Talk:Ian Gawler

Biographies of Living Persons Noticeboard
Due to the frequent BLP violations of the article I have brought it to the attention of the Biographies of Living Persons Noticeboard. Other editors may make comments there if they wish. Afterwriting (talk) 11:59, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Warning regarding COI editing and BLP violations
Any further editing of this article by editors who seek to promote a personal agenda in this article contrary to the BLP and COI policies will be reported to the administrators noticeboard. The editing behaviour has been a disgrace. Afterwriting (talk) 09:31, 11 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree. Gawler family members continually edit this article. I'm open about my relationship with Grace Gawler, ex wife of Ian Gawler but I have not used pseudonoms to hide my identity like other editors. I'd rather not have to continually edit this post but few people are aware of the facts (on the public record)if you know where to look. BUT what is currently written in this page is not accurate according to Gawler's own biography and other public evidence.
 * Afterwriting why did you remove my last edits when I refuted statements in this article using evidence from Gawler's books? Why can't the truth be told using information on the public record? Do you have COI? Gawler's biography that I used is described as an unflinchingly honest account. Two medical journal articles about this man are riddled with error and also conflict with evidence in his books. Let us never forget that cancer patients make their treatment choices based on his supposedly 'miraculous' recovery from secondary bone cancer. He publicly claims to be the only person in the world to have done this. Cancer patients make poor treatment choices trying to follow the myth. Gawler has publicly refused to have his medical case openly reviewed. I would welcome the input of a Wikipedia BLP editor but who has the knowledge to deem fact from fiction in a case where what is written in this article impacts the treatment choices of cancer patients? Wiki has a public responsibility to report and edit accurately. Pipcornall (talk) 20:43, 11 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Your edits were removed because they clearly violated various style and other policies. And, unlike you, I don't have any kind of conflict of interest regarding Ian Gawler as my editing history clearly demonstrates. Afterwriting (talk) 08:54, 12 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I suggest that you also study and follow the COI principles and policies at this page as well as those of the BLP policies here and here. Afterwriting (talk) 09:


