TG-1 * Transgallaxys Forum 1

Pages: [1]

Author Topic: Das Sterben der Penelope Dingle (nee Brown)  (Read 46013 times)

Omegafant

  • Boltbender
  • Jr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 851
Das Sterben der Penelope Dingle (nee Brown)
« on: April 05, 2012, 11:51:45 PM »

Der Bericht des Gerichtsmediziners A.N. HOPE, STATE CORONER, vom 30.7.2010 über den Tod von Penelope Dingle, geborene Brown.

http://www.safetyandquality.health.wa.gov.au/docs/mortality_review/inquest_finding/Dingle_Finding.pdf

[*quote*]
Coroners Act, 1996
[Section 26(1)]
Western Australia

Inquest into the death of Penelope DINGLE page 1.
RECORD OF INVESTIGATION INTO DEATH


Ref No: 17/10
I, Alastair Neil Hope, State Coroner, having investigated the death of Penelope Dingle (nee Brown), with an Inquest held at Perth Coroners Court on 9-24 June 2010 find that the identity of the deceased person was Penelope Dingle (nee Brown) and that death occurred on 25 August 2005 at Paulls Valley Road, Kalamunda, Western Australia as a result of complications of metastatic rectal cancer in the following circumstances -
Counsel Appearing :
Dr Celia Kemp and Sergeant Lyle Housiaux appearing as counsel assisting
Mr Anthony Eyers (instructed by Ms Finola Barr, Meredith & Co and Natalia Brown) appearing on behalf of the deceased’s family
Mr Mendalough (instructed by Mr Thunderbolt Jackson McDonald) appearing on behalf of Francine Scrayen
Ms Melanie Naylor (Tottle Partners) appearing on behalf of Professor Cameron Platell
Mr Denis Barich (Fiocco’s Lawyers) appearing on behalf of Dr William Barnes
Mr Jeremy Allanson appearing on behalf of Dr Peter Dingle
Mr John Ley (Panetta McGrath Lawyers) appearing on behalf of Dr Igor Tabrizian
Inquest into the death of Penelope DINGLE page 2.
Table of Contents
Introduction...3
The Involvement of the Deceased’s Usual General Practitioners and Surgeon, Professor Cameron Platell...6
Observers of Penelope Dingle Family Members and Friends...................................................21
Involvement of Silver Chain Nurses and Deborah Coombes.....................................................32
The Involvement of Francine Scrayen........................................................................................40
Comments in Relation to Mrs Scrayen’s Involvement................................................................56
Involvement of Dr Peter Dingle..................................................................................................61
Conclusions as to the Involvement of Dr Dingle.........................................................................71
Was There A Pact?...76
The Involvement of Dr William Barnes.......................................................................................77
Dr Igor Tabrizian...85
Conclusion...90
Comments on Public Health and Safety Issues.........................................................................97
Informed Consent...98
Alternative Medicine Practitioners.........................................................................................98
Recommendation No. 1..............................................................................................100
Medical Practitioners Providing Complimentary and Alternative Medicine..........................100
Recommendation No. 2..............................................................................................101
Reference to a Disciplinary Body – Section 50 of The Coroners Act 1996.........................102
Dr William Barnes...103
Dr Igor Tabrizian...104
INTRODUCTION
Penelope Dingle (nee Brown) (the deceased) died from complications of metastatic rectal cancer on 25 August 2005. The death was not initially reported to a coroner, but in 2007 the surviving siblings of the deceased contacted the Coroner’s Court asking for the circumstances of the death to be investigated and submitting that a public inquest should be held. In support of this application the siblings of the deceased provided a considerable amount of materials including diaries and copies of draft letters prepared by the deceased prior to her death which described the events leading up to her death in considerable detail.
A determination was made that the death should be treated as a reportable death and this inquest was held in order to examine the circumstances surrounding the death.
In support of the application made by the siblings of the deceased it was contended that the deceased had been influenced in choices which she made by a homeopath whose name was Francine Scrayen and that homeopath had become her primary health adviser at a crucial period in the development of her disease.
It was contended that the homeopath was aware that the deceased had been suffering rectal bleeding for approximately 12 months before any recommendation was
Inquest into the death of Penelope DINGLE page 3.
made to the effect that she should be referred to a medical practitioner.
It was further contended that the homeopath had assured the deceased that she could cure rectal cancer using homeopathic methods alone and that the deceased would not require surgery, chemotherapy or radiation treatment. It was suggested that it was on the basis of this advice that the deceased had not pursued a surgical option offered by Professor Cameron Platell in February 2003.
A further contention of the family and the deceased in her diaries was to the effect that in spite of her increasing pain levels the homeopath repeatedly assured her that the treatment was effective (curative) and encouraged her to persist with homeopathic treatment. Further it was contented that the homeopath had encouraged the deceased not to take appropriate pain relief on the basis that relevant medications would interfere with her monitoring of the disease and the effectiveness of the homeopathic treatment.
The contentions of the siblings of the deceased included a claim that in a telephone call with the deceased while she was at the Emergency Department at Fremantle Hospital being treated on 12 October 2003, the homeopath had tried to dissuade her from having emergency surgery for a complete bowel obstruction in circumstances where
Inquest into the death of Penelope DINGLE page 4.
unless surgery had been performed she would have died within the next 24 hours.
It was claimed that it was only as a result of a graphic description of the circumstances in which the deceased would die within hours given by the registrar at the hospital which caused the deceased to finally agree to surgery in spite of the advice of the homeopath. Unfortunately the cancer by that time spread to her liver, lungs and bones and treatment from time onwards was effectively palliative.
In other words, it was the contention of the siblings of the deceased that the deceased made a number of unfortunate decisions based on misleading and erroneous information and advice provided to her by a homeopath and those decisions ultimately resulted in her premature death.
This inquest was held in order to explore a number of contentions made by the family of the deceased in circumstances where it appeared clear from a review of the deceased’s diaries and objective evidence that the deceased experienced unnecessary and extremely serious pain over an extended period in 2003 and recommendations for surgery and other appropriate treatment made by mainstream medical practitioners were rejected. In the context of the events which surrounded the death, it was also necessary to review the involvement of the partner and later husband of the deceased who was with her over the
Inquest into the death of Penelope DINGLE page 5.
period during which her cancer spread and ultimately resulted in her death, Dr Peter Dingle.
THE INVOLVEMENT OF THE DECEASED’S USUAL GENERAL PRACTITIONERS AND SURGEON, PROFESSOR CAMERON PLATEL
The deceased had been attending the East Fremantle Medical Centre from 5 August 1999, initially because she wished to have a baby and was discussing fertility issues. On 29 September 1999 she was seen at a follow up visit with her husband, Dr Dingle, and again fertility issues were discussed. Notes prepared by Dr Hillary Fine at the practice covered discussing naturopath visits and other matters. Dr Fine recalled that Dr Dingle was a strong proponent of natural treatment and was a lecturer at Murdoch University for environmental sciences (toxicology). She asked Dr Fine to listen to tapes which he produced.
The deceased attended the practice on five further occasions between November 2000 and December 2001.
On 5 December 2002 she saw Dr Kath Fordham and reported to her that she had rectal bleeding. Dr Fordham referred her to Fremantle Hospital for a colonoscopy to investigate this.
On 31 December 2002 the deceased again saw Dr Fine, this time she reported increasing lower abdominal Inquest into the death of Penelope DINGLE page 6.
and pelvic pain. She was referred for a pelvic ultrasound scan and a colonoscopy referral was discussed.
On 25 February 2003 she had a colonoscopy which confirmed a rectal tumour. She was referred to Professor Cameron Platell by Dr Trevor Claridge on 27 February 2003. The referral letter advised that she had undergone a colonoscopy to investigate rectal bleeding. She was identified as having a large rectal mass.
It is clear from the above that while the deceased may have been receptive to alternative approaches to medicine, she was not ideologically opposed to mainstream medicine.
Professor Platell was, and is a colorectal surgeon. Professor Platell had graduated from the Medical School of the University of Western Australia 1984 and had obtained a PhD in medicine from that university in 1991. He had been a Fellow of the Royal Australian College of Surgeons since 1993. He had been practising as a colorectal surgeon since 1986 and had been a Professor of Surgery at the University of Western Australia since 2007 and in 2009 became a Winthrop Professor of Surgery at that University. In 2006 he was appointed Director of the Colorectal Cancer Clinical Research Unit at St John of God Hospital Subiaco and in 2007 he was appointed Scientific Director of the Bendat Cancer Centre, St John of God Hospital, Subiaco.
Inquest into the death of Penelope DINGLE page 7.
It is clear from the diary entries of the deceased that she had some involvement in selecting Professor Platell as her surgeon and that from their first meeting she held him in very high regard. In a document headed “Here is My Story”1 the deceased wrote that she “researched who the best surgeon was” and found out that it was Professor Platell. She said the next day she and Dr Dingle sat in his office and discussed the possibility of an operation. She stated that she liked Professor Platell immediately and that he was very honest about surgical side effects etc.
Professor Platell examined the deceased on 27 February 2003 and discussed with her the findings of the colonoscopy and biopsy. On digital rectum examination he could feel a bulky but mobile rectal tumour. He advised the deceased that she would need to have more investigations performed to obtain a more accurate idea of the stage of her cancer. He advised her that if the cancer was localised to just the rectal area she should have a course of adjuvant pre-operative chemo radiotherapy, followed by surgery to remove the cancer and reconstruct the bowel.
The adjuvant pre-operative chemotherapy was to be used in an effort to try to reduce the tumour in order to obtain better survival outcomes.
1 Index 28 to Volume 1
Inquest into the death of Penelope DINGLE page 8.
Professor Platell explained in evidence that the procedure involved was technically complex which explained the need to have colorectal specialists. He further explained that the deceased would have required a temporary stoma. The use of a stoma is intended to reduce risk of infection and involves bringing up some of the intestine to the abdominal wall so that effluent can be discharged through a stoma through a bag rather than travelling through the anal area.
Professor Platell was of the view that the deceased was relatively young but was suffering from a serious and life threatening disease.
At the time of his initial diagnosis Professor Platell considered that the cancer had already gone through the bowel wall, although clinically it was difficult to determine whether it had metastised.
Given the history that the deceased had been experiencing bleeding in the rectal area and blood stained stools for approximately two years, he believed that this symptom was consistent with the cancer having developed over a period of approximately two years.
During the discussion the deceased raised concerns about the possibility of her being able to have children and Professor Platell explained that the pre-operative
Inquest into the death of Penelope DINGLE page 9.
chemotherapy and radiotherapy would essentially make it impossible for her to have children and that it would be necessary to weigh up the best possibility of surviving as opposed to the alternative of not having such good treatment but having the possibility of later having a baby. In Professor Platell’s view these were important issues to the deceased at the time.
At the conclusion of that appointment Professor Platell wrote to Dr Claridge explaining the situation and advising that he had organised for her to have a CT scan and would review her again in one week with the results of that scan.
An appointment was made for the deceased to see Professor Platell on 6 March 2003 but she did not keep that appointment. Professor Platell managed to contact the deceased by telephone and she advised him that she was still thinking about her options and said that she would contact him when she felt that she wanted to consider having an operation. On 6 March 2003 Professor Platell advised Dr Claridge of the situation.
The deceased next attended the clinic and saw Professor Platell on 10 April 2003. On that occasion he discussed her diagnosis and she advised that she did not wish to have any adjuvant chemo radiotherapy and that she would possibly consider having surgery to treat her cancer. She also stated that she had decided that she did not want Inquest into the death of Penelope DINGLE page 10.
to have a CT scan and that she would prefer to have an MRI scan.
That day Professor Platell wrote to Dr Claridge advising him of the situation, the letter contained the following paragraph –
I have advised Penelope that I think she should have the operation done as soon as possible and to consider trialing these adjuvant therapies after her surgery. I have also advised her that I think she needs a CT scan. Penelope and her husband have decided that they would rather have an MRI scan which is near impossible for me to organise through the public hospital system on an urgent basis. They will, therefore, look at having this done privately at Murdoch and I wonder if you would be able to organise this for them.
On 30 April 2003 Professor Platell received a facsimile transmission from the deceased which attached a letter from her then partner, Dr Dingle, requesting that she be referred for an MRI scan instead of a CT scan. That letter was written by Dr Dingle under Murdoch University letterhead and described him as “Environmental Toxicologist”, it contained the following paragraph –
Due to the patient’s history of adverse reactions to a wide range of synthetic chemicals and radioactive substances, it is my recommendation that a CAT scan not be undertaken, and that for this individual an MRI is a suitable and safe substitute.
On 1 May 2003 Professor Platell made a referral for the deceased to Dr James Black at SKG Radiology for an MRI scan to assess her rectal tumour. On 14 May 2003 Professor Platell reviewed the deceased following her MRI scan. The scan showed that her rectal cancer seemed to be reasonably well contained within the pelvis, with clear
Inquest into the death of Penelope DINGLE page 11.
plains between the tumour and the adjacent cervix and the vagina. At that stage Professor Platell believed that the MRI did not clearly demonstrate a metastatic pattern and there was, for example, no tumour spread to the liver. There was a chance that she could have had metastatic spread and that the cancer had spread to the right ovary, which was enlarged, causing cystic changes in the ovary, although even if this had occurred, he observed that isolated metastatic deposits in the ovary would not preclude a person from being cured from their disease.
Professor Platell stated that his approach was that he would “give the patient the benefit of the doubt and look at a curative approach to their management”2.
Following that appointment Professor Platell lost contact with the deceased who failed to attend any of the outpatient appointments he made for her.
When it became clear that the deceased was determined to refuse chemotherapy, radiation therapy and surgery, he contacted a senior stoma nurse, Pam Thompson, and asked her to get in contact with the deceased to discuss her refusal of treatment.
2 t.356
Inquest into the death of Penelope DINGLE page 12.
It is clear that Professor Platell had emphasised to the deceased that she should have the surgery performed as soon as possible and in a letter dated 14 May 2003 addressed to Dr Claridge he explained the situation in the following terms –
Mrs Brown recently had an MRI scan which showed that her rectal cancer still seems reasonably well contained with clear plains between the tumour and cervix and vagina. I have strongly impressed on Penelope that she should have surgery performed as soon as possible, but for reasons which I do not understand she is delaying having the procedure performed. I discussed this with both her and her husband but again she is making her own decision about when it is appropriate to have surgery.
It is clear that Professor Platell was deeply concerned about the failure of the deceased to take appropriate steps to have surgery. He explained in evidence that the natural history of rectal cancer is grim and that the cancer would be likely to keep growing and start invading adjacent organs. He explained that the pelvis is a narrow canal so the cancer easily invades structures such as cervix, vagina, uterus and sacral bone. He stated that this growth would be associated with severe pain and if untreated would result in death. He explained that this would be a “horrific way to go”3.
Nurse Thompson attempted to contact the deceased on a number of occasions without success until in June 2003 she contacted her by telephone. Outpatient Notes of Fremantle Hospital record that on that occasion the

3 t.358
Inquest into the death of Penelope DINGLE page 13.
Logged
Steine kann man nicht essen!

