This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Ian Gawler article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, 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 you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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)
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." [1] 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." [2] 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 [3] — 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. [4] [5] [6] [7] 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 public Pipcornall ( talk) 22:09, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
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)
Pipcornall ( talk) 05:47, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Ian Gawler article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, 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 you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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)
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." [1] 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." [2] 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 [3] — 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. [4] [5] [6] [7] 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 public Pipcornall ( talk) 22:09, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
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)
Pipcornall ( talk) 05:47, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)