 * If I know what is said in this article is untrue - why can't I use evidence to balance out the article using his own biographical evidence? Do you want the truth told especially when his misreported story harms so many cancer patients?Pipcornall (talk) 06:35, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Gawler's biography is used as a reference in this article. Are you saying it is not a reliable source?Pipcornall (talk) 06:44, 13 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Firstly, please stop making ridiculous questions about whether I "want the truth to be told". Making emotional comments like this does nothing to advance your credibility. So just stop this crap.  Secondly, no editor is entitled to use any source for personal commentary - especially in order to advance a non-neutral viewpoint. This is what you consistently do.  This is an encyclopaedia article and must be neutral and balanced without interpretation or commentary.  If you want to write an opinion piece on these matters then send it to your newspaper of choice.  And, as I have already told you before, your editing behaviour is available to newspaper writers who may be interested to know how Grace Gawler's partner is acting on here.  So you are running a real risk of damaging Grace's reputation by your behaviour.  Thirdly, as you seem to be incapable of editing in a neutral manner - and edit in an obvious conflict of interest - then you are also running the risk of being blocked from editing at all if you continue to disregard the editing policies. I have spent a lot of time already striving to keep the article as balanced and neutral as possible but you and some of Ian Gawler's advocates are testing my patience with your attempts to turn the article into something it isn't meant to be.  If you think that anything needs to be changed or added then discuss it here first in future.  If you choose to keep editing the way you have been then you will only be wasting everyone's time. Afterwriting (talk) 07:14, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Dear Afterwriting - Yeah look thanks - I know it has been trying for you. As I said I have no need to edit and am happy to discuss with you first. Ok here goes - this article has references that surely violate COI - References 3 & 4 are MJA articles that Gawler now admits have errors - errors that convey that meditation and veganism cured his secondary cancer. Reference 8,9,10 are an opinion piece in a paper written by Gawler himself and surely this is COI? My use of Gawler's biography to prove errors in this article seems fair? are you are saying it is not a reliable source? If so then it can't be used as it is in reference 2 in this article. And you seem to forget each week I see cancer patients who are emaciated from vegan diets, socially isolated from long hours of meditation and dying from cancer that needed conventional treatment. All are shocked to learn Gawler had TB, was not vegan etc. Wiki must get this information out - it is the truth - Also - The part about Lowenthal is worded non-neutrally suggesting he wrote paper because he was a long time critic. Haines and Lowenthal are respected medical scientists who rightfully rejected the miracle stories circulating for years and causing harm to patients. If Gawler were low profile then this case would not matter So I do think it needs cleaning up further and I'm happy if you can attempt to do so.Pipcornall (talk) 07:46, 13 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Since you have such an obvious COI it really is best that you discuss any proposed changes to the article on this page first. Another problem is that you often don't properly reference things. Therefore any contentious comments in a BLP article that aren't properly referenced must be removed immediately.  Ian Gawler's biography can be cited but page numbers must be included so that these can be checked if necessary, Any "interpretation" or "personal commentary" of the book any other sources is also problematic.  Online third-party sources such as The Age articles are generally preferable as people can readily check them.  One of the big problems on Wikipedia are editors who falsely claim sources for comments and factual information. You also need to be careful what comments you make on the talk pages about any living people.  Many of your comments about Gawler - such as those in your most recent comments above - will probably need to be removed as violations of the BLP policies. Afterwriting (talk) 08:21, 13 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Just stepping in briefly, as I read this we have editor here (Afterwriting) whose concern is to create a fully compliant wp:BLP and who has no other interest but this and we have another editor (Pipcornall) whose main interest is to slant the BLP to what they want it to say. They appear to have no interest in other entries outside of Ian and Grace Gawler and limited familiarity with WP policies. The only objective editors should be working for is compliance with WP policies. That is the only way we will create a useful resource. Given this and the acknowledged WP:COI by Pipcornall I don't believe s/he is in a position to directly edit this BLP. They should suggest edits in the talk space or raise concerns on the BLP noticeboard. I will second any move to block them should they continue to directly edit.XcommR (talk) 10:19, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks both for your comments. I admit my closeness to the ex-wife of Gawler creates COI but, and it's a big but, only someone like Grace Gawler or I can discern errors in the Ian Gawler article. Grace was the only person alive who could show the errors in the two MJA papers about Gawler. That lead to the two oncologists (widely respected) researching and writing their IMJ paper - a paper that is "the equivalent of PhaLap or Lindy Chamberlain case." The IMJ paper is a much more plausible explanation of what has always been referred to a a 'miracle cancer remission' from secondary bone cancer, and claimed by Gawler as 'the only person in the world to have done so.' The paper is fair and blanced and should be given good airing on this Wiki page. Here is the link to it - http://gracegawler.com/Institute/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/IMJ-j-1445-5994-2011-02686-x-2.pdf

I do not wish to slant the article and I've tried to reference my edits. I did also use page numbers in my last edits when I used Gawler's biography to show what was written in this article conflicts with what was in his biography. Again because Gawler has such a high profile and what is written about him impacts cancer patient choices - it is important we get this right - this is not about me or any bias you think I may have. Grace and I hear patients on a daily basis, telling us why they made their poor treatment choices that may cost them their lives - like Steve Jobs. I'd like to suggest that Gawler family members writing under pseudonoms also refrain from editing.Pipcornall (talk) 23:28, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Afterwriting thanks for continuing to edit this article. I hope you read the IMJ paper I supplied. Here is a link of the latest latest Medical Journal of australia (MJA) article on Gawler methods and echoes what we've been trying to get across. Extract:. 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. There seemed to be a worrying tendency to unquestioningly quote Gawler as though his words were above scrutiny, and certainly carrying more weight than the views of any number of esteemed oncologists." Pipcornall (talk) 23:26, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I still feel the following statement from the Ian Gawler article needs to be challenged and use as reference Gawler’s own biography “Gawler's original physicians maintain that the TB developed as a complication of Gawler's osteogenic sarcoma, probably after chemotherapy weakened his immune system.” “Gawler's biography states that in June 1978, undue tiredness and severe pain from a swelling knee caused him to consult Adelaide oncologist, Dr Alistair Robertson. “Robertson, upon examining the X-rays, saw evidence of TB "being present two years previously." This dates the TB as being present in June 1976, some months before the chemotherapy (October 1976) supposedly "weakened his immune system."[11] Gawler's biography also documents the beginning of "profuse night sweats" consistent with TB but not associated with secondary osteosarcoma, before his wedding in February 1976.[12  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pipcornall (talk • contribs) 23:54, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