Omegafant

  • Boltbender
  • Jr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 851
Re: Das Sterben der Penelope Dingle (nee Brown)
« Reply #1 on: April 05, 2012, 11:52:41 PM »

deceased was “fully informed” of the need for treatment and the options of treatment for rectal cancer. It was further recorded that the deceased and her partner were spoken to at length and they would contact Nurse Thompson on the next week to discuss the matter further. The notes record that the deceased had decided, however, to try alternative medicine rather than “conventional”.
In respect of the reference to the patient and her partner being spoken to at length in the Outpatient Notes, Nurse Thompson explained in her evidence that she could hear discussions going on between the deceased and Dr Dingle while she was talking to them.
Nurse Thompson attempted to contact the deceased on 23 June and 30 June 2003 without success, on 1 July 2003 the deceased and Dr Dingle came in to see Nurse Thompson at her office and were provided with documentation containing statistical information relating to colorectal cancer treatments and outcomes.
At that meeting the deceased continued to refuse medical intervention and stated that she had decided to go for “alternative medicine”. She said the statistics could be “manipulated either way” and that there where “good statistics to show that natural therapies also assisted with management of colorectal cancer”4.
4 t.397
Inquest into the death of Penelope DINGLE page 14.
This was important evidence and it revealed that the deceased had been influenced by misinformation and bad science in coming to her decision. The expert evidence at the inquest demonstrated conclusively that medical intervention was urgently needed.
When Professor Platell’s letter of 14 May 2003 advising that the deceased was, delaying having the procedure performed was received at the East Fremantle Medical Centre, immediate efforts were made to attempt to pursue the matter with the deceased.
The arranging of an appointment was marked on the file as being “very important” and unsuccessful attempts were made to contact the deceased on 27 May, 29 May and 30 May 2003 until on 31 May 2003 the office receptionist spoke to the deceased who advised that her mother had passed away and that she would call and make an appointment for the week starting 9 June 2003.
The deceased did not make an appointment for that week and further efforts were made to contact her, this time by Dr Claridge. After a number of attempts to contact the deceased by telephone were made without success, Dr Claridge sent the deceased a letter dated 4 August 2003 in which he wrote –
Inquest into the death of Penelope DINGLE page 15.
I am writing because of my concern for your health. I have not received any correspondence to inform me that you have had any treatment of your cancer. If you have had surgical treatment please could you let me know and I will pass this on to Dr Platell.
On 12 August 2003 Dr Claridge contacted Dr Dingle at his work by telephone and was advised that they had changed their address and contact telephone number.
Following Dr Claridge’s letter of 4 August 2003 the deceased contacted him by telephone on 18 August 2003 and advised that at that stage she was finding it hard to travel, but had received his letter requesting a consultation.
In the history section of his patient progress notes Dr Claridge recorded that the deceased advised him that she had decided to try to treat her condition with supplements and homeopath treatments.
In the treatment column of the same notes Dr Claridge recorded that he was advised that the deceased was seeing Dr William Barnes and had decided to put her treatment trust with Dr Tabrizian.
Dr Claridge advised the deceased to monitor her condition and suggested ways she could do so. His notes record that he emphasised with her that he was there to assist her and discuss the possibility of follow-up with blood tumour markers.
Inquest into the death of Penelope DINGLE page 16.
Dr Claridge stated that he did have an independent recollection of the discussion beyond what was written in the notes “…because it is quite a surprising situation to have someone refuse the most obvious treatment, from my point of view”5.
On 5 September 2003 Dr Claridge’s notes record that the deceased contacted him again seeking pain relief for which it appears he prescribed 25mg Fentolin patches.
The deceased’s diary entry relating to this telephone discussion indicated that Dr Claridge told her that it appeared from her description that the cancer was likely now to be in the bone.
Dr Claridge’s notes record that he asked the deceased how long she was prepared to put up with such pain in a context where surgery would “get rid of the pain”.
Professor Platell next saw the deceased on 12 October 2003 when he was called to Fremantle Hospital to attend her.
5 t.313
Inquest into the death of Penelope DINGLE page 17.
Previously when Professor Platell had seen the deceased she had been in reasonably good health. When he saw her on 12 October 2003 he described her in the following terms6 –
…she looked almost dead. She was down to 35kgs, cachectic, suffering from severe weight loss, sunken eyes, grossly distended abdomen, in severe pain and incredibly unwell.
The term “cachectic” describes the wasting which is seen in patients with advanced cancer. The bodies of these patients are wasted away and they are very weak and tired.
At that stage the deceased was suffering from a complete bowel obstruction which meant that her larger intestine was completely blocked so that faeces which would normally pass through the large intestine could not get through.
If untreated at that stage the deceased was unlikely to survive for much more than 24 hours.
Professor Platell described the pain associated with such an obstruction as extremely severe and arising from a combination of pain from the tumour causing blockage of the bowel, but also the tumour invading adjacent organs. He stated that the tumour was invading the cervix, the uterus, the left ovary and retroperitinal structures causing
6 t.364
Inquest into the death of Penelope DINGLE page 18.
severe pain and in addition there was an “incredibly distended large bowel, almost to the point of splitting” which would cause even more severe pain.
Professor Platell explained that during the following procedure it was necessary for him to remove the cervix and uterus as well as the ovaries and the bowel from the pelvis as well as the fallopian tubes. The large intestine above the blockage was completely full with between 1½ and 2 kgs of faeces which had to be washed out prior to rejoining the large intestine.
It was not possible to remove all the cancer during the surgery and so the procedure was essentially a palliative operation, in that there was still residual tumour left in the pelvis.
The deceased subsequently underwent palliative radiotherapy and her covering loop illeostomy was closed.
Professor Platell was extremely disappointed as after the initial investigations and assessments it seemed that the deceased had a potentially curable rectal cancer which had been contained within the rectum and was then not invading adjacent structures. He believed that if the deceased had followed the initial treatment course she would have had a good chance of curing her disease.
Inquest into the death of Penelope DINGLE page 19.
Professor Platell has kept detailed statistics in relation to all of his own patients with rectal cancer which supported his view that had his initial advice been taken she would have had a good chance of surviving her disease. Unfortunately when she presented as an emergency on 12 October 2003, her disease was then no longer curable.
Professor Platell advised the court that the deceased was the only patient who he had treated for rectal cancer who has ever refused any treatment at all.
In my view Professor Platell was a most impressive witness, his dedication and commitment to his patients wellbeing was at a very high level. Nurse Thompson, in her evidence, advised that she had never come across a consultant who had approached her to contact the patient in the way she was approached by Professor Platell.
It is clear that Professor Platell provided the deceased with reliable and clear information in respect of options for treatment of her cancer. In evidence he described how he explained the possible operation to the deceased which involved drawing a simplified picture so that she could understand the anatomical concepts and explained the risks of surgery and the long term implications of having surgery7.
7 t.359
Inquest into the death of Penelope DINGLE page 20.
Unfortunately it appears that the excellent advice of Professor Platell was not accepted by the deceased and Dr Dingle, who appears to have had an involvement in the decision making process and was present during the deceased’s appointments with Professor Platell. In the context of the very clear explanation of the situation by Professor Platell it is remarkable that the deceased did not follow his advice and the reasons for that course of action were explored during the inquest hearing.
OBSERVERS OF PENELOPE DINGLE FAMILY MEMBERS AND FRIENDS
At the inquest the account given by the deceased in very detailed diaries made by her at the time and her unsent or copied letters was to a great extent inconsistent with the sworn evidence of Mrs Scrayen. In that context it was important to recognise that the deceased’s writings were not prepared in anticipation of their use in a court hearing and were written for different purposes.
The diaries and other writings, however, do contain a wealth of detailed information and were written at a time when the events were fresh in the deceased’s mind and they record the treatments which she was receiving with precision. I have approached the contents of these writings with caution and have paid particular attention to the observations of independent observers and medical Inquest into the death of Penelope DINGLE page 21.
documentation written at the time as well as to accounts of what the deceased said to others in order to determine the reliability or otherwise of each part of the deceased’s diaries and other writings.
In respect of any allegations bearing on the conduct of Mrs Scrayen and others I have been mindful of the scale postulated in Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336) for applying the standard of proof.
It was particularly important in this context to review the evidence of persons who had contact with the deceased, particularly over the period from early 2003 until the emergency procedure undertaken at Fremantle Hospital on 12 October 2003.
The evidence of siblings of the deceased, Toni Brown, Natalie Brown, Christine Hearne and Anne-Marie Malcolm was consistent and revealed a disturbing deterioration in the condition of the deceased in circumstances where her pain was never adequately managed.
It is clear that the family of the deceased were not advised that she had cancer until 24 August 2003. According to Toni Brown, they had known that the deceased had not been well since at least March/April 2003 but she and Dr Dingle had told them that she had either ulcerative
Inquest into the death of Penelope DINGLE page 22.
colitis or, in the case of Natalie Brown, irritable bowel syndrome.
Toni Brown stated that she knew that the deceased had been seeing Mrs Scrayen for homeopathic treatment for two or more years prior to that time and that the deceased had a great deal of confidence in her.
The deceased was described by her sisters as being a very vivacious person who was involved in drama and creative writing. She was also a person who was described as having a very serious side to her character and who was interested in “spiritual matters”. According to Toni Brown, she had a very close and a somewhat dependent relationship with Dr Dingle8.
In the case of Toni Brown, she lived in Mundaring and so when the deceased was living in Fremantle, they did not see a great deal of each other.
Their mother passed away suddenly on 23 May 2003 and at her funeral Toni Brown was aware that the deceased had lost weight and appeared to be experiencing difficulty in getting comfortable while sitting. At that stage the family where not alarmed in a context where they had been told that the deceased had been suffering from ulcerative colitis.

8 t.19
Inquest into the death of Penelope DINGLE page 23.
Logged
Steine kann man nicht essen!

Omegafant

  • Boltbender
  • Jr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 851
Re: Das Sterben der Penelope Dingle (nee Brown)
« Reply #2 on: April 05, 2012, 11:53:43 PM »

Toni Brown stated that the deceased had told them that she was consulting Mrs Scrayen in respect of that condition.
On 24 August 2003 the deceased and Dr Dingle advised Anne-Marie Malcolm that the deceased’s real diagnosis was rectal cancer. Toni Brown became aware of that advice when she rang her sister Anne-Marie to wish her a happy birthday on that day and was shocked and very angry that they had not been told the truth from the time of diagnosis.
Later that evening Dr Dingle contacted Toni Brown by telephone and told her the news. Later, after the emergency surgery, the deceased told her family that she had been told by Mrs Scrayen not to tell the family about her cancer as the family would not have approved of her being treated by homeopathy alone.
After 24 August 2003 family members generally had much closer contact with the deceased. Toni Brown saw her on approximately a weekly basis. Each time she visited the deceased would say that she was going well and that the homeopathic treatment was being effective.
Toni Brown went to Queensland in early September for two weeks and on her return saw that the deceased, who
Inquest into the death of Penelope DINGLE page 24.
was already thin, had lost even more weight. Toni Brown was told on at least three separate occasions by both the deceased and Dr Dingle that the homeopath on that day had assured them that the deceased had “turned the corner” and that her recovery was on the “up and up”. During this period according to family members they were told by the deceased and Dr Dingle that those without the “right attitude” would not be welcome visitors at the house. The deceased told Toni Brown that she did not weigh herself as that might undermine her positive attitude which was essential to her cure.
Although the deceased went to efforts to hide her pain, according to family members it was manifestly obvious that her pain was poorly managed and she would sometime cry out when using the toilet and frequently needed a hot water bottle with her.
Bronwyn York, the deceased’s niece, had a very close relationship with the deceased and Dr Dingle.
After August 2003 she regularly visited the deceased who was becoming progressively weaker and suffering “incredible pain”9.
9 p.6 of Statement of Bronwyn York
Inquest into the death of Penelope DINGLE page 25.
Ms York observed Dr Dingle attempting to “coach” the deceased through her pain at times when she believed that the deceased should have been taking appropriate pain killing medication.
When Ms York was visiting the deceased Mrs Scrayen would regularly come to the house to see her. Ms York was not permitted to sit in on the consultations.
According to Ms York she saw the deceased take homeopathic medicine for her pain and at times she would be crying in pain.
Natalie Brown visited the deceased, usually twice a week, from 24 August 2003 until the time of the procedure on 12 October 2003.
Natalie Brown was aware that the deceased kept a diary in which she recorded times when she was to take homeopathic remedies or perform different parts of a homeopathic regime. The deceased told her that she was not allowed to take effective pain relief because that would affect the efficacy of the homeopathic remedies.
When Natalie Brown expressed concerns about the homeopath’s treatment, the deceased told her that Mrs Scrayen had told her that having any “negative” people Inquest into the death of Penelope DINGLE page 26.
around her was going to affect the treatment. The deceased told Natalie Brown that she would have to ask her not to visit if she expressed any negative opinions about her treatment.
Often when Natalie Brown visited the deceased during the day the deceased would scream out in pain, usually when she needed to use the toilet. The deceased also often rang Natalie Brown at night and spoke to her for long periods in order to distract her from the pain.
Christine Hearne, another sister of the deceased, stated that they had been asked by the deceased to be supportive of her and Dr Dingle’s decision to use homeopathic remedies, diet and tonics rather than conventional medical treatments as this would be beneficial and assist in her recovery.
Mrs Hearne stated that when she questioned the deceased about her deteriorating physical condition, she explained that Mrs Scrayen had told her that it was the natural progression of her illness and that it was not uncommon for a patient to get worse before getting better. Each time Mrs Hearne questioned her sister she was told that Mrs Scrayen claimed that she was at the turning point of her illness and would now be getting better.
Inquest into the death of Penelope DINGLE page 27.
At one stage Mrs Hearne asked the deceased about Mrs Scrayen’s expertise in treating cancer and was told that she had treated a patient previously, possibly Mrs Scrayen’s father, but that person had died. In spite of that fact the deceased was convinced that Mrs Scrayen had the knowledge and expertise to cure her of her cancer.
At one stage during a visit to her home by the deceased and Dr Dingle, Mrs Hearne’s husband asked the deceased if she would consider surgery and chemotherapy as an option. According to Mrs Hearne the deceased was not given an opportunity to reply and Dr Dingle quoted statistics and percentages which he claimed indicated that chemotherapy often failed and finished with a statement to the effect of10 –
My father had chemotherapy. Chemotherapy killed my father. Pen will not have chemo!
In respect of this account, in his evidence Dr Dingle stated that his father had died from cancer and accepted that he may have made negative comments about chemotherapy.
According to Mrs Hearne the deceased told her that even though Dr Dingle was busy with his work he spent many hours on the internet doing research on cancer cures and finding beneficial tonics for her to take.
10 Statement by Christine Hearne tab 80 para 28
Inquest into the death of Penelope DINGLE page 28.
Mrs Hearne also received late night telephone calls from the deceased asking her to “help” her through the worst of her pain.
During one of those calls the deceased told Mrs Hearne that Dr Dingle had told her that she was “…imaging pain and I just need to be positive”.
During these conversations the deceased refused to take any pain relief and stated that Mrs Scrayen had instructed her that to do so would interfere with the remedies which she was administering.
On about 5 October 2003 a family friend, Gayle Chappell, visited the deceased’s home to help with her care.
Mrs Chappell had known the deceased and Dr Dingle for about 18 or 19 years, Dr Dingle and her husband had known each other and through their association she and the deceased had become friends.
Dr Dingle had given Mrs Chappell a lift from the airport and had advised her that the deceased had lost a lot of weight but that he and the deceased believed that she was putting it back on. As soon as Mrs Chappell saw the deceased, however, she burst into tears because “…she was just so emaciated. She was – I have never seen anything so
Inquest into the death of Penelope DINGLE page 29.
thin, she was just skin and bone and she could hardly stand up. She was so weak and she was in extraordinary pain”11.
While Mrs Chappell stayed at the home of the deceased and Dr Dingle, every night the deceased was screaming in pain12.
Over the period that Mrs Chappell stayed with the deceased she was “…constantly on the phone with the homeopath”13.
Mrs Chappell believed that Mrs Scrayen and the deceased were in telephone contact at least “a dozen times a day if not more, all times of the day and night”14.
The deceased’s treatment consisted of homeopathic tablets and Mrs Chappell assisted the deceased in gathering up the various homeopathic tablets and counting them out. In respect of the treatment Mrs Chappell believed that there was “absolutely no flexibility. It had to be followed exactly”15.
Mrs Chappell said that she spoke to Mrs Scrayen once when the deceased was asleep and she answered the
11 t.184
12 t.184
13 t.185
14 t.185
15 t.185
Inquest into the death of Penelope DINGLE page 30.
telephone. On that occasion she questioned Mrs Scrayen about the deceased’s level of pain and Mrs Scrayen replied to the effect that “…most of Penelope’s pain was in her head and she exaggerated her pain and that she was quite dramatic about it”16.
Mrs Chappell also questioned Mrs Scrayen as to whether the deceased may have been suffering from a blockage, rather than just being constipated to which Mrs Scrayen told her that if that was the case there would be different symptoms17.
Mrs Chappell stated that the deceased “…definitely believed that she [Mrs Scrayen] was treating the cancer and I think that Peter believed in Penelope and I think that at the time – I think that they were both enthralled by the whole process”18.
In Mrs Chappell’s view the relationship between the deceased and Mrs Scrayen was such that she was totally dependent on Mrs Scrayen and was under her control.
When Mrs Chappell questioned the treatment which the deceased was receiving she was asked to leave the house. According to Mrs Chappell after the operation the deceased told her that she had told Mrs Scrayen that she
16 t.185
17 t.186
18 t.187
Inquest into the death of Penelope DINGLE page 31.
had never felt so bad to which Mrs Scrayen had replied, “Well, you know why that is. It is because Gayle is there”19.
INVOLVEMENT OF SILVER CHAIN NURSES AND DEBORAH COOMBES
On 10 October 2003 Toni Brown contacted Deborah Coombes, a Registered General Nurse and friend of the family, asking if she could give advice to the deceased in respect of constipation. Mrs Coombes advised that the deceased should consult a doctor. Dr Dingle then contacted Mrs Coombes by telephone and asked if she could visit the deceased at home as she had not used her bowels for over a week.
Mrs Coombes visited the house that afternoon and Dr Dingle greeted her at the door and warned her that she might be shocked when she saw how much weight the deceased had lost. He also advised her that the deceased was under the care of a homeopath and did not want any medical interventions or to go to hospital.
Mrs Coombes was then led by Dr Dingle into the bathroom where the deceased was taking a bath.
According to Mrs Coombes “Nothing could prepare me for what I found. Pen was lying naked in the bath in an
19 t.192
Inquest into the death of Penelope DINGLE page 32.
emaciated state”20. Mrs Coombes estimated that the deceased’s weight would not have been much more than 35 kilograms, her abdomen was grossly distended with a visible mass and she was sweating, breathless and in great pain.
Dr Dingle informed Mrs Coombes that the deceased had not seen a doctor for approximately four months and reiterated that it was their decision to go it alone under the guidance and care of the homeopath and under no circumstances was the deceased to go to hospital and they did not want any medical assistance. Mrs Coombes walked out of the bathroom and spoke to Mrs Chappell, who was still at the house helping out, and said to her, “…what is going on, Penelope is dying?”21. Mrs Chappell told her that she should not mention the word dying and should remain optimistic otherwise she would be sent away.
Mrs Coombes became increasingly distressed at the situation and eventually rang a work colleague who was a registered nurse working for the nursing service of Silver Chain. That colleague advised Mrs Coombes to contact the hospice division of Silver Chain and get them involved. Mrs Coombes rang the Silver Chain Hospice and was informed that the deceased would require a doctor’s referral.
20 Volume 1 tab 9
21 Volume 1 tab 9

Inquest into the death of Penelope DINGLE page 33.

