Review: The Ian Gawler Foundation

Ian Gawler is an internationally known Australia cancer survivor. He advocates the power of the mind and body to help people with cancer and other diseases. In the parlance of our times, the "square community" may categorize him as a "hippie" or "mystic." I'm going to try to write an objective critique of him and his foundation, and present view points I have found from other sources. All that after the jump.
Let's start with what Gawler advocates.  I think the best summary of this would be what the Gawler Foundation's brochure for their residential cancer program states to offer.

• "Fully activate your potential for inner healing
  • Relax effortlessly and meditate deeply
  • Develop and sustain a positive state of mind
  • Use a healthy diet and nutrition for healing
  • Overcome obstacles to peace of mind, such as pain and fear
  • Find meaning and purpose in life
  • Draw upon effective support to sustain health and happiness
  • Generate confidence to make informed, effective choices and better
  manage your healing journey"

And this is where the stigmas come in. Now, I will defend Gawler's ideas by saying that I have seen the power that a good attitude and frame of mind can have in helping people "beat" their cancer, and conversely, I have seen people who have given up hope and let the cancer wreck them. But I will also condemn  Gawler's ideas, or should I say I condemn people who interpret Gawler's ideas in the following way, into this idea that the mind can defeat the cancer. This is where you get the major hippies and the stigma.

People with a good mental fortitude will seek out healthier options, such as diet and exercise, while people who are mentally crushed will let the cancer overrun them.

Now here's an interesting aside to go along with this: on Gawler's personal website, it talks about the research of his "lifestyle based self-help program." But the research he has spawned was conducted in multiple sclerosis patients, not cancer patients. But he's considered the cancer guru. Also, one may be as harsh as to say he flaunts his title of Dr. He's got a doctorate in veterinary medicine. Just little things to keep in mind when judging his credibility.

Anyway, now let me summarize 2 newspaper articles that popped up near the top of results from a google search of Ian Gawler. Not saying that newspaper articles are gospel truth (or even any truth depending on how much, for example, Rupert Murdoch's crew might be dabbling in them), but they have to have some sort of basis to create their views from.

One article from a couple years ago describes how Gawler's first wife tried to discredit his miraculous recovery from cancer. On his own website, he presents different articles and letters chronicling both his recovery and this particular scandal. Now, to this, I will make two points. First, someone's personal and professional lives should be kept separate. It's definitely possible for someone to be less than stellar in private, but still do great things in their work. Look at Bill Clinton. Second, whenever there is celebrity, there's always going to be someone to try to rip it down. So, overall judgement: this episode has little baring on whether or not to follow Gawler's ideas.

The next one again cuts to the heart of the stigma against the Gawler Foundation. This article, published in June 2012, is from the perspective of a doctor who attended one of the Gawler Foundation's programs. She made the following comments and criticisms of the foundations staff/programs:

• claims the staff said there was no evidence for the effectiveness of chemotherapy
• says there is no critical analysis of Gawler's methods
• likens supporters' subscription to Gawler's methods to religious zealotry 
• criticizes the diet, especially the emphasis on "juicing" 6 times a day (in this case juicing is not referring to steroids, but on literally making juices)
• additionally, the article got a quote from Michael Jefford, the head of the Peter Mac Institute, that the Gawler Foundation over valued their methods and did call traditional treatments toxic

Now I'm glad to see that in this same article, they the foundations current CEO, Karin Knoester, a rebuttal. Knoester said that the foundation does not advocate boycotting chemotherapy or claim it is ineffective, and that if those things were said, it was by an individual staff member who did not keep in line with the foundation's beliefs. Knoester admitted that no research has been conducted directly on Gawler's methods, but cited the large body of evidence for the benefit of nutrition, exercise, and lifestyle modification programs for cancer survivors.

Now it's time for me to truly interject my thoughts on that last point. Yes, there is a large body of evidence that these things help, but unequivocally I can tell you that no two interventions are created equal. Nor will every intervention be useful. There are dozens, to the point of likely being the majority, of exercise programs for cancer survivors, that are so poorly designed and executed that the participants truly may not have even bothered wasting their time on them. Some of these still manage to show significant improvements in the participants, but as I can show you any time you like, you can make anything look good if you have a good knowledge of statistics.

Anyway, let me break off my rant to get to the point. Knoester citing that lifestyle programs are generally good does not equate to the Gawler program being good. To quote a quote presented in The Emperor of All Maladies, "In God we trust. All others must have data."

So final message: tread carefully. Check out one of his books from the library before you buy the boxed set. If you're thinking of going to one of his workshops or going to the foundation's Yarra Valley retreat center, contact people who've gone before to get the full scoop. And lastly, when in doubt, ask me. I'm happy to throw my opinions around in more strong language than I have here, and let's be honest: I'm in the middle of my PhD on cancer and well being. I'm one of the most up to date experts there are in this subject.