This article still needs editing. Since I last wrote there have been more MJA and newspaper articles challenging Ian Gawler methods. I suggest editors look at the Wiki page on Max Gerson to see how this page on Ian Gawler should be approached. Yes I know Max Gerson is dead but the issues are the same - vulnerable cancer patients being sold 'miracle cures'. Any editor would have to do a lot of research to get this page balanced but that must be done so cancer patients don't base their treatments on misreporting of this famous patient's recovery. Note; Some of my references are links to PDFs of MJA articles that cannot be accessed by the publicPipcornall (talk) 22:09, 9 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The article is already adequately balanced and adding too much more about the recent controversy could easily unbalance it. Articles should not be overly focused on controversies.  I will give some thought to how these issues can be condensed and referenced. Afterwriting (talk) 05:13, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

BLP policy reminder
Unfortunately it is once again necessary to remind a Conflict of Interest editor of the following policy which applies to this article (bold emphasis is my own):

"This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if there are other concerns about edits related to a living person, please report the issue to the biographies of living persons noticeboard. If you are connected to one of the subjects of this article and need help with issues related to it, please see this page." Afterwriting (talk) 10:52, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


 * With respect Afterwriting I beg to differ. I come from a desire to have the Ian Gawler page reflect the truth because cancer patients make decisions based on his story and his claims of you can conquer cancer. I work at the cancer coalface and each week I see people die because, like Steve Jobs, they chased alternative medicine cancer cures that we know don't work.


 * Afterwriting only an editor close to this subject can write with any balance because Gawler's public records and statements contradict MJA articles about him. Grace Gawler, his former wife was able to show that 2 medical journal articles about him contain many errors that conflict with what is written in his books and other medical media. I drew parallels to Gerson's page because all investigations into Gerson methods failed to show it worked. We must be careful that COI is not used to silence dissent about this page for one reason and that is the impact on cancer patients treatment choices.


 * Apparently you live in Brisbane where Ian Gawler has a strong presence. Respectfully I ask - have you have been influenced or connected to the Relaxation Centre and do you privately believe what he promotes? If you do then do you have COI? What are my options if I want this article to be honest and frank especially espeically if I only use material that is on the public record? Risks of BLP must surely be balanced by risks to cancer patients. I have stood by your recommendations not to edit the article but I'm not happy about its balance and believe it fosters the irrational drive towards alternative cance medicine which in turn kills many cancer patients needlessly.Pipcornall (talk) 05:38, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Pipcornall (talk) 05:47, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


 * On what possible basis do you mistakenly believe that I live in Brisbane? This is a bizarre comment. And I have already told you that I have no COI regarding this article or Ian Gawler. You have failed to demonstrate that the article as it currently is fails to present matters in a balanced manner. You have also failed to notice that I undid a number of pro-Gawler edits that sought to remove information about the MJA articles.  So I will greatly appreciate it, therefore, if you ceased making foolish comments about my editing based on your own misguided speculations.  Thank you. Afterwriting (talk) 14:30, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


 * It was a question which I asked (respectfully politely )because you have consistently failed to see the consequences of conintuing to present Gawler as someone beyond reproach. You have not commented on similarities with the Wiki page about and Ian Gawler . All the major cancer bodies in the USA were very concerned at the deaths surrounding the Gerson clinic. I believe it is similar with Gawler - if one makes the claims 'you can conquer cancer -  then you must supply proof of your disease and proof of what cured it - he has not done so. That is not indicated in this page. I have provided my references but they don't get used.