Logged
Steine kann man nicht essen!

Omegafant

  • Boltbender
  • Jr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 851
Re: Das Sterben der Penelope Dingle (nee Brown)
« Reply #3 on: April 05, 2012, 11:54:41 PM »

Mrs Coombes rang Dr Tabrizian, a doctor known to Dr Dingle and the deceased, and informed him of the situation. Dr Tabrizian was prepared to fax through an urgent referral to Silver Chain Hospice.
That day Nurse Bernie Pilgrim of the Silver Chain Service visited the house and saw the deceased who said that her bowels had not opened for 10 days. The deceased asked for bowel intervention such as enema suppositories. On digital rectal examination Nurse Pilgrim felt a hard tumour.
The left side of the deceased’s abdomen was extremely tender to touch. The deceased told her that she had chosen to have no treatment and was using diet and homeopathy medication only. When the deceased said this she was with Dr Dingle in the same room and he agreed with what she was saying.
Nurse Pilgrim told the deceased what could be done to aleviate her pain, but this was rejected by the deceased and Dr Dingle who stated that they did not want her to have morphine and that all they wanted was for her bowels to open.
Inquest into the death of Penelope DINGLE page 34.
Nurse Pilgrim stated in her evidence that she appreciated that the deceased was suffering from a very serious condition and that the tumour in her bowel was causing an obstruction of the faeces.
The deceased and Dr Dingle asked Nurse Pilgrim to leave the bedroom while they had a lengthy telephone conversation with Mrs Scrayen. After approximately twenty minutes they decided not to have analgesia.
Nurse Pilgrim advised in her statement, “I clearly remember this client and was upset that she declined our efforts of symptom control for her severe pain and suggested perhaps that her naturopath [homeopath] should visit to review her distressing symptoms”.
Nurse Pilgrim stated that during her examination when she put her finger into the deceased’s rectum and observed the large mass there, when she withdraw her finger there was blood which was an indication of a tumour and she told her “I can’t do bowel intervention. You have a tumour sitting just right here”22.
Nurse Pilgrim formed the impression that the decisions being made about the treatment of the deceased were made by her and Dr Dingle together.
22 t.165
Inquest into the death of Penelope DINGLE page 35.
On Saturday 11 October 2003 Mrs Coombes again visited the deceased’s home where she read notes left by the Silver Chain Nursing Services. Mrs Coombes saw that the notes recorded that the deceased and Dr Dingle wanted no medical intervention. She told the deceased and Dr Dingle that she would withdraw as she felt she could offer no further assistance. She stated that she was terribly upset by the events of the previous 24 hours but felt hopeless to intervene any further.
On 11 October 2003 another Silver Chain Nurse, Registered Nurse Edwin Bagnall visited the home. The notes record that Nurse Bagnall discussed options for bowel intervention which the deceased and Dr Dingle were to think about.
On the morning of Sunday 12 October 2003 Mrs Coombes received an urgent telephone call from Dr Dingle pleading with her to visit the deceased. He advised that the deceased had had a dreadful night, was in severe pain and requesting her to visit.
Mrs Coombes went to the house where she found the deceased lying on a mattress on the loungeroom floor screaming in pain, with her abdomen grossly distended and appearing very frightened. Mrs Coombes begged the deceased to have an injection of morphine, which had been
Inquest into the death of Penelope DINGLE page 36.
supplied by the Silver Chain Hospice Nurses, and gave her an injection after which she called the Silver Chain Nursing Service and asked for a nurse to visit.
While they were waiting for the Silver Chain Nurse to arrive, Mrs Coombes knelt by the side of the bed and said to the deceased, “Look just go to the hospital for an X-ray of the abdomen”23.
Mrs Coombes stated that Dr Dingle’s involvement surprised her at the time as according to her, “At no time did Peter say to Penelope, “go to hospital””24. She also found the fact that at the time of Dr Dingle’s telephone call to her she could hear the deceased screaming in the background but he had not contacted Silver Chain to visit earlier “…incredibly distressing and disturbing…”25.
At about 9:30am Registered Nurse Pike of the Silver Chain Service arrived at the home and she contacted the Hospice Care Service Clinical Nurse Consultant who advised admission to hospital.
The deceased and Dr Dingle were still keen to pursue alternative therapies, but acknowledged the urgency of the situation and the deceased eventually agreed to go to Fremantle Hospital.
23 t.499
24 t.499
25 t.499
Inquest into the death of Penelope DINGLE page 37.
Later that afternoon the deceased was transferred to Fremantle Hospital where the procedure described earlier in these reasons was performed by Professor Platell.
Mrs Coombes was so upset by what had happened that several days after the deceased was admitted to Fremantle Hospital and had emergency surgery she telephoned Mrs Scrayen and asked her if she was aware that if the deceased had died during or immediately after surgery she might have been investigated regarding the treatment path she had advised and encouraged the deceased to take. According to Mrs Coombes, Mrs Scrayen declined to respond26.
The deceased’s sister, Toni Brown, had accompanied Mrs Coombes when she arrived at the house on 12 October and she waited with the deceased and Dr Dingle at the Emergency Department. The deceased’s sister Natalie Brown joined the others at about midday.
During the afternoon the deceased stated that she wanted to have Mrs Scrayen with her. Although Toni Brown told her that would not be a good idea, the deceased contacted Mrs Scrayen using her mobile telephone. Immediately after that telephone call the deceased advised the others that Mrs Scrayen had told her that she would not
26 t.500
Inquest into the death of Penelope DINGLE page 38.
be able to continue treating her if she went ahead and had an operation.
Even at that stage the deceased appeared to be questioning whether or not she should have surgery. The Registrar on duty came to talk to the deceased and explained in stark detail the consequences which would occur if she did not have surgery for the bowel obstruction. He said that she would die in the next 24 hours a most horrible and very painful death involving the vomiting of her own faecal matter. It was only at this stage that the deceased agreed to have surgery.
After the deceased’s surgery Mrs Scrayen visited her in hospital and according to Toni Brown she was present in the hospital room while Mrs Scrayen was with the deceased. Toni Brown stated that she followed Mrs Scrayen when she left and told her that the family had a lot of questions that they would like answered about the deceased’s treatment. She also said that family members would like to meet with her. According to Toni Brown Mrs Scrayen refused to meet with them and told her that families would often react antagonistically “in cases such as this”27.
27 Volume 1 tab 4
Inquest into the death of Penelope DINGLE page 39.
THE INVOLVEMENT OF FRANCINE SCRAYEN
Francine Scrayen was practicing as a homeopath during the relevant period. She stated that she had received a Diploma which qualified her to work as a homeopath from the Oceanic Institute of Classical Homeopathy. She also stated that she had obtained a post-graduate certificate in Belgium over a period of three years which involved visits to Belgium and that she had been practicing as a homeopath since 1998.
According to Mrs Scrayen the practice of homeopathy does not involve treatment for any particular disease. The underlying principle of homeopathy is not to focus on a disease, but rather the totality of the person being treated, including any mental issues, emotional issues and physical issues28. Mrs Scrayen stated that she was affiliated with private health service providers and that most private health service providers funded her treatment of patients. She said that she was a member of the Australian Homeopathic Association and on the Australian Register of Homeopaths.
Mrs Scrayen first treated the deceased on 4 April 2001 at which stage she was complaining of tiredness, headaches, depression and other related feelings.
28 Volume 2 tab 36
Inquest into the death of Penelope DINGLE page 40.
Mrs Scrayen provided the court with volumes of records of her treatment of the deceased which she claimed with relatively few exceptions had been written at the time of the various treatments.
Although these records appeared to record the deceased’s descriptions of her symptoms in great detail, they contained very little information as to what advice or treatment Mrs Scrayen was giving to the deceased and surprisingly little detail about her treatment plans and the amounts and times when remedies were to be taken.
Although Mrs Scrayen stated that she had completed a first aid course with St John Ambulance Service, she stated that it was a “very basic” course and that her understanding of medical issues was relatively poor29.
Mrs Scrayen’s records reveal very regular contact with the deceased over 2001 and 2002 and then in 2003 extremely regular contacts. During 2003, for example, Mrs Scrayen’s notes, which the evidence indicated were not entirely comprehensive, reveal a total of 109 different days on which she had contact with the deceased up until mid October. In the months of July, August, September and October she had contact with the deceased almost every day.
29 t.1275-1276
Inquest into the death of Penelope DINGLE page 41.
In my view the number and extent of these contacts was grossly excessive for any legitimate professional interaction and provided evidence of an increasing unhealthy dependence of the deceased on Mrs Scrayen and her homeopathic remedies and treatments.
The early notes of Mrs Scrayen reveal that she was purporting to treat, or at least discuss with, the deceased symptoms which, with the benefit of hindsight, clearly related to her rectal cancer.
During this period of about 12 months in which the deceased was not receiving any medical treatment for these symptoms the notes reveal consistent monitoring by Mrs Scrayen.
For 31 October 2001 Mrs Scrayen’s notes record blood in the stool. On the next attendance, 28 November 2001 there is further reference to blood on the stool and the deceased reporting her stomach getting painful before bleeding. On 18 January 2002 the deceased was again reporting blood in faeces. For 1 February 2002 there is reference to more bloody stools. For 22 February 2002 there is reference to bleeding having stopped but in the same entry there is reference to “bleeds”. On 14 March 2002 there is reference to ovarian pain. On 14 May 2002 there is reference to “…stool … lots of … first no blood then
Inquest into the death of Penelope DINGLE page 42.
a lot and wind (indecipherable) foul smell”. On 5 June 2002 there is reference to “bloody streaks” then on 26 June 2002 the entry records “lots of blood next day, next day (indecipherable)”. For the same day there is an entry, “after wheat grain lots”. For 17 July 2002 there is a reference, “If I get lots of blood. I get pain before”. On the same day there is an entry that records the deceased stating that she had bloody stools in 1989 for eight months which went away.
On 29 July 2002 the notes record over a 13 day cycle 7 days with no bleeding, 3 days with minimal bleeding and 3 days with “lots”. For the same date there is an entry which records “lots of stomach pain”. On 2 September 2002 an entry records that most of the time there are “little red dots or red streaks”.
For 8 October 2002 the entry records that the deceased had been to Bali for a week and there is a reference to “23 streaks” and “clots”.
On 11 November 2002 an entry records “8 to 9 clots” and “lots of wind”. The entry also records “last few weeks pain in left side”.
On the bottom of that entry there is a reference “perhaps see a doctor”. The entry, however, does not indicate whether this something which the deceased told

Inquest into the death of Penelope DINGLE page 43.
Logged
Steine kann man nicht essen!

Omegafant

  • Boltbender
  • Jr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 851
Re: Das Sterben der Penelope Dingle (nee Brown)
« Reply #4 on: April 05, 2012, 11:55:28 PM »

