which would provide the best quality and length of survival.
The problem with Gawler is that he had one of those freakish reversals of disease people in the medical profession see from time to time. He then assumed that he'd been doing all the right things and, with messianic zeal, set forth to teach everyone else what he'd done, assuming they'd also survive as he had. His lack of knowledge of evidence based medicine also contributed to the relative lack of care he received: the lack of followup on the initial biopsy was criminal. Whatever he had, and it might not have been neoplasm, just benign tumors, disappeared. He thought he'd done that himself.
Two years ago, I was in stage III renal failure. It has since reversed, giving me the chronic renal insufficiency I've had all my life. My rheumatologist would love to know what I did to reverse it. Certainly, I watched my diet and meditated, but it was the same thing I'd been doing when I went into failure. I don't have the conceit that anything I did fixed my kidneys. However, had I not been in the field, I might have been tempted to crow that living the way I always lived was some sort of miraculous cure that could save the suffering multitudes.
I'm sure people at the Gawler Center are pampered and petted and, minus the coffee enemas, kept as comfortable as possible. With some aggressive cancers, that's probably a very good idea and very likely contributes to longevity as well as quality of life. However, promoting that stuff as a cure is what reduces it to quackery.
= new reply since forum marked as read