Also it is not up to Lowenthal to do the research so the comment about him - ("Lowenthal has long been a critic of Gawler's work.[2] In an hour-long debate on ABC-TV show Couchman,[when?] Lowenthal challenged Gawler to produce 50 of his best cancer recovery cases for review. Gawler agreed on air and welcomed "the opportunity for some serious research".[2] The review has not happened, despite the fact that the 50 cases were made available by the Gawler Foundation at the time.[citation needed] Lowenthal was reportedly unable to receive funding for the study.[2]") is unwarranted and makes it seem as if he is an extremist. He, like the cancer authorities in the US, is most concerned about Gawler's message because he has to 'clean up' the casualities. I'll put it this way... If you were a frightened cancer patient and read Gawler's Wiki page you could be inclined to follow his protocols which in the view of leading senior oncologists like Lowenthal and others, is very dangerous. My attempts to have the Gawler article reflect truthfully and with balance is about saving cancer patients from dangerous treatments and unsubstantiated cancer cure claims. As Prof Haines said - 'Exceptional claims require exceptional evidence" Hypothesis. The importance of a histological diagnosis when diagnosing and treating advanced cancer. Famous patient recovery may not have been from metastatic diseaseimj_2686 - http://gracegawler.com/Institute/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/IMJ-j-1445-5994-2011-02686-x-2.pdf I ask again - remove the paragraph about Lowenthal being a long term critic and failing to fund research into Gawler and the Foundation and perhaps your writing could reflect some of my suggestions.Pipcornall (talk) 07:07, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Continuing to falsely accuse me of being some kind of defender of Ian Gawler does no credit for your personal integrity. Stop making the kind of ludicrous comments that I would expect to be made by a fanatical nutter. Your behaviour is quite bizarre and offensive.  You also cannot make the Gerson article a "template" for this one for all kinds of reasons ~ not least because the Gawler article is restricted by the BLP policies in ways in which the Gerson article isn't.  And please note that I have not significantly written any of this article.  I have reworded it from time to time and protected it from those who want the article to be an unbalanced commentary on Gawler and his ideas.  The sooner you realise this the better it will be for everyone.  Afterwriting (talk) 09:12, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Recent POV editing
Let me make this quite clear, I am not an advocate for Ian Gawler as a person or for his ideas. I do care, however, that all articles should be as neutral as possible ~ especially those concerning living people. This article has suffered from more than its fair share of very biased editing both by advocates and critics of Ian Gawler. It is obvious from recent edits that yet another editor wishes to impose his or her POV agenda on the article by removing non-controversial information without any explanation and including further criticism of Gawler's ideas in ways which violate NPOV and slants the tone of the article. No biased POV editing of this article will be allowed. Afterwriting (talk) 09:37, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Nothing to do with POV, so much as following WP:PAGs. You have added a load of content about Gawler without providing a source (naughty), and you have deleted well-sourced content commenting on the fringe nature of his claimed cancer cure, which we are obliged to make clear. Please note discretionary sanctions apply to this article. I have raised a query at WP:FT/N. Alexbrn talk 09:46, 22 February 2015 (UTC)


 * FYI : I have not "added a load of content about Gawler". Just read the edit history. So who is being "naughty"?! You, however, deleted a considerable amount of non-controversial material without any adequate explanation including things which are perfectly allowable.  By all means add properly referenced criticism to the article when and where appropriate but don't slant the article to suit your own bias as you clearly did. Afterwriting (talk) 09:54, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You added the unsourced material (twice, in fact), the onus is on you to provide sourcing - otherwise how do we know this is correct or due? Likewise, you deleted well-sourced mainstream material (also twice) with no explanation. So, we have problems. Alexbrn talk 10:00, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Major Page Review
Hello Editors,

I will be reviewing this page and expanding it to provide a more thorough account of Ian Gawler's life and work. If there is something you would like included please leave here.

Cheers, --Mandy-Lee Noble —Preceding undated comment added 07:11, 4 February 2019 (UTC)