Mrs Scrayen or Mrs Scrayen told the deceased. That entry continues with, “she doesn’t like her doctor! She will talk to Peter”.
It appears that it was not until 5 December 2002 that the deceased first reported her rectal bleeding to a medical practitioner.
In respect of this period the deceased wrote in a draft letter dated 29 November 2004, which does not appear to have been sent to Mrs Scrayen –
You waited about 12 months, trying to treat, before you suggested I have my internal bleeding diagnosed.
I have since learned that any sort of internal bleeding must be investigated immediately, as it can be a sign that something is seriously wrong. As an alternative health practitioner you should have known this and acted accordingly.
In respect of this contention, Mrs Scrayen’s response was that the deceased had told her that she had haemorrhoids and she assumed the reference to bleeding could be explained by recurrence of the haemorrhoid condition.
At the inquest the following exchange between counsel assisting and Mrs Scrayen took place30 –
30 t.967
Inquest into the death of Penelope DINGLE page 44.
So you considered her rectal bleeding was because of her haemorrhoids? - - - That’s what she told me.
Is it within the expertise of a classical homeopath to determine whether rectal bleeding is caused by haemorrhoids or not? - - - I didn’t make that diagnose whether it was rectal bleeding. I have to look – when you look at homeopathy you look at their past history as well. That’s what I tried to say before, when then a remedy starts working really, like it did in the beginning, because it was working really, really well, you then see that if you keep on going the patient will improve and improve and improve, depending on their level of curability.
You were saying you assumed the rectal bleeding was caused by her haemorrhoids? - - - Yeah, but can I - - -
I am suggesting to you that a classical homeopath cannot diagnose the cause of rectal bleeding? - - - But I’m not saying I did that. I just have to finish this, if I can.
Certainly? - - - Because if you then look at the progression of it, you will then see symptoms that are old symptoms that are coming back. So for me the haemorrhoids was an old symptom coming back. So I didn’t make any diagnose. This was, according to Hering’s Law of Cure, an old symptom coming back. So it was still going according to the homeopathic expectation.
In my view the accusation contained in the deceased’s letter to Mrs Scrayen dated 29 November 2004 was supported by the evidence at the inquest. Mrs Scrayen should not have continued to treat the deceased without insisting that she see a medical practitioner when she was describing internal bleeding and other concerning symptoms over a period of about twelve months.
While I accept that Mrs Scrayen may have believed that the deceased had suffered from haemorrhoids years earlier and the bleeding and pain was “according to Hering’s Law of Cure, an old symptom coming back”, a competent health professional would have been alarmed by the
Inquest into the death of Penelope DINGLE page 45.
developing symptoms and would have strongly advised that appropriate medical investigations were conducted without delay.
The problem in this case was that Mrs Scrayen was not a competent health professional.
After the deceased was diagnosed as having cancer, it is clear that Mrs Scrayen regularly recorded clinical symptoms relating to her cancer and its progress and also recorded the deceased’s complaints as to pain etc.
In evidence Mrs Scrayen stated that she was not purporting to treat the cancer to the exclusion of medical treatment and that there was no reason why medical treatment and homeopathic treatment could not be administered at the same time, except where the medical treatment might cause the homeopathic picture to become “blurred or antidoted”31. This claim was entirely inconsistent with the account of the deceased as recorded extensively in her diaries and contained in her unsent letter addressed to Mrs Scrayen dated 29 November 2004.
In that letter the deceased referred to Mrs Scrayen as having treated her “exclusively” over a 7 month period and in a reference to “some more facts” the following appears -
31 Para 4 of Statement of 4 May 2010 volume 2 tab 36
Inquest into the death of Penelope DINGLE page 46.
But, you told me,
“I shouldn’t be saying this to you. I’m going out on a limb. But classical homeopathy will cure you”.
You told me, however, that I must use the homeopathy alone, or you would be unable to prescribe your treatment accurately. You told me Dr Barnes’s protocol would interfere with the homeopathy, as would the intravenous Vitamin C, I was having. As would painkillers. Even our suggestions of other treatments such as massage, chiropractic, reflexology, herbalists and other protocols to run concurrently etc were rejected by you. You also prescribed the diet I was to follow.
I believed you and cancelled all my other treatments. Unlike you, the other practitioners never said they could cure me.
If you had said homeopathy might give me a cure and it might not, that it was impossible to tell, do you really think I would have risked your protocol? I would not have. I would have considered homeopathy as a support therapy only, as I had originally intended.
Mrs Scrayen claimed that she did not purport to treat the deceased’s cancer and said that she had no knowledge that the deceased had a belief that she was advising that homeopathy could provide a cure for cancer.
I do not accept this claim by Mrs Scrayen, whom I did not generally regard to be a witness of truth.
It is clear from the evidence of many witnesses at the inquest some of which is detailed in these reasons that the deceased did believe that she was being treated by homeopathy for her cancer and repeatedly said so. In my view Mrs Scrayen could not have been in any doubt as to that issue, particularly in the context of their multiple interactions in relation to her treatment. In addition the fact that the deceased was telling people at the time that Inquest into the death of Penelope DINGLE page 47.
she was relying on homeopathy to cure her was recorded in notes written at the time such as the Silver Chain Nurse entries referred to earlier.
Prior to the 12 October 2003 operation and while she was still very fond of Mrs Scrayen the deceased told a number of people that for an extended period she was receiving only homeopathic treatment and that she believed that it would cure her cancer. While the vast number of lengthy consultations between the deceased and Mrs Scrayen were almost entirely unwitnessed by any third party (even Dr Dingle was not permitted to remain through entire consultations), I do not accept that Mrs Scrayen could possibly have failed to appreciate that the deceased believed that she was treating her for cancer and that in the latter period of 2003, she was not receiving medical treatment for her cancer.
In addition, it is noted that the account of Mrs Scrayen was not entirely consistent in relation to this issue in that she stated that she believed at times her homeopathic remedies were working as treatment of the cancer. In the following passage Mrs Scrayen was questioned about the multiplicity of telephone calls between the deceased and herself32-
32 t.971
Inquest into the death of Penelope DINGLE page 48.
And did you think that she was in pain and seriously ill and she was ringing you because she wanted your help? - - - Well, she wanted to know what remedy to take.
Right; and what was she saying was wrong with her then? - - - Well, sometimes it was pain and sometimes – well, the majority of it would be to check whether the remedy was doing something or not.
Right; and was it doing something or not? - - - Sometimes it was, but it didn’t hold. That’s what I kept on saying to her. The remedy works, but it doesn’t hold; the remedy works, but it doesn’t hold. If the remedy can do it - - -
What was the remedy supposed to be working by doing? - - - Reducing symptoms.
Shortly afterwards the following exchange took place33-
Well, she was ringing repeatedly saying she was in serious pain? Is that what she was doing? - - - No. It could be different things. Sometimes it was pain, but if it was pain, then I would ask her to ring back in 10 minutes or I would stay on the phone with her until I knew it was kicking in.
What was kicking in? - - - The remedy.
And you had remedies you believed stop pain, did you? - - - Well, there was multiple times that it worked within 10 minutes, 20 minutes.
And what remedy was that? - - - That could be any remedy, because – no, there’s all the remedies. The 3500 can have a picture of pain in it.
So you’re telling us that you believed that these remedies, homeopathic remedies, were stopping her pain for cancer? - - - Well, the pain was reduced, but it never holds and when it’s not holding, it means you don’t have the right remedy or the body is not capable of responding to your remedy.
In respect of the remedies used by Mrs Scrayen, she claimed that a homeopathic remedy which had effected a “near bullseye” in providing effective treatment was plumbum. Plumbum, according to Mrs Scrayen, is a homeopathic remedy made from lead34. In fact plumbum is the latin word for lead.
33 t.971-972
34 t.1036
Inquest into the death of Penelope DINGLE page 49.
According to Mrs Scrayen plumbum is manufactured by diluting lead with water so many times that “…there is no physical of it there any more”35. In other words the solution is diluted until there is none of the original lead remaining. Mrs Scrayen stated “It’s not about the substance, it’s about the picture that resonates with the person. There was no affinity with lead, as such, as in pain. It’s the picture which Pen presented me with, and that has to fit”36.
In her letter to Mrs Scrayen the deceased referred to the report of an MRI scan taken in April 2003 which she stated was read accurately by the surgeon and the consulting general practitioner but had been read wrongly by Mrs Scrayen. The letter continued –
The lymps you informed me were simply overworked were already cancerous. The ovary you informed me was swollen due to another cyst was also cancerous. At this point, my uterus and second ovary were healthy and unaffected. I presume you remember – you examined the scans yourself.
In respect of this claim Mrs Scrayen admitted that she had received the MRI report and read it but stated that she had not discussed medical terminology “…because I do not know anything about it”37.
35 t.1037
36 t.1037
37 t.1000
Inquest into the death of Penelope DINGLE page 50.
Mrs Scrayen was asked why she had retained a copy of the report on the MRI scan if she had not been able to use it to which she ultimately responded, “I just took it and put it in the file”38.
This was a matter discussed in great detail in the diaries of the deceased39 and in my view it is difficult to believe that the deceased would have described Mrs Scrayen giving advice in respect of the MRI report if that had not occurred. In the context of all of the evidence I do not accept Mrs Scrayen’s denial of involvement in respect of discussion about the MRI report.
According to the deceased Mrs Scrayen attempted to discourage her from having surgery right up until the time of the operation on 12 October 2003. In respect of the events just prior to the operation in her letter dated 29 November 2004 the deceased wrote –
On October 12 2003, just prior to my operation, I phoned you from emergency.
You said ‘if you have the operation, you know I will not be able to continue treating you’.
You patently tried to dissuade me from having the surgery.
My sister Toni was with me in emergency and I repeated this to her.
She was horrified that you would professionally advise me to reject the operation when I obviously had to have it.
I cannot believe it myself!
38 t.1001
39 t.1000
Inquest into the death of Penelope DINGLE page 51.
From a clinical perspective, what was your reasoning? Upon what physical symptoms did you base your assumption that the operation was unnecessary?
I would like this question answered, please.
In response to questions put to her at the inquest about this alleged incident, Mrs Scrayen denied that she had opposed the deceased having surgery and disputed that during the telephone call in question she had recommended against surgery. She stated that her recommendation was in favour of the deceased undergoing surgery.
I accept the account given by the deceased in preference to that given by Mrs Scrayen and note that each of the witnesses who were present at the time of the telephone conversation in the hospital room of the deceased, Toni Brown, Natalie Brown and Dr Dingle stated in their evidence that immediately after the telephone call the deceased advised them that Mrs Scrayen continued to advise her against surgery.
As indicated earlier in these reasons, it was the account of others present in the room that after the telephone call the deceased told them that Mrs Scrayen had said that she would not be able to continue treating her if the deceased went ahead and had an operation.
I am satisfied that the deceased at that stage was contemplating not consenting to surgery because of the
Inquest into the death of Penelope DINGLE page 52.
advice of Mrs Scrayen and only changed her mind when the registrar at the hospital described the horrific death which she would shortly experience if she persisted with that course.
In my view Mrs Scrayen’s advising against surgery in these circumstances was an outrageous thing to do. Mrs Scrayen had minimal medical knowledge and was giving dangerous advice on matters in respect of which she had no expertise.
In her writings the deceased claimed that Mrs Scrayen had told her regularly that the pain was “between my ears” and that it was only after the procedure on 12 October that she learned that rectal cancer is one of the most painful cancers which can be experienced. While Mrs Scrayen denied to an extent that this had occurred, she stated that she did believe that the deceased was “sensitive” to pain.
Again the deceased’s account is supported by the evidence of Dr Dingle and visitors to their home who described the deceased suffering from extreme, poorly managed pain. The deceased’s account is also consistent with the evidence of Mrs Chappell referred to earlier that Mrs Scrayen had told her that “…most of Penelope’s pain was in her head and she exaggerated her pain”40.

40 t.185
Inquest into the death of Penelope DINGLE page 53.
Logged
Steine kann man nicht essen!

Omegafant

  • Boltbender
  • Jr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 851
Re: Das Sterben der Penelope Dingle (nee Brown)
« Reply #5 on: April 05, 2012, 11:56:34 PM »

I accept that Mrs Scrayen discouraged the deceased from receiving appropriate pain management and that she did tell the deceased that she was imagining much of her very real pain.
A further accusation made by the deceased in her letter to Mrs Scrayen related to her treatments and was to the following effect –
Where is Your Science? Where is Your Clinical Evidence?
You advised me to perform various procedures that caused me intense physical pain. When I told you my pain was too great to continue some of these treatments, you insisted I must continue them for your protocol to work.
For Example :
Getting me to inject olive oil into my anus once a day.
Getting me to insert plugs of velvet soap into my rectum so that “the stop would go”, when my bowel was completely blocked by the tumour. When I question the validity of this procedure, you advised me it was necessary.
When I told the surgeon about these treatments he said they were just plain “cruel!”.
In respect of the claim relating to the use of soap, Dr Dingle gave evidence that this had in fact occurred Dr Dingle stated that the deceased told him that, “Francine said I can get rid of the blockage if I can put some – have an enema and put some velvet soap …”. He said that he assisted with the insertion of the soap and that it caused pain. Dr Dingle was moved to tears when he described the suffering of his wife at that time.
Inquest into the death of Penelope DINGLE page 54.
According to Mrs Scrayen she did discuss velvet soap with the deceased as a “home remedy”. She said that she had been told by a childhood nurse that if a child would not pass a stool regularly soft soap could be used as “a lubricant for the anus”41.
In the context of the above evidence I am satisfied that velvet soap was used to attempt to remove the blockage in fact created by the tumour at the instigation of Mrs Scrayen.
Without going through all of the claims made by the deceased in respect of the “treatment” given to her by Mrs Scrayen, the accounts of the deceased were regularly supported by the objective evidence as to the events which occurred and by the evidence of various other witnesses as to what was being said by her at the time. I do not accept the denials of Mrs Scrayen.
A further claim made by the deceased in her letter of 29 November 2004, which was extensively supported by her diaries, was that Mrs Scrayen had illustrated using “exciting stories” her capacity to get successful results in treating cancer and other serious conditions.
41 t.1138
Inquest into the death of Penelope DINGLE page 55.
In respect of these “stories” a number of the accounts contained in the diary were put to Mrs Scrayen at the inquest and essentially it appeared that all of the stories were ones told by Mrs Scrayen to the deceased, although Mrs Scrayen described the stories in different terms to those in the deceased’s diary and in her letter.
Again I accept the account of the deceased to the extent that it is clear that Mrs Scrayen did tell her a number of stories and it is difficult to see why these stories would have been told if the purpose had not been to encourage the deceased to place reliance on her homeopathic cures.
COMMENTS IN RELATION TO MRS SCRAYEN’S INVOLVEMENT
It is clear that over a period of time Mrs Scrayen’s relationship with the deceased changed and particularly after her diagnosis with rectal cancer that relationship went far beyond what would normally be expected of a health professional/patient relationship.
Mrs Scrayen’s explanation in respect of the increased number of contacts was that she was a dedicated professional and that more and more regular contacts were necessary so that she could change her treatment plan to accommodate changes in the deceased’s condition. Inquest into the death of Penelope DINGLE page 56.
In my view the relationship between Mrs Scrayen and the deceased was not a healthy one. The deceased clearly became more and more dependent on Mrs Scrayen.
The events which followed highlight the dangers associated with persons relying on non-science based alternative treatments and the importance of placing reliance on reliable information.
I should, however, record that by purporting to treat the deceased’s cancer and, for example, suggesting that she insert velvet soap Mrs Scrayen was not acting in accordance with the Australian Homeopathic Association Code of Professional Conduct. It was recognised by Sylvia Neubacher, who gave evidence about homeopathic practices in Australia, that a non-medically qualified practitioner should not claim that he or she could treat, cure or prevent cancer. The use of soap, was not a recognised homeopathic practice as described.
Chemotherapy, radiation and surgical procedures in this type of context are never an attractive option even when they are manifestly the best option available. In that context it was particularly important that any decisions should be based on the available reliable and accurate information and statistics, unfortunately it appears that Mrs Scrayen provided the deceased with false hope and
Inquest into the death of Penelope DINGLE page 57.
provided a much more attractive non-scientific based treatment plan.
The unhealthy reliance placed on Mrs Scrayen’s homeopathic “cures” by the deceased and her husband, Dr Dingle, who appears to have been very much involved in the decision-making process, resulted in a tragic series of events and the deceased suffering extreme uncontrolled pain over an extended period of time at a level not normally experienced in societies where there is access to modern medical treatment. During the period of the deceased’s treatment by Mrs Scrayen her cancer developed rapidly and at the time she was taken to Fremantle Hospital for an emergency procedure, tragically it was too late for her to be saved.
It was submitted on behalf of Mrs Scrayen that her evidence should be accepted to the effect that she was not told that the deceased would die reasonably soon if she did not have the operation recommended by Professor Platell. It was noted that her evidence was that if she had been told about the advice that Professor Platell and Dr Barnes had given to the deceased (namely that she would die if she did not have the operation reasonably soon), she would have advised the deceased to follow Professor Platell’s advice without delay.
Inquest into the death of Penelope DINGLE page 58.
Considerable reliance is placed on the fact that as the deceased was not available to give evidence in respect of the matter, the only direct evidence in relation to what was said during the many consultation was that of Mrs Scrayen.
I do not accept the above contention. While I accept that in the absence of the deceased it cannot be established with precision what was said during the consultations. I am convinced that Mrs Scrayen was well aware of the situation. I make the observation that having observed Mrs Scrayen give evidence I did not consider her to be a witness of the truth in respect of these matters.
Mrs Scrayen had over 100 consultations with the deceased in the period leading up to the emergency operation. Mrs Scrayen knew that the deceased had bowel cancer and must have known that she was experiencing great pain.
The deceased’s diary entries are supported by the evidence of all other observers of her to the effect that she experienced gross unmanaged pain in the period prior to the operation which she could not adequately conceal. I do not accept that over the vast number of interactions between them, even though a number of these were over the telephone, Mrs Scrayen could have been in any doubt as to what was happening.
Inquest into the death of Penelope DINGLE page 59.
It was submitted that, “it was not incumbent on Mrs Scrayen to ascertain precisely what the content was of each treatment program that Penelope was receiving from other doctors”. In respect of that submission I observe that Mrs Scrayen is not a doctor, but was purporting to treat the deceased who she knew was very ill and in that context it was incumbent on her to find out whether the patient she was treating was receiving appropriate medical attention.
It was also submitted on behalf of Mrs Scrayen that she was unaware of the extent of the deceased’s rapid deterioration in condition between 16 September 2003 and 9 October 2003 as for some of that time Mrs Scrayen was in Sydney and the contact during that period was over the telephone and not in person.
I do not accept that submission and I am satisfied that Mrs Scrayen was well aware of the fact that during that period the deceased was desperately unwell.
In my view the deceased was extremely unwell prior to 16 September 2003 and that fact was known to Mrs Scrayen. Her own notes contain multiple references to the deceased suffering pain during the period in question and during the very many telephone conversations which took place I am satisfied that the situation must have been made very clear.
Inquest into the death of Penelope DINGLE page 60.
Other witnesses who saw the deceased during this period describe her in such pain that she could not have concealed the fact of her deteriorating condition from Mrs Scrayen even if she had wished to do so.
INVOLVEMENT OF DR PETER DINGLE
In the context of the present case where the deceased suffered a great deal of unnecessary pain and did not take steps to have her aggressive cancer treated, an obvious question which arose related to the involvement or lack of it of her partner, later husband, Mr Dr Dingle.
The failure on the part of the deceased to take advantage of the treatment recommended by Professor Platell was particularly concerning in the context of the fact that the deceased’s husband, Dr Dingle, is an Associate Professor at Murdoch University and a part-time speaker who has written books and regularly gave talks and presentations on health and wellness. In particular it appeared that Dr Dingle regularly gave presentations in respect of what was described as the “Dingle Deal” in which the “Deal” stood for diet, environment, attitude and lifestyle42.
42 t.86
Inquest into the death of Penelope DINGLE page 61.
A book written by Dr Dingle which appears to have been self-published in 2004 was, The Deal for Happier, Healthier, Smarter Kids; a 21st Century Survival Guide for Parents, which contained a number of references to appropriate approaches to health complaints, including cancer.
It appeared, however, that Dr Dingle had no qualifications relating to “health and wellness”, he had commenced a course in clinical nutrition but had never sat an examination in the subject. He had received a Bachelor of Education which had initially been a graduate diploma, from Rushton College, Victoria, following which he had completed one year full time at Murdoch University studying science which together with his credits resulted in his being given a Bachelor of Science. He subsequently completed an Honours Degree at Murdoch University based on a research project into pesticides exposure and then a research PhD, the subject for which was into indoor air quality, with a strong focus on formaldehyde43.
Dr Dingle met the deceased in about 1989 and they formed a close friendship which developed into a relationship and the deceased moved into Dr Dingle’s home.

43 t.589
Inquest into the death of Penelope DINGLE page 62.

According to Dr Dingle, although he knew that the deceased had had different issues with her bowels over a period of years, he was not aware that in 2001 and throughout 2002 she was suffering from rectal bleeding, pain and altered bowel actions.
This was surprising as it appeared from Mrs Scrayen’s notes of her consultations that the deceased regularly complained of these conditions during that period and they must have been troubling for her.
At the inquest Dr Dingle appeared to wish to distance himself from knowledge of Francine Scrayen and he initially claimed that he did not know of her until after the deceased’s cancer had been diagnosed in 2003. In a statement provided to the Coroner’s Court dated 5 June 201044 Dr Dingle claimed that in the first week after the diagnosis of cancer he had booked the deceased in to see Dr Ivy Bullen and talked with her about having the operation. He claimed that, “At this stage I did not know about Francine”.
It appeared, however, that Dr Dingle was aware of Mrs Scrayen prior to the diagnosis of the cancer and indeed consulted with her in a personal capacity on 8 May 2001 and 5 October 2001. These two attendances related to
44 Exhibit 3 at para 16

Inquest into the death of Penelope DINGLE page 63.
Logged
Steine kann man nicht essen!

