnected history surrounding Ian Gawler’s medical timeline and exposes a new and likely hypothesis for his “cure’.
To also be clear – this matter of Ian’s ‘remission/cure’ is not personal. Because I was with Ian throughout his entire recovery process 24/7 - my experience is valid and first-hand. My recorded original medical history is indesputable. I have always had more questions than answers when it came to Ian’s disease process. I too have devoted my life to assisting cancer patients and those with life challenging illness and I am interested to explore the science and know the truth as this was also a momentus part of my life. What really happened throughout Ian Gawler’s recovery and what was the relationship between his TB and his cancer? This is a scientific and now public issue - not an emotional question. Being a fan of Professor Julius Sumner Miller when I was young – I learned to question and ask his famous question: “Why is it so?”
From my perspective; there are no ‘ex-wives quarrels or duelling Mrs Gawlers’ – as previously reported in the popular press when Ian’s history was challenged previously -in fact such headlines served to smoke-screen important professional issues with regards to my corrections/refute letter MJA 2010
RE TB – Gawler & Jelinek’s 2008 MJA states that Ian Gawler : “….developed pulmonary tuberculosis in June 1978 and was treated for this condition for 12 months.”
Actually – Ian Gawler did have TB – but he had it for 2+ years – it remained undiagnosed until June 1978.
Haines and Lowenthal’s paper titled Hypothesis: The importance of a histological diagnosis when diagnosing and treating advanced cancer. Famous patient recovery may not have been from metastatic disease” is far from an inflammatory title. Prof Ray Lowenthal and Prof Ian Haines IMJ abstract.
To be continued….
Cancer Experts Challenge Gawler’s Cure – The Age 31 december 2011 http://www.theage.com.au/national/cancer-experts-challenge-gawlers-cure-20111230-1pfns.html