Omegafant

  • Boltbender
  • Jr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 851
Re: Das Sterben der Penelope Dingle (nee Brown)
« Reply #6 on: April 05, 2012, 11:57:20 PM »

fertility treatment at a time when the deceased and Dr Dingle were eager to have children.
When questioned about the consultations and his claim of lack of knowledge of Mrs Scrayen, Dr Dingle stated that he had forgotten about his earlier contacts with Mrs Scrayen.
Documentation relating to Dr Dingle’s visits to Mrs Scrayen in 2001 were received in evidence45 and these revealed that Dr Dingle had participated in lengthy consultations during which he had provided Mrs Scrayen with very detailed personal information.
In my view, particularly in the context of the events which took place in 2003, Dr Dingle is unlikely to have forgotten about his earlier contacts with Mrs Scrayen and I do not accept that he had entirely forgotten two lengthy consultations in 2001.
It is noted that by the time of the deceased’s examination by Professor Platell on 27 February 2003 she had visited Mrs Scrayen on at least 26 occasions and possibly more than 32 occasions46.
45 Exhibit 13
46 Exhibits 22 and 20
Inquest into the death of Penelope DINGLE page 64.
It is difficult to believe that Dr Dingle could have been unaware of the fact that his partner had been visiting Mrs Scrayen over that period.
Dr Dingle stated that within weeks of the deceased being diagnosed with cancer he became aware that Mrs Scrayen was treating her for her cancer. He said that he was initially not concerned that she was seeing Mrs Scrayen for cancer treatment, he said, “I didn’t know anything about homeopathy. I didn’t know any – and I still don’t”47.
Again this claimed ignorance of homeopathy is difficult to accept in a context where Dr Dingle had seen Mrs Scrayen for homeopathy treatment on two occasions himself in 2001. The visits cost Dr Dingle $85 and $4548 respectively and presumably he had some idea about the service he was paying for.
Questioned about his response to the advice that Mrs Scrayen was treating his wife’s cancer the following exchange took place49 -
47tT.600
48 See exhibit 13
49 t.600
Inquest into the death of Penelope DINGLE page 65.
“No, but your wife told you that she – well, you found out she had cancer and she told you she was seeing Francine Scrayen to treat the cancer? - - - Yep.
Well, did you ask her what she was? - - - I did. Well, like during that time I asked her on numerous occasions what she was and Pen on occasion said that Francine was miraculous, marvellous and can cure cancer and has cured cancer.
Did you understand she was a homeopath? - - - At that stage, yes, I did”.
Dr Dingle was asked about the treatment which Mrs Scrayen was providing and the following exchange took place50 -
“Right at the beginning, when you found out about the cancer and you found about - - -? - - - Yes.
- - - Francine Scrayen, the homeopathy involved in treating her for cancer - - - ? - - - Yes.
At that stage, did you find out what precisely Francine Scrayen was giving her? - - - No, I didn’t”.
In the context that Dr Dingle was an academic who routinely conducted research he was asked about any investigations which he might have made and the following exchange took place51 -
“Why didn’t you make some sort of inquiries to find out it wasn’t full of toxic substances? - - - Because it hadn’t occurred to me to look for toxic substances in anything that was being prescribed to Pen by a practitioner.
Why not? It’s not as though she’s a registered medical practitioner. She’s a homeopath about which you said you knew almost nothing? - - - Yes. She went and got them from a – we got those from a pharmacist, or from Francine during the time, so I have no reason to believe that there would be anything toxic in them.
Because you had total trust I Francine? - - - No, not at all. I didn’t.
50 t.601
51 t.603
Inquest into the death of Penelope DINGLE page 66.
Well why not find out what they were, then, if some of them came from Francine? - - - Yes.
Why not find out what they were? - - - I don’t know, your Honour

So what was she receiving from Francine in the way of medications, if I can use that term? Were there a number of different tablets? - - - Yes, there were.
A lot of different tablets? - - - At one stage we probably had 20, 30 bottles. Sorry. I would suggest even more of those”.
Dr Dingle was asked a number of questions about the response of the deceased and himself to the diagnosis of cancer and the advice of Professor Platell and he stated that following advice that the deceased should have surgery they considered various options.
Dr Dingle was asked why other options were even considered and the following exchange took place52 -
“What I am wondering is, why look at any other options? You’d had the advice of an expert consultant surgeon? - - - Correct.
Didn’t you think that his advice was the obvious option? - - - I think there are many modalities that we can use to help us in looking after our health and wellbeing, and that one - - -
That’s – in respect of a tumour growing, as in this case, did you not consider that you should just take the advice of the surgeon? - - - At that early stage we had considered and, as far as I understood in the beginning, we were going to have surgery. Pen considered having surgery in that first part”.
While Dr Dingle claimed that in the early stages following the diagnosis and advice of Professor Platell the possibility of surgery had not been excluded by the deceased
52 t.608
Inquest into the death of Penelope DINGLE page 67.
and himself, he stated that, “chemotherapy and radiotherapy was never an option for Pen”53. He said that this was the deceased’s view, but also stated that he did not believe in chemotherapy and radiotherapy in all cancers54.
Dr Dingle subsequently stated that he was not supportive of chemotherapy or radiotherapy for the deceased55.
During the period when the deceased was considering a number of different “options”, it would appear that Dr Dingle was conducting some research into the various alternatives which she might consider. Although Dr Dingle claimed in his evidence that he was too busy to devote much time to this research, it would appear that he did research the internet and obtained some publications relating to the deceased’s cancer, particularly focused on alternative forms of treatment.
As discussed earlier in these reasons Dr Dingle wrote on Murdoch University letterhead a letter provided by the deceased to Professor Platell asking that a CAT scan not be undertaken but that an MRI be used in April 2003.
In a letter to Professor Platell dated 9 April 2003 the deceased wrote that –
53 t.609
54 t.610
55 t.611
Inquest into the death of Penelope DINGLE page 68.
“During the interval since we last spoke I have decided to treat my disease from a wholistic perspective suing a multifaceted approach. My program incorporates strict dietary modifications, supplemental nutrition and sweeping lifestyle and attitude changes. My husband is a Phd researcher with a toxicological and clinical nutrition background and he has been investigating the latest research into alternatives via comprehensive searches of scientific journal data bases and through discussions with cancer specialists here and interstate”.
Although this letter purported to come from the deceased and Dr Dingle, Dr Dingle claimed in his evidence that the extent of any research he was conducting was very limited and he was not involved in writing the letter.
It is clear, however, that Dr Dingle did conduct some research into alternative forms of treatment and referred his wife to medical practitioners who offered alternative treatments.
During 2003 it became clear to Dr Dingle that his wife was rejecting other forms of treatment and ultimately decided against having surgery as recommended by Professor Platell.
Dr Dingle stated that the deceased repeatedly told him that Mrs Scrayen was convinced that she could cure cancer and that, “This was a great opportunity to do something great”56. According to Dr Dingle, Mrs Scrayen’s advice on the pain issue was that, “Most of it was in Pen’s mind and that Pen could control the pain with her mind”57. Dr Dingle
56 t.620
57 t.620
Inquest into the death of Penelope DINGLE page 69.
stated that the deceased told him about these matters repeatedly in the period before the emergency procedure of 12 October 2003.
Asked about what happened when the deceased was not taking appropriate pain killing medications, he stated that she would tell him that Mrs Scrayen’s advice was that such medications would interfere with the homeopathics and that she needed to be able to identify all of the symptoms58.
Dr Dingle stated that the relationship between Mrs Scrayen and his wife was an unusual one and when asked about that relationship the following exchange took place59 -
“What about it made you think it was an unusual relationship? - - - The frequency of telephone calls and conversations, the – well, the reluctance of Pen to accept anything else, other than what had been run past. So there was a total dependency on everything from Francine”.
In spite of his knowledge about Mrs Scrayen’s homeopathic treatments and the fact that his wife was rejecting the advice of medical practitioners and was seriously ill Dr Dingle was a party to misleading her family members and not letting them know she was suffering from cancer until 24 August 2003 and he and the deceased continued to provide a united front to outsiders. Dr Dingle
58 t.621
59 t.623
Inquest into the death of Penelope DINGLE page 70.
also purchased many of the homeopathic remedies for his wife particularly when she was too ill to do so herself.
The deceased would have been physically unable to continue with Mrs Scrayen’s regime of treatments for as long as she did without Dr Dingle’s support for what was going on and it is likely that without his involvement, third party intervention would have occurred much sooner.
CONCLUSIONS AS TO THE INVOLVEMENT OF DR DINGLE
Dr Dingle was clearly a forceful personality who could have been a strong advocate for acceptance of the advice of Professor Platell, but unfortunately had a background and interest in health and wellness which included a history of criticism of mainstream medical practice. Dr Dingle was particularly outspoken in his criticism of chemotherapy, even making highly critical comments of the attitude of mainstream oncologists in his book published in 2004, after the deceased was known to be dying of her cancer and prior to her death.
In evidence Dr Dingle claimed to have a very poor memory of the latter part of 2003 and to not be able to recall important events during that period. I do not accept these claims of memory loss. While I accept that Dr Dingle was distressed through much of that time, I do not believe the claims of extensive memory loss as a result.
Inquest into the death of Penelope DINGLE page 71.
While Dr Dingle did not initially oppose the deceased having surgery for her cancer, I accept that he did conduct research into alternative forms of treatment which provided the deceased with mixed messages as to the appropriate action which she should take. Later he appeared to have become caught up in the situation and did not take positive action to introduce outside help, separate his wife from Mrs Scrayen’s influence or otherwise act to save his wife from the terrible pain which she was suffering or from inevitable death.
After her diagnosis with cancer it appears that Dr Dingle did embark on treating the deceased with aspects of the “Dingle Deal”, namely dietary advice, provision of supplements and the use of positive thinking and goal setting. Some aspects of this treatment (such as taking magnesium supplements) extended right through to her emergency surgery in October. While the evidence revealed that the deceased lost a great amount of weight prior to the surgery and in that context dietary limitations were unfortunate, it appeared that the deceased received dietary advice from others as well as Dr Dingle including Mrs Scrayen and the source of some of the dietary restrictions was unclear.
Dr Dingle was asked why he did not intervene in a robust fashion at a time when he appreciated that the deceased was relying on homeopathic treatments on a

Inquest into the death of Penelope DINGLE page 72.

number of occasions and the following exchange summarises much of his evidence in that regard60 -
“Just so I properly understand this, Dr Dingle, do I understand that you yourself started to get deluded by what was going on, that you started to believe that perhaps what Francine Scrayen was saying, you were hearing through your wife, was in fact achieving a result? - - - Correct, your Honour. Penelope would say things and I would say yes and I would also say, you know – I mean, I really remember very little, except that those communications with Pen about the – you know, what Pen thought about the treatment and was happening.
Right. You were helping with what was going on by providing her with the materials and so on that Mrs Scrayen had asked that she take? - - - I would collect them. On some occasions, I would go to the chemist and get something, yes.
Right. Is it the case that you became so involved in it and wrapped up in it that you were starting to believe in it or is the case – well, perhaps put in another way, you say that you – now, sitting here, you clearly appreciate that the treatment wasn’t being successful and that Penelope was, unfortunately, just going downhill at the time? - - - Mm.
Is that something you appreciated then? - - - I appreciate that now.
Right? - - - It’s so easy to see now. When I look at it, when I think I was in then - - -
Right? - - - I wasn’t even – while I was seeing deterioration – you know, I can remember seeing Pen deteriorate, but when I think about what I was doing and seeing, it was almost very – it was different. It was almost a dream or a nightmare in a lot of that, a dream or a different state of being. I can’t understand it or explain it”.
Dr Dingle was asked a number of questions in relation to the research which he did conduct and it appears that much of the research focused on non-science based or poorly researched non-peer assessed writings.
Dr Dingle placed considerable reliance on what was described as the “Moss Report” at the inquest. It appears that the author, Ralph Moss PhD, has available on the internet access to a number of sites dealing with various

60 t.770-771
Inquest into the death of Penelope DINGLE page 73.

Logged
Steine kann man nicht essen!

Omegafant

  • Boltbender
  • Jr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 851
Re: Das Sterben der Penelope Dingle (nee Brown)
« Reply #7 on: April 05, 2012, 11:58:18 PM »

medical conditions, the relevant one being “the Moss Reports Rectum”61. This report had been downloaded by Dr Dingle at considerable cost and was repeatedly referred to by him in his evidence. This report was reviewed by Dr Guy Van Hazel, Clinical Professor School of Medicine and Pharmacology, University of Western Australia, who expressed the view that much of the report was, “Basically a – what seems to be an advertisement for alternative medicine”62.
Professor Van Hazel went on to state that the report was both unreliable and out of date as well as being full of factual errors63.
Professor Van Hazel was asked about Dr Dingle’s writing and in particular a claim in his book The Deal for Happier, Healthier, Smarter Kids, that cancer is largely untreatable and that rates of cancer and death from cancer continue to increase despite “The billions of dollars injected into treating the illness”. Professor Van Hazel was able to refer to available statistics which revealed that death rates for breast cancer, colon cancer and other forms of cancer had decreased significantly. Importantly in the context of rectal cancer, survival rates had improved substantially over the period of 1982 to 1998, based on a 5 year survival period.
61 exhibit 12
62 t.1077
63 t.1077-1078
Inquest into the death of Penelope DINGLE page 74.
In respect of Dr Dingle’s writings critical of chemotherapy and radiotherapy, he also advised that the comments were incorrect and confused the situation in which those treatments are given.
It appears that until her death the deceased and Dr Dingle cared for each other and shortly before her death the deceased married Dr Dingle. After her surgery in 2003 when the deceased realised that her failure to accept Dr Platell’s advice had cost her her chances for life, the deceased was highly critical of Mrs Scrayen whom she blamed for misleading her, but she did not similarly blame Dr Dingle.
It appears that Dr Dingle was a victim of his own misinformation and did not take the positive actions which would normally be expected of a person in his position to save a loved one from herself. Dr Dingle, himself, described his position in words which I accept as accurate as follows64-
But I am human and open to mistakes and the catastrophe that happened around Francines treatment was perhaps the biggest mistake I will ever make in my life. That is easy to see in hindsight but not so easy when you’re in it and don’t know what is going on.
64 exhibit 3, para 67
Inquest into the death of Penelope DINGLE page 75.
WAS THERE A PACT?
Jennifer Komberger, a friend of the deceased gave evidence of a conversation which she said took place with the deceased in Fremantle Hospital after her surgery to the following effect –
She asked if I would ever forgive her and Peter for what they had done. She said that she and Peter had been so foolish to gamble with her life. She then related to me that the three of them – herself, Peter Dingle and Francine Scrayen had indeed made a pact, a deal: After Pen was cured of cancer by Francine Scrayen, Peter would write the book that would champion, make famous their, their combined success. They were both deeply disturbed at the horrible truth they now had to face – the possibility that Penelope might not survive this monstrous experiment.
While I accept that Ms Kornberger was reliable witness and that this conversation did take place, other evidence at the inquest did not provide a basis for a finding that such a pact did exist and the evidence of Dr Dingle and Mrs Scrayen was to the effect that no pact as such was ever made.
In this context I also note that the deceased’s very extensive diaries do not record any such pact being entered into.
The deceased’s condition did vary and her pain levels went up and down. At the times when her condition appeared better and her pain levels were relatively low I accept that all three of the involved persons may have become relatively optimistic and there may have been talk of Inquest into the death of Penelope DINGLE page 76.
writing up their “success” in the event that the deceased survived her cancer. I do not, however, consider that there was a concluded plan to that effect.
THE INVOLVEMENT OF DR WILLIAM BARNES
Dr Barnes is and was a medical practitioner, registered in the State of Western Australia. His practice involves seeing people with chronic illness, particularly people suffering from cancer. He agreed with the proposition that he had a nutritional medicine focus in his treatment.
His biography on his website stated that his primary interest was in researching and developing non-toxic therapies for cancer.
The deceased saw Dr Barnes who was recommended to her by her husband. At the time Dr Barnes and Dr Dingle were acquaintances.
Dr Barnes told the deceased she should have surgery and he accurately explained the problematic implication of her MRI scan to her.
It is clear also, however, that he offered her intravenous vitamin C treatment and carnivora or venous flytrap treatment which he told her could slow the growth of
Inquest into the death of Penelope DINGLE page 77.
her tumour. Carnivora is a phytonutrient (herbal) extract of the venous flytrap plant Dionaea Muscipula.
On every occasion when the deceased visited Dr Barnes, Dr Dingle accompanied her. She first visited Dr Barnes on 9 April 2003 at which time the deceased stated that she did not wish to have surgery and did not wish to lose her uterus. It was in that context, according to Dr Barnes, that he suggested to her a less radical surgical option. He suggested that she have a CT scan of her abdomen and return to Dr Platell to discuss such an option with him.
The deceased returned to see Dr Barnes on 12 April 2003. On this occasion she advised him that she had had a further appointment with Dr Platell who had offered a less radical surgical option.
On 15 April 2003 the deceased returned and stated that she did not wish to proceed with surgery, chemotherapy or radiotherapy.
In his notes Dr Barnes recorded, “Peter not wanting to do it now. Have as last resort”. In his evidence he explained that Dr Dingle had made the statement that they did not want surgery to go ahead at that point in time.
Inquest into the death of Penelope DINGLE page 78.
Dr Barnes recommended a plan which would involve the deceased receiving intravenous carnivora followed by a break and then receiving oral carnivora. He state that carnivora would have been given together with vitamin C.
In evidence Dr Barnes stated that carnivora was an expensive treatment and adding the cost of vitamin C, the total cost would have been around $500 per week.
According to Dr Barnes he believed that carnivora together with vitamin C could stop the tumour growing and this is what he told the deceased at the time65. He claimed there is evidence to support the claim that each of these substances has the potential stop a tumour growing and provided articles which he claimed were to that effect66.
In respect to the use of carnivora, oncologist Dr Van Hazel stated, “There’s never been any reliable evidence that such treatment slows the growth of cancer”67.
Dr Van Hazel expressed the opinion that the use of carnivora in these circumstances was “completely unreasonable” because68 “… we live in an age where we have proven treatments, and to suddenly use treatments which have no proof of evidence at all is unconscionable”.
65 t.418-419
66 exhibits 18 and 25
67 t.1066
68 t.1066
Inquest into the death of Penelope DINGLE page 79.
In respect to vitamin C treatment Dr Van Hazel commented –
Vitamin C has been extensively investigated since Linus Pauling, as you will remember, your Honour, was a Nobel Laureate and he pushed vitamin C. It has been studied with two large studies at the Mayo Clinic in the USA. Both studies show that there was absolutely no evidence of efficacy, and the second study was done specifically with coloreactal cancer, and there was no improvement in quality of life, length of life, shrinkage of tumour, anything you care to measure with vitamin C.
On 16 April 2003 the deceased signed an agreement with Dr Barnes as a treating physician which purported to be part of the “Special Access Scheme” which allowed importation and administration of therapies not currently registered as therapeutic substances in Australia. This agreement related to the proposed carnivora treatment.
The agreement provided that “these therapies” may be administered to a patient suffering a terminal illness and recorded that the law required the patient to sign an agreement/waiver releasing Dr Barnes of any responsibility if the therapy caused any unforeseen ill effects.
On 18 April 2003 the deceased contacted Dr Barnes by telephone and advised that she was not proceeding with any part of the treatment he had offered her. She stated that she wished to continue with classical homeopathy and that this would be a stand alone therapy. According to Dr Barnes she reiterated that she did not wish to proceed with the conventional therapy on offer.
Inquest into the death of Penelope DINGLE page 80.
On 22 May 2003 the deceased came to see Dr Barnes after one month on a cancer diet and homeopathy prescribed by her homeopath.
She reported to Dr Barnes that she felt better and her bowel motions had improved.
The deceased again stated that her decision was not to proceed with surgery despite being told by her surgeon that she would die reasonably soon without it. She stated that she had confidence in the homeopathic approach. The deceased had lost weight and now weighed only 48.2kgs, but was not showing signs of obvious distress.
On 17 June 2003 the deceased again saw Dr Barnes. On this occasion he recorded that she had pain in the buttock region and aching around and in the vagina. At that stage she was saying that she had a lot of pain but was, “Taking a homeopathic journey to the next stage”69.
Dr Barnes stated in evidence that he was concerned about her deterioration and suggested that she see her surgeon again, however, she was convinced by her homeopath that she was healing and wanted to continue on her regime. She felt that Dr Barnes was being negative and trying to undermine the effectiveness of her treatment.
69 Notes of Dr Barnes tab 58 volume 5
Inquest into the death of Penelope DINGLE page 81.
The reference to a recommendation to see her surgeon was not contained in the notes made by Dr Barnes at the time.
Although Dr Barnes recorded the deceased telling him that she was using homeopathy to treat her cancer his notes do not record him giving the deceased any advice about whether this was likely to be effective.
The deceased wrote a letter to Dr Barnes dated 11 October 200470 in which she referred to a conversation between Dr Barnes and herself which she said took place in November 2003 during which she claimed Dr Barnes said that he should have found a way to tell her that homeopathics were not going to help her but that he had been “frightened of scaring me off” had he “taken a hard line”.
Dr Barnes was asked about this in evidence and the following exchange took place –
But there’s nothing in your notes to suggest you told her that homeopathy wasn’t going to help her, and there’s nothing in your statement to suggest that you told her that homeopathy wasn’t going to help her. Are you coming here now and saying that, in fact, you did tell her that despite the fact that you didn’t put it either in your notes or in the statement you prepared for the inquest? - - - Well, I told her to have surgery.
I under that, but did you tell her that the homeopathy was not going to be effective for her? - - - I can’t recall.

70 t.460
Inquest into the death of Penelope DINGLE page 82.

I accept the deceased’s claim that Dr Barnes did not tell her that using homeopathic medication to treat her cancer was likely to be ineffective.
Dr Barnes prescribed a number of supplements for the deceased in March 2003 and the Rener Health Centres standardised document he used contained a section for the prescription of “Homeopathic Drops”.
In May 2004 his practice used a similar sheet to record a number of alternative substances prescribed for the deceased. This sheet was headed “Dr William H Barnes” with his qualifications and contact details and the bottom section was headed “Homeo Drops”. The deceased was in fact prescribed homeopathic medications by a nurse working for Dr Barnes in July 2004, and these are recorded in this section of the sheet as well as in the progress notes.
It appears, therefore, that Dr Barnes was supportive of homeopathy treatments, at least in some circumstances, and this may explain why he may not have been more assertive in making it clear that homeopathy was not going to help her.
Dr Barnes saw the deceased again on 28 June 2003 but made very few notes of that consultation. He stated, however, that he probably would have spent about

Inquest into the death of Penelope DINGLE page 83.

Logged
Steine kann man nicht essen!

Omegafant

  • Boltbender
  • Jr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 851
Re: Das Sterben der Penelope Dingle (nee Brown)
« Reply #8 on: April 05, 2012, 11:59:01 PM »

45 minutes with her but did not have an independent memory of the consultation. In particular the notes made no mention of taking a history, of any examination, of weighing the deceased or of suggesting surgery or suggesting further monitoring of her condition.
Dr Barnes had no further contacts with the deceased prior to her emergency surgery of 12 October 2003. The deceased consulted him on 4 November 2003 post surgery, at which stage her weight was 42kgs. She was extremely thin and weak.
She had at that stage consented to have radiotherapy to her abdomen and pelvis together with a six month course of chemotherapy.
The deceased wanted Dr Barnes’ assistance to improve her health and strengthen her immune system.
Dr Barnes agreed to provide adjunctive nutritional therapy which comprised intravenous vitamin C and vitamin B with carnivora. In addition the deceased received intra-muscular mistletoe as well as other alternative remedies. Dr Barnes continued to give the deceased intensive and complicated treatment in late 2003 and through most of 2004 at a cost in the order of $30,000. In the opinion of Professor Van Hazel this treatment was of no benefit to her condition.

Inquest into the death of Penelope DINGLE page 84.

When the deceased saw Dr Barnes in 2003 a clear message was needed from all medical practitioners she consulted that immediate action was required and any delays in undergoing surgery could be fatal.
While Dr Barnes did recommend surgery his suggestion that carnivora and vitamin C treatments could stop the tumour growing may have undermined the clear message which Professor Platell was intending to convey to the deceased.
While I do not intend to review the literature relating to carnivora or vitamin C treatments in these reasons, in my view when the deceased saw Dr Barnes her chances of survival were likely to diminish quickly and dramatically the longer she delayed taking Professor Platell’s advice. This was not a time for unproven treatments and any suggestion that these treatments could halt or delay cancer growth and that there could be any further unnecessary delay in implementing Professor Platell’s advice was most unfortunate.
DR IGOR TABRIZIAN
The deceased attended Dr Tabrizian’s clinic, known as Nutritional Review Service, on three occasions. On each of these occasions she was accompanied by Dr Dingle. At the
Inquest into the death of Penelope DINGLE page 85.
time Dr Tabrizian was a general practitioner who specialised in counselling for diet and nutrition.
Dr Tabrizian made brief and very inadequate notes of the visits.
Dr Tabrizian was an acquaintance of Dr Dingle’s and had first met the deceased through him in 2002. Dr Tabrizian was the author of a book Nutritional Medicine Fact or Fiction (2002)71.
The first visit was on 15 April 2003. According to Dr Tabrizian the deceased was “coordinating a multitude of doctors and natural therapists in order to create an “eclectic” treatment schedule for herself. On each occasion her wish was to discuss nutritional strategies for her cancer”72.
Dr Tabrizian’s notes refer to the tumour described by the deceased and Dr Dingle as being 8.5 cm wide and 55 mm up from the anal verge. The notes contain a reference to “97g”, which Dr Tabrizian explained as being a recording of his calculation of the weight of the tumour which he “based on the average density of human tissue”73.
71 exhibit 24
72 Tab 21 of volume 1
73 t.223
Inquest into the death of Penelope DINGLE page 86.
According to Dr Tabrizian the deceased and Dr Dingle said that they were not planning on an operation and were going to rely on “juices” and “medication”. The reference to the “juices” and “medication” did not appear in Dr Tabrizian’s notes and there was no reference to his advising that the deceased should undergo an operation.
Dr Tabrizian’s notes for that date refer to a number of tests for vitamin D, vitamin C, calcium and selenium which he claimed he was of the view that the deceased should undertake with a view to adjuvant treatment after surgery but were refused.
On the next attendance, which took place on 8 July 2003, the only the entry in Dr Tabrizian’s notes was “discussed supplement”.
According to Dr Tabrizian during this consultation he reiterated the benefits of having the surgery but the discussion was “extremely exacerbating” as the deceased did not accept his suggestion.
On 22 August 2003 the deceased again saw Dr Tabrizian and on this occasion he recorded, “real pain 1300, 1600, 2100, 0200, 5mg tramadol”.
Inquest into the death of Penelope DINGLE page 87.
According to Dr Tabrizian the deceased was experiencing peaks of pain at the times recorded in his notes and he offered her the tramadol as an analgesia for the pain.
Although the deceased did not attend for another consultation, according to Dr Tabrizian in August 2003 Dr Dingle contacted him by telephone to say to that the tramadol was giving good pain relief, but constipation was an issue. This conversation was recorded in a note made by the receptionist at his practice, but was not dated. Dr Tabrizian had written on the note, “probably late August 2003”, according to him at a time when he was trying to “put it in a timeframe”74.
On 10 October 2003 Dr Tabrizian received the telephone call from Mrs Coombes referred to earlier in these reasons after which he faxed through a referral to the Silver Chain Service. According to Dr Tabrizian he received the telephone call when he was seeing another patient and although he made some notes of the conversation on scrap paper he did not retain those notes. He did not retain a hard copy of the Silver Chain referral on his file.
Dr Tabrizian’s letter addressed to Urgent Hospice Referral recorded that, “She has declined standard medical
74 t.232
Inquest into the death of Penelope DINGLE page 88.
treatment so far and wishes to be nursed at home. So far her husband has been able to look after her, but at this point she has several problems which cannot be solved”. The problems listed by Dr Tabrizian included “Constipation merging into bowel obstruction”75.
It would appear from notes maintained by the deceased that she consulted with Dr Tabrizian so that he would provide nutritional medical approach to cancer. In a letter written in 2004 by the deceased in which she was applying for access to the “Gonzales Program” she wrote that, “Dr Tabrizian does my hair analysis, reviews my nutrition and tweaks my supplements accordingly”.
On the occasions when he saw the deceased although he knew she was very ill Dr Tabrizian did not request access to the colonoscopy results or the MRI scan. He did not take a detailed history or examine the deceased, or even suggest adequate monitoring. He did not ask questions about which other doctors she was seeing, request any information from them or make any efforts to contact them so that there could be a united front encouraging the deceased to take appropriate medical intervention.
Although he did tell the deceased to have surgery on at least one occasion, in April 2003, there is no independent evidence which would indicate that he repeated that advice.
75 Volume 7 tab 63
Inquest into the death of Penelope DINGLE page 89.
Dr Tabrizian has published books disparaging of the medical professional generally and the conventional approach to cancer treatment in particular and he wrote a glowing reference on the back of Dr Dingle’s book referred to earlier herein, The Deal for Happier, Healthier, Smarter Kids, a book which contains a chapter which is disparaging about conventional medical approaches to cancer.
Dr Tabrizian does not appear to have been acting as a doctor normally would and I have some difficulty understanding in what capacity Dr Tabrizian considered he was seeing the deceased. While I accept that Dr Tabrizian was surprised by the deceased’s decision to not have surgery, his failure to assess her condition is difficult to reconcile with his responsibilities as a doctor.
CONCLUSION
The deceased died from complications of metastatic rectal cancer on 25 August 2005.
In my view the deceased’s rectal cancer was present and causing bleeding and other symptoms from at least 31 October 2001. During the period 31 October 2001 until at least the end of November 2002, the deceased regularly described the symptoms of her rectal cancer to a homeopath, Francine Scrayen. It was not until
Inquest into the death of Penelope DINGLE page 90.
November 2002 that Mrs Scrayen and the deceased discussed the possibility of reporting her rectal bleeding to a medical practitioner and it was not until 5 December 2002 that she first reported those problems to a doctor.
I accept that Mrs Scrayen believed that the deceased had suffered from haemorrhoids years earlier and the bleeding and pain was “an old symptom coming back”, but a competent health professional would have been alarmed by the developing symptoms and would have strongly advised that appropriate medical investigations be conducted without delay.
Mrs Scrayen was not a competent health professional. I accept that Mrs Scrayen had minimal understanding of relevant health issues, unfortunately that did not prevent her from treating the deceased as a patient.
During that period of approximately 12 months, I am convinced that the deceased’s cancer developed and spread. At that relatively early stage it is clear from the evidence from Professor Platell that the deceased stood a good chance of surviving had the cancer been diagnosed and had she consented to having appropriate mainstream medical treatment.
Clearly if the cancer had been diagnosed earlier it is likely that the appropriate response may have been less Inquest into the death of Penelope DINGLE page 91.
invasive and the deceased may not have been so reluctant to undergo a proposed treatment plan, particularly if it did not involve chemotherapy or radiotherapy or impact on her fertility.
On 25 February 2003 the deceased had a colonoscopy which confirmed a rectal tumour. She was referred to Professor Cameron Platell by Dr Trevor Claridge on 27 February 2003.
Professor Platell examined the deceased on 27 February 2003 and discussed with her the findings of the colonoscopy and biopsy. He advised that if the cancer was localised to just the rectal area she should have a course of adjunctive pre-operative chemotherapy and radiotherapy, followed by surgery to remove the cancer and reconstruct the bowel.
The advice given by Professor Platell was excellent and the quality of care which he offered to the deceased was of the highest order.
Unfortunately the deceased did not accept the treatment plan offered by Professor Platell.
In respect of pre-operative chemotherapy and radiotherapy the deceased, together with her partner

Inquest into the death of Penelope DINGLE page 92.

Dr Dingle, who I am convinced was an active contributor to the decision making process, were reluctant from the outset. In the case of the deceased her reluctance to undergo chemotherapy and radiotherapy resulted, at least in part, from the fact that Professor Platell had explained that such treatment would remove the possibility of her being able to have children in the future, something she very much wanted. In the case of Dr Dingle I am convinced that he was opposed to chemotherapy because of a past unfortunate experience in his own life and had for some time, and continued to have, a generally negative view of that form of treatment.
Initially after receiving the advice about the cancer the deceased and Dr Dingle were open to the possibility of surgical intervention, although they both looked into the possibility of alternative treatments.
In May 2003 the deceased underwent an MRI scan and on 14 May 2003 Professor Platell reviewed her condition in the context of a report on that scan. At that stage Professor Platell believed that the MRI did not clearly demonstrate a metastatic pattern and there was, for example, no tumour spread to the liver. At that stage Professor Platell still believed that the deceased had a realistic chance to survive her cancer and wished to look at a curative approach to her management.

Inquest into the death of Penelope DINGLE page 93.
Logged
Steine kann man nicht essen!

Omegafant

  • Boltbender
  • Jr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 851
Re: Das Sterben der Penelope Dingle (nee Brown)
« Reply #9 on: April 05, 2012, 11:59:38 PM »

Sadly in the period April and May 2003 it appears that the deceased decided to reject the mainstream treatment offered by Professor Platell and turned to homeopathic remedies offered by Mrs Scrayen. I am satisfied that Mrs Scrayen did convince the deceased that the homeopathy treatment which she was providing could provide a cure for her cancer.
In the months of April, May and June 2003 the deceased became increasingly reliant on Mrs Scrayen and by July 2003 she was in contact with her almost every single day. By this stage the relationship between the deceased and Mrs Scrayen had gone far beyond a normal patient/health provider relationship and the deceased had become increasingly dependent on Mrs Scrayen.
Dr Dingle, as the deceased’s partner, would normally have been expected to have intervened at some stage by either bringing in outside help from the deceased’s family or others or by acting to contain the relationship between Mrs Scrayen and the deceased. Unfortunately he did not do so.
It appears that Dr Dingle had previously consulted Mrs Scrayen for homeopathic treatment himself and as someone who had previously been very critical of mainstream medical practice, he was more reluctant to
Inquest into the death of Penelope DINGLE page 94.
intervene than would have been expected of a normal loving partner. Dr Dingle, in fact, became actively involved in the application of Mrs Scrayen’s treatment regime by purchasing homeopathic remedies and isolating the deceased from outside intervention and the deceased could not have continued on the path of stand alone homeopathic treatment for as long as she did without his involvement.
The deceased’s condition continued to deteriorate over July, August and September 2003 until by October 2003 she was close to death. At that stage she was suffering from a complete bowel obstruction and when she was finally taken to Fremantle Hospital on 12 October 2003 she would have been unlikely to have survived for more than 24 hours without surgery.
In spite of extreme surgery of the highest quality performed on 12 October 2003 by Professor Platell, it was not possible to remove all of the cancer and so the procedure was essentially a palliative operation, in that there was still residual tumour left in the pelvis.
After the surgery the deceased recovered to a significant extent, but the cancer was too advanced and on 25 August 2005 caused her death.
While the cause of death, rectal cancer, was a natural cause, the deceased’s life might have been saved if she had
Inquest into the death of Penelope DINGLE page 95.
made different choices. As time passed from 31 October 2001, when she was reporting blood in her stool to Mrs Scrayen, until 12 October 2003, when she was taken to Fremantle Hospital and received emergency surgery, the deceased’s cancer developed and spread and her chances of survival diminished from very good to being non-existent.
Apart from receiving limited and inadequate pain relief the deceased did not receive any medical treatment from a mainstream medical practitioner over the latter part of this period and relied on the treatments provided by Mrs Scrayen. Mrs Scrayen’s influence on the deceased played a major part in her decision making which contributed to the loss. Dr Dingle, her partner, insofar as he supported and assisted with Mrs Scrayen’s treatments and kept the deceased away from outside influences, contributed to that loss of a chance of survival. Ultimately, however, the decisions were those of the deceased, sadly those decisions were to a large extent based on misinformation.
During the period in 2003 while the deceased was relying on the treatment provided by Mrs Scrayen, not only did she lose whatever chances of life she had, she suffered extreme and unnecessary pain. Evidence at the inquest was to the effect that had surgery been performed earlier much of that gross pain would have been avoided.
Inquest into the death of Penelope DINGLE page 96.
This situation was made even worse by the fact that Mrs Scrayen’s advice to the deceased was that she should avoid or take a minimum of pain reducing medications. The deceased accepted this advice and only reluctantly used minimal analgesia.
I find that the death arose by way of natural causes but in the circumstances described above.
COMMENTS ON PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY ISSUES
The Coroners Act 1996 provides that a coroner may comment on any matter connected with the death including public health or safety or the administration of justice (section 25). The Act also provides that a coroner may refer evidence to a disciplinary body (section 50) or may report to the Director of Public Prosecutions or the Commissioner of Police if the coroner believes that an indictable or simple offence has been committed in connection with a death (section 27(5)).
There is no power for a Coroner to report a breach of the Fair Trading Act 1987 to the Fair Trading Commissioner as suggested in the submissions filed on behalf of the deceased’s family. In any event the focus of the inquest has not been on any contraventions of the Fair Trading Act 1987, but rather the circumstances surrounding the death
Inquest into the death of Penelope DINGLE page 97.
and I do not consider that it is a function of a coroner to explore possible breaches of such Acts.
INFORMED CONSENT
This case has highlighted the importance of patients suffering from cancer making informed, sound decisions in relation to their treatment. In this case the deceased paid a terrible price for poor decision making.
Unfortunately the deceased was surrounded by misinformation and poor science. Although her treating surgeon and mainstream general practitioner provided clear and reliable information, she received mixed messages from a number of different sources which caused her to initially delay necessary surgery and ultimately decide not to have surgery until it was too late.
ALTERNATIVE MEDICINE PRACTITIONERS
In her decision making the deceased placed great reliance on Mrs Scrayen who represented to her that she could treat cancer by homeopathy. While I accept the evidence of Sylvia Neubacher to the effect that making such a representation went beyond the Australian Homeopathic Association Code of Conduct and that the Association has attempted to provide accountable structures to ensure that Inquest into the death of Penelope DINGLE page 98.
homeopathic practitioners are qualified and have medical and professional standards which would provide a safeguard to consumers, I have serious reservations about any efforts to register or otherwise legitimise homeopathy or other similar alternative forms of medicine.
While I do not agree with the proposition that such alternative medical regimes should be outlawed, unless and until their supporters can provide appropriate and sufficient science base, any apparent legitimisation of these regimes could provide mixed messages for vulnerable and often desperate cancer suffers.
Evidence at the inquest revealed that homeopathic remedies are sold in pharmacies in Western Australia and homeopathic practitioners, such as Mrs Scrayen, have affiliation with private health insurance companies.
In a context where health costs are increasing at an alarming rate and private health insurance companies struggle to meet the full costs of procedures, medications and hospital beds, it is a matter of concern that funds which could be allocated to such fundamental health needs are being allocated to non-science based alternative medicine practitioners.
Inquest into the death of Penelope DINGLE page 99.
Recommendation No. 1
I recommend that the Commonwealth and State Departments of Health review the legislative framework relating to complimentary and alternative medicine practitioners and practices with a view to ensuring that there are no mixed messages provided to vulnerable patients and that science based medicine and alternative medicine are treated differently.
MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS PROVIDING COMPLIMENTARY AND ALTERNATIVE MEDICINE
In this case the choice for the deceased should have been a simple one between accepting the surgical option offered by Professor Platell or facing a painful death. That choice was made more difficult because the deceased was offered other “alternatives”.
Inquest into the death of Penelope DINGLE page 100.
While doctors Barnes and Tabrizian both made it clear to the deceased that they favoured her undergoing surgery, both offered alternative treatments which added to the confusion of the situation.
It is noted that the Medical Board of Western Australia has prepared a draft document titled Complementary Alternative and Conventional Medicine which provides guidance to medical practitioners in relation to when they may recommend unproved or experimental treatments. It is important that this document be finalised, if this has not already been done, and communicated to medical practitioners.
Recommendation No. 2
I recommend that the Medical Board of Western Australia finalise its document Complementary Alternative and Unconventional Medicine if it has not already done so and take steps to ensure that the document is promulgated to the profession and complied with.
Inquest into the death of Penelope DINGLE page 101.
REFERENCE TO A DISCIPLINARY BODY – SECTION 50 OF THE CORONERS ACT 1996
Section 50 of the Coroners Act 1996 provides that –
(1) A coroner may refer any evidence, information or matter which comes to the coroner’s notice in carrying out the coroner’s duties to a body having jurisdiction over a person carrying on a trade or professional if the evidence, information or matter –
(a) touches on the conduct of that person in relation to that trade or professional; and
(b) is, in the opinion of the coroner, of such a nature as might lead the body to inquire into or take any other step in respect of the conduct apparently disclosed by the evidence, information or matter so referred.
In this case it has been submitted that consideration should be given to a reference to the Medical Board of Western Australia in respect of the conduct of doctors William Barnes and Igor Tabrizian.
It is clear from the above section that there are a wide range of circumstances which could justify a coroner making such a referral and it is not necessary for a coroner to conclude that the actions of the person in question have caused or contributed to the death.
In this case neither Dr Barnes nor Dr Tabrizian caused or contributed to the death. I am satisfied that both doctors recommended that the deceased undergo surgery and that her decision to reject mainstream treatment until it was too late did not result from any advice or action on the part of Inquest into the death of Penelope DINGLE page 102.
either doctor. I do, however, consider it appropriate to review the evidence received relating to the actions of the two doctors concerned in the context of the wideranging provisions of section 50 of the Act.
Dr William Barnes
As indicated in these reasons it is matter of concern that Dr Barnes offered the deceased intravenous carnivora and vitamin C treatment in circumstances where she was suffering from an aggressive form of cancer and required surgery. I am particularly concerned that Dr Barnes told the deceased that these treatments had the potential to stop her tumour growing.
I note that while Dr Barnes provided the court with articles which he claimed supported his approach, Oncologist Dr Van Hazel stated, “There has never been any reliable evidence that such treatment slows the growth of cancer”76.
Even if there was some evidence that carnivora and vitamin C could have some effect on tumour growth in certain circumstances, I consider it most unfortunate that such relatively unproven treatments were recommended at a time when proven treatments could have been used and were urgently required.
76 t.1066
Inquest into the death of Penelope DINGLE page 103.
While it was not explored in any detail at the inquest, I am also concerned by the fact that Dr Barnes’ medical practice provided and prescribed homeopathic medications.
In the context of the above evidence I do propose to refer evidence relating to Dr Barnes to the Medical Board of Western Australia.
Dr Igor Tabrizian
In the case of Dr Tabrizian I am satisfied that he did provide the deceased with at least some nutritional advice and may have performed hair analysis as claimed by her.
I am concerned that Dr Tabrizian saw the deceased, an extremely unwell patient, and did not take adequate notes of the attendances. I am particularly concerned that Dr Tabrizian does not appear to have requested access to the deceased’s colonoscopy results or MRI scan. He did not take a detailed history from her or examine her or even suggest adequate monitoring. He did not ask questions about other doctors whom she may have been seeing or make efforts to contact them.
As stated earlier in these reasons, I am concerned that Dr Tabrizian does not appear to have been acting as a doctor normally would in his treatment of the deceased and
Inquest into the death of Penelope DINGLE page 104.
I have some difficulty understanding in what capacity he considered that he was seeing her.
I note that Dr Tabrizian has published books disparaging of mainstream medical practice and particularly of the conventional approach to cancer treatment and that he wrote a reference on the back of Dr Dingle’s book which contained a chapter disparaging about conventional medical approaches to cancer.
In the context of Dr Tabrizian’s known views, his failure to examine the deceased when she visited him is concerning.
In the above context I do propose to refer evidence relating to the conduct of Dr Tabrizian to the Medical Board of Western Australia.

A N HOPE
STATE CORONER

30 July 2010
Inquest into the death of Penelope DINGLE page 105.
[*/quote*]


Logged
Steine kann man nicht essen!

Omegafant

  • Boltbender
  • Jr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 851
Re: Das Sterben der Penelope Dingle (nee Brown)
« Reply #10 on: April 06, 2012, 12:36:15 AM »

Im Krebsforum-Lazarus.ch wurden einige Fundstücke zusammengetragen. Ich übernehme von dort:


http://www.krebsforum-lazarus.ch/board5-pressemeldungen/337-skandal-in-australien-penelope-dingle-ist-tot-und-ihr-homoeopath-will-einen-blogger-verklagen-der-darueber-schreibt/

[*quote*]
Skandal in Australien: Penelope Dingle ist tot, und ihr Homöopath will einen Blogger verklagen, der darüber schreibt

Penelope Dingle schreibt über ihr Sterben, und über ihre Homöopathin Francine Scrayen, die daran schuld ist:
http://www.abc.net.au/austory/content/2011/s3260776.htm

Hier ist eine EInleitung in das Thema:
http://steelclaws.wordpress.com/

Francine Scrayen, schuld am Tod von Penelope Dingle, bedroht Blogger:
http://www.danbuzzard.net/journal/francine-scrayen-sends-me-a-cease-and-desist.html

Die Schwester der verstorbenen Penelope will ebenfalls die Homöopathin verklagen:
http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/breaking/13310801/woman-sues-homeopath-over-sisters-cancer-death/

Der Ehemann der Toten redet über "Erhaltung der Gesundheit", was für eine Farce:
http://www.drdingle.com/

Der Ehemann Peter Dingle gibt erschreckendes zu Protokoll:
http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/newshome/7404663/cancer-treatments-of-no-benefit-to-my-wife/
[*/quote*]


Ist der Bericht des Gerichtsmediziners schon eine einzige Anklage, so ist das, was man dort an erschreckenden Details liest, trotzdem nur die Spitze des Eisbergs!
Logged
Steine kann man nicht essen!

Omegafant

  • Boltbender
  • Jr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 851
Re: Das Sterben der Penelope Dingle (nee Brown)
« Reply #11 on: April 06, 2012, 12:44:15 AM »

Wäre Penelope Dingle gleich nach der Krebsdiagnose behandelt worden, hätte sie nennenswerte Chancen zum Überleben gehabt. 

Als Penelope Dingle erkannte, daß sie von ihrer Homöopathie betrogen worden war, war es bereits zu spät. Es ging nur noch um die Tage oder Wochen, die ihr noch blieben.


Penelope Dingle schrieb eine erschütternde Bilanz. Sie hatte, wie im Berichts des Gerichtsmediziners vermerkt, ständig Notizen gemacht. Die Abrechnung mit der Homöopathin wurde im Internet veröffentlicht, aber nicht von Penelope Dingle selbst oder von ihrem Ehemann, auch nicht von ihren Geschwistern, sondern von einem Sender. Auch dies gehört zu den Dingen, die leicht übersehen werden, und die übersehen wurden.


http://www.abc.net.au/austory/content/2011/s3260776.htm

[*QUOTE*]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Penelope Dingle's Letters To Francine Scrayen
 
Broadcast Times

Australian Story is televised on Mondays at 8.00 pm, and repeated on Saturdays at 12.30 pm, on ABC1
11/07/2011

WITHOUT PREJUDICE I WRITE YOU THIS LETTER


November 29 2004

Dear Francine

This is Penelope Brown writing.

As you can see from the date below, the following letter was written some time ago. I have waited to see if you would contact me. But I have waited in vain. So be it.


March 27 2004

Dear Francine

This is a letter about accountability and responsibility. Things that are missing altogether in your attitude towards to me. The tone of your card makes this quite clear. You make no reference to the matter that you are accountable as a professional for the fact that your treatment protocol failed after you told me you could cure me.

I am sincerely disappointed that three quarters of your card is spent justifying why I have heard nothing from you. And I am astounded that you think I may be interested in hearing that you were upset with me. I quote: “It was really upsetting to me to hear you have been upset with me as much as you are, because…”

What happened during the 7 months you treated me for cancer is very serious.

You appear to feel excused from making any effort towards me. You write:
"…so for me it would all depend on you if there was any future contact. And this is still the way I feel about it today.”

And do not think that these next lines absolve you.
“I wish you all the best in the world, and I am really sorry I haven’t been able to give you that.”

You write – “First of all it is so good to hear you are doing well!”
As you have made no effort to find out the truth for yourself, and as I am the only source of information that is reliable, it is time you were apprised of the facts.

Perhaps, you may then even contemplate apologising.

Fact
My prognosis is very poor. Statistically, I am not expected to live more than 2 – 4 years. With the sort of metastatic spread I had during your treatment, and the fact that more lymphs were affected, I am not expected to survive for long.

Fact
The MRI scan taken in April 2003 was read accurately by the surgeon Cameron Platell, and the consulting GP.
It was read inaccurately by you.
The lymphs you informed me were simply overworked were already cancerous. The ovary you informed me was swollen due to another cyst was also cancerous. At this point, my uterus and second ovary were healthy and unaffected. I presume you remember - you examined the scans yourself.

Fact
I have had to have a total hysterectomy. You know this because I informed you during one of the conversations we had while I was in hospital, although your card makes no mention of it.
I am now going through early onset menopause.
I can never bear children.
You are responsible for this outcome.
Considering the fact that my original treatment with you was aimed at getting me a pregnancy, and taking into account your assurances that I would fall pregnant and have a healthy child after my cancer was cured, this is all the more grievous and shocking.

Fact
During the 7 months you treated me exclusively, the tumour grew in size to 10cms long and 8 cms wide and my uterus, second ovary and more lymphs became cancerous. Because of the size of the tumour, it was no longer possible for the surgeon to perform a complete resection. As a result, I have a margin at the sacral bone of only 1mm, and very close margins in the pelvis. In cases like mine, there is a 70% - 80% likelihood that metastatic spread will reoccur.

Fact
In the end, the tumour completely blocked my bowel.
Two litres of faecal matter had built up, causing that area of my bowel to stretch to 3 times its normal size. The surgeon said it was at breaking point like a big “balloon”.

Fact
Had I performed the enema you instructed me to do, the surgeon told me it would have split my bowel. Had this happened, in my weakened state it would have been unlikely I could have survived the massive infection that would have ensued.
The surgeon said “if your bowel had split, you would have died. I could not have saved you.”
I’d like you to ponder this.

Fact
Had I waited another 48 hours as you instructed me, for the remedy to work and “for the stop to go,” I would have died. The surgeon said I could not have survived another 48 hours, which means I would have died on Monday October 13, 2003.
Ponder on this too.

Fact
Due to my severely weakened state and huge weight loss, it was not known if surgery was still possible.I am extremely lucky it was.

Fact
When I was admitted to hospital, the surgeon told me I was severely dehydrated and severely malnourished and that I was already dying of malnutrition.
I religiously followed your nutritional protocol and your advice about water intake.
I weighed, once the fecal matter was removed, just 38 kilograms.
When you saw me several days before I admitted myself to hospital, I said, ‘Look at me, I’m just skin and bones.’
Your only remark was, ‘you’ll put it all back on again.’

Fact
The surgeon had to ‘wash’ out the fecal matter while I was on the table during the operation. Due to this, there was a risk of infection and due to the massive surgery, a high risk of postoperative complications. I have been informed I am extremely lucky there weren’t. Had there been, my recovery would have been extremely slow.

Fact
The surgery was so massive and my condition so weakened I was told my convalescence would take one year.

Fact
I am very lucky that the surgeon was able to save my anus, and that I am not on a permanent colostomy bag. As it is, because the tumour had grown, he had to remove the ‘reservoir’ in my bowl, and this means I do not have complete control of my excretory functions. In other words, I regularly defecate into my underwear. It will take five years before this condition is rectified.
I am very lucky the surgeon did not have to remove my bladder, and that I do not have a permanent urostomy.
I am very lucky my vagina was not cancerous.
All these organs were situated close by to the spread, and it was expected they too would be affected.
I understood these things were likely as they prepped me for my operation, and had no way of knowing until I awoke from surgery, whether or not I may be permanently disabled.

Fact
The pain I endured for 5 months was not mostly “between my ears” as you regularly informed me.
I have since learned it is well known medically that rectal cancer is the most painful cancer you can get. It is also extremely difficult to control the pain or to palliate. If it returns and localises in the rectal area, it is generally believed that there can be no quality of life due to pain and the pain can be agonising.
Having been through 5 months of such pain under your care, I know this to be true.

Fact
During my 18 day hospital stay, I endured excruciating pain. I was assigned a team of pain specialists, but they were unable to control it, even with massive doses of painkillers. This was due to a medical condition that occurs when a person has suffered chronic pain for any lengthy period.

Fact
By enduring 24-hour pain for 5 months, I ran a very high risk of permanent damage to my nerves, and this would have meant significant, incurable pain for the rest of my life.
I am extremely lucky that this did not occur.

You told me many stories about your husband and his over-reaction to pain. As I was also an Aries, you advised me that like him, I over-reacted to pain. You gave me a 5-dollar note with the word ‘phantom’ written on it. You told me that my pain was a ‘phantom’ product of my imagination. You described your own experience with sciatica and informed me that until I had experienced the sort of pain you’d had then, I would not know what real pain was.
The majority of my pain, you informed me, was in my own mind.

You saw me sobbing with pain during our contacts.
One night, after my bowel obstructed, I called because I could not stand the agony, and your professional advice was ‘go take a bath.’ I endured over 120 hours of agony, before I went against your advisement, used morphine and got myself to hospital in an ambulance.
During the months you treated me, the hot water bottles you encouraged me to use as my main method of pain control burned my skin and ruptured my blood vessels. But my pain was so severe, it felt like relief. My entire coccyx area is blue and purple.

Fact
You waited about 12 months, trying to treat me, before you suggested I have my internal bleeding diagnosed.
I have since learned that any sort of internal bleeding must be investigated immediately, as it can be a sign that something is seriously wrong. As an alternative health practitioner you should have known this and acted accordingly.

Fact
When I first began internal bleeding (ie bleeding from the anus) it is probable I would have been 90% curable by surgical resection alone.

Fact
I have suffered some of the worst depression I have ever experienced during the past 6 months.

Some more Facts
In March 2003, I had signed on with and paid a doctor, intending to follow his protocol for 6 weeks, and then have my progress assessed with another MRI. If things were not working, under his advisement, I was to consider surgery again. As you were aware, homeopathy was only one of many alternative methods I intended to use.
But, you told me,
“I shouldn’t be saying this to you. I’m going out on a limb. But classical homeopathy will cure you.”
You told me, however, that I must use the homeopathy alone, or you would be unable to prescribe your treatment accurately. You told me Dr Barnes’s protocol would interfere with the homeopathy, as would the intravenous Vitamin C, I was having. As would painkillers. Even our suggestions of other treatments such as massage, chiropractic, reflexology, herbalists and other protocols to run concurrently etc. were rejected by you. You also prescribed the diet I was to follow.
I believed you and cancelled all my other treatments. Unlike you, the other practitioners never said they could cure me.
If you had said homeopathy might give me a cure and it might not, that it was impossible to tell, do you really think I would have risked your protocol? I would not have. I would have considered homeopathy as a support therapy only, as I had originally intended.
Logged
Steine kann man nicht essen!

Omegafant

  • Boltbender
  • Jr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 851
Re: Das Sterben der Penelope Dingle (nee Brown)
« Reply #12 on: April 06, 2012, 12:46:58 AM »

Another Fact
You told me I was not to check my progress with MRI’s or scans while under your care because tests such as these were likely to undermine my ‘positive thinking.’
You told me to wait until after Christmas 2004 before getting another MRI done.
Had I had my progress responsibly monitored whilst undergoing your treatment, I would have seen metastasis was occurring and known not to continue.
As it was, I trusted your professional assessment that all was going well, right until the very end when I disobeyed you for the first time in 7 months and admitted myself to hospital. In doing so, I saved my life.

Another Fact
You told me, “you have no idea what part you are playing, do you?”
After some time, you eventually told me a psychic of extremely high calibre had informed you that a patient would come to you with cancer who would completely commit to you to be cured using classical homeopathy alone. You would treat this patient and cure them of cancer. In this way, classical homeopathy would be recognised and its cause advanced in Australia. You told me that I was this patient. And that this was my special role. You also said Peter would be instrumental in discovering some kind of cancer cure. This is very manipulative.

Another Fact
If you are vague about any of these facts, I kept detailed and accurate diaries in which I’ve also recorded hundreds of our conversations. You told me I would be writing a book. Therefore, I faithfully wrote everything down.

Where is Your Science? Where is Your Clinical Evidence?
You advised me to perform various procedures that caused me intense physical pain. When I told you my pain was too great to continue some of these treatments, you insisted I must continue them for your protocol to work.
For Example:
Getting me to inject olive oil into my anus once a day.
Getting me to insert plugs of velvet soap into my rectum so that “the stop would go”, when my bowel was completely blocked by the tumour. When I questioned the validity of this procedure, you advised me it was necessary.
When I told the surgeon about these treatments he said they were just plain “cruel!”

Don’t Forget
You were against medical pain control.
As a result I endured ongoing agonising pain. You limited my pain control because you said medical pain relief interfered with your ability to prescribe your homeopathics.
When I was suffering acute spasms due to the tumour blocking my bowel, you heard me screaming with pain during several consultations and did not suggest pain control or medical intervention.
In fact you suggested the enema that would have split my bowel and killed me.

Remember This
When the Silver Chain nursing staff advised an immediate injection of morphine to control my pain you told me in a phone consult not to have the injection. I spent 5 days in acute agony with a blocked bowel without any pain relief.

Listen to This
I have spent the past six months not only dealing with the fact I’ll never have children and dealing with the symptoms of sudden onset menopause, not only reeling from what is now a poor prognosis, plus recovering from a massive operation, I also feel utterly emotionally shattered from our relationship. Devastated. There are no words to express this.
Suffice it to say I am suffering on all accounts and that this suffering has at times felt beyond my endurance. Never before have I felt these sorts of emotions.

To top it all Off
It is sad, isn’t it, that the very reason I consulted you in the first place was to get help falling pregnant. And due to you, I’ve had to have a hysterectomy.

How Dare You
I am shocked to my very bones by the contents of your card. It is full of nothingness. I could not believe what I was reading. What On Earth Are You Thinking?
I felt ashamed for you.
Actions speak louder than words. You told me numerous stories illustrating your moral behaviour when the chips were down. Well, the chips are down. And I do not think much of your behaviour.

A little Question for you to Consider
Do you think you did anything wrong?

And Another One
Do you think you Let Me Down both as a friend and as a patient?

One More
I have great concerns about your ability to treat other patients with cancer. Have you told any of your cancer patients that as a direct result of your treatment I was dying of cancer and malnutrition?

Finally
Am I angry with you? You bet I am.

Making it Clear
You are responsible for your advice as a practitioner.
As your patient I trusted and followed your professional advice and you were negligent in your duty of care.

Now you have the facts. Let’s see if you can take care of them.


Yours truly,


Penelope.


Nov 29 2004

IN ADDITION

This letter has been written with complete attention to the facts, with honesty, and out of the utter conviction that you need to hear what I have to say.

I must now address the fact that you have not apologised. Nor assumed any responsibility, despite the terrible consequences of your treatments.
You know me to have a forgiving nature when I am placed in a position to forgive. But acts of injustice and cowardice I abhor.

On October 12 2003, just prior to my operation, I phoned you from emergency.
You said ‘If you have the operation, you know I will not be able to continue treating you.’
You patently tried to dissuade me from having the surgery.
My sister Toni was with me in emergency and I repeated this to her.
She was horrified that you would professionally advise me to reject the operation when I obviously had to have it.
I cannot believe it myself!
From a clinical perspective, what was your reasoning? Upon what physical symptoms did you base your assumption that the operation was unnecessary?
I would like this question answered, please.

During one of the first phone calls we had after my operation, you said to me. ‘Penelope, I did not get you to sign a release form.’
I remember getting off the phone and thinking, ‘she is afraid.’
Your behaviour towards my sister Toni when she spoke to you in the hospital car park confirmed my feelings.

I remember I was uncomfortable and upset after several phone calls you made to me in hospital. I didn’t like the odd quality of your calls, and questioned you - ‘What is the matter? Are you afraid of me? What is it you want from me?’
It was then you said that you felt it would be better if you did not call me and that you would wait until I called you.
And this is what you hid behind for six months until you sent me that shameful card.

Whilst family and friends rallied to help while I went through a helpless and difficult convalescence, where were you?
For six months, no word came. Not a bunch of flowers. Not a note. Not the tiniest glimpse of kindness or concern.
Friends were cooking meals and delivering them, helping Peter with housework, running errands, nursing me, reading to me and keeping me company as I lay unable to care for myself.
You, who had prescribed my treatment and were instrumental in all were nowhere to be seen.

Why?

Why, when you told me while I was lying in my hospital bed, that it was imperative I take particular remedies directly after my operation to protect me against metastasis, did you bring my pills to the hospital, visit with me, holding my hand whilst my sister held my other hand, and then keep the so-called vital pills in your handbag and leave without giving them to me?
When I got Peter to search for them – on my hospital cabinet - in my hospital cabinet - hadn’t Francine given them to him? Was he sure? - they were nowhere to be seen.
Why?
When I phoned you, you told me you thought it was best that you didn’t give them to me infront of my sister.
Did you fear my sister?
You told me I was to order the appropriate pills from the pharmacy. At this point it hurt me even to hold the phone and I was unable to do anything unattended. But you set Peter and I this little task. When I asked if the pills were commonly available you said they may need to be ordered in.
That meant I would have to wait at least 4 – 7 days or get Peter to drive all the way out to you to pick them up.
Why, when you told me I must take the remedies as soon as possible, was your fear about my sister seeing you pass me the remedy, more important to you than my health?
You had been prescribing to me for 2 years, more or less, so I ask you, look at your behaviour and ask yourself from where was it born - love of me?
Concern for your patient as a health practitioner?
Or simply cowardice and self-preservation?
When my sister confronted you in the hospital car park I was shocked at your answers to her. You refused to meet my family and discuss with them fairly what had happened to me.

Why?

It is a moral act to stand by what you believe is right. To stand up for what you have followed and informed others is correct and pure.

You had been willing to believe in your protocol and its ability to cure me to the very last. Even in the final hours before emergency surgery you bade me continue with your protocol or all would be lost.
It was I who refused your directive to wait 48 more hours for the ‘stop to go’, and so saved my own life.
You still believed up to that point in all you were doing.

So ask yourself, why did you run from the opportunity to stand by what you believed in?

Unless you were afraid…

When my sister requested you meet with my family, where was your courage then? Courage I believed you had…. During the course of two years of consultations you had told me many ‘teaching’ stories illustrating facets of your own character – stories from your childhood, stories from your professional life and stories from your family. These stories concerned your ability to resist kudos and temptation in order to observe a strict moral code and do what was fair and right. Stories full of your morality and courage.

As I see it, the Francine I met in your stories would have faced two choices.
1) To either stand strong against criticism and anger, believing that what she had done professionally was right and good;
or,
2) to stand and admit fault and culpability.

You did neither.

You chose a third way.

You ran away into silence.

During your six months of silence and then in that single card, you have revealed more to me about your moral self than your stories ever did.
I have seen utter cowardice and immorality in your behaviour toward me, one whom you called friend and encouraged to trust you in all ways.

You will say – ‘What of yourself? Do you take no responsibility?’

In the following ways, I do:

I considered you completely trustworthy as a health professional and as a friend and I trusted that you knew what you were doing

I believed you when you illustrated, via exciting stories, your capacity to get successful results in treating cancer

I believed you when you told me you could cure me

I believed you when you told me that I was getting well

I believed you when you told me I was a ‘medical miracle’

I believed you when you told me that pain, no matter how awful, was part of my ‘healing process’

On your advice, I did not take adequate pain relief

I allowed you to persuade me to perform painful and demeaning procedures in the hope that the healing benefits you promised me would be their outcome

I followed your advice that I should not have any form of medical monitoring until January/February 2004, after which time you said your treatments would have cured me

So that my positive frame of mind was not undermined I followed your advice that I should not consult with medical personnel unless they approved of your protocol and what you were doing

I followed your advice to use homeopathy

I believed you when you said you would not allow an emergency situation to arise and relied on you to let me know when and if an operation might be necessary

I followed your advice to put off telling family and friends about my condition in case their ‘fears’ undermined my positive frame of mind

I believed you when you said, ‘now that you have chosen homeopathy, you know there is no turning back. It is you against the world’

I followed advice you gave that isolated me from family, friends and the medical establishment


I take responsibility for placing my trust in a health professional who was not trustworthy.

I am ready to speak. The question remains, are you ready to listen?

If you do not respond to this letter within two weeks of receiving it, I will be contacting you.


I remain sincerely,


Penelope Brown



I believed your friend, the ‘psychic’ and I believed your own ‘psychic’ premonitions about my health unquestioningly when you used it to dictate your line of treatment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[*/QUOTE*]


Unterschrieben ist der Brief mit "Penelope Brown". Erst kurz vor ihrem Tod hat Penelope Brown Peter Dingle geheiratet und ihren Namen geändert.

Auch dies ist bedeutsamer als den bisherigen Kritikern des Geschehens bewußt ist.

Logged
Steine kann man nicht essen!

Omegafant

  • Boltbender
  • Jr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 851
Re: Das Sterben der Penelope Dingle (nee Brown)
« Reply #13 on: April 06, 2012, 12:55:50 AM »

Penelope Brown war krank und für eine Behandlung war es längst zu spät. Warum heiratet sie dann noch? Warum nimmt sie den Namen Dingle an? Was hat sie davon? Nichts!

Der einzige, der davon profitieren kann, ist ihr Lebensgefährte Peter Dingle, denn als Ehemann hat er rechtlich ganz andere Möglichkeiten. Daß seine Frau sterben wird, weiß er. Für ihn ist die Ehe nur eine Sache auf Zeit.

Erstaunlicherweise ist aber weniger Peter Dingle, der Ehemann, im Visier der Kritiker, als vielmehr die Homöopathin. Angesichts der Beschreibung von Penelope Dingle ist eindeutig, daß die Homöopathin schuld am Tod der Frau ist. Aber sie ist es nicht alleine!

Obwohl die Situation so eindeutig ist, die Homöopathin ist schuld am Tod ihrer Kundin, bedroht die Homöopathin einen Blogger, der über sie berichtet. Ich übernehme das Fundstück aus dem Krebsforum-Lazarus.ch :



http://www.danbuzzard.net/journal/francine-scrayen-sends-me-a-cease-and-desist.html

[*QUOTE*]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dan's Journal of Skepticism

Francine Scrayen sends me a Cease and Desist.
Thursday, April 5, 2012 at 4:47PM

It looks like two of my previous blog posts have upset Ms Scrayen to the
point where she is willing to call in the lawyers. Of course nobody
likes such harsh criticism of their business practices, especially when
they are already surrounded by intense public scrutiny.

Ms Scrayen is so strongly opposed to my opinions and criticisms of her
that she even wants me to remove them from my blog.

http://www.danbuzzard.net/storage/legal-retract.jpg

I have no desire to publish inaccuracies and posting such a retraction
would be doing just that. My opinions and criticisms of Francine Scrayen
are based upon the facts surrounding the death of Penelope Dingle and I
am more than willing to defend them in court if need be.

Ms Scrayen may be unhappy with what I've written about her, but I will
not be removing it unless it is shown to be false. If Ms Scrayen thinks
she can silence my criticism with lawyers then she is in for some
disappointment.

I'm sure Ms Scrayen will read this so I'll make this perfectly clear.
You cannot silence legitimate criticism with lawyers. If you can prove
the Homeopathy works and is effective for treating cancer, as Penelope
Dingle was lead to believe. Then I will gladly make the necessary
corrections to maintain the accuracy of my blog. But if you want to sell
unproven medicines to vulnerable cancer patients then you can expect to
be justifiably criticised for it; especially if the patient then dies
due to your ineffective treatment.

Cease and Desist Letter.
http://www.danbuzzard.net/storage/SKMBT_60012040512550.pdf

Coroners Report
http://www.danbuzzard.net/storage/Dingle_Finding.pdf

My First post about Francine Scrayen
http://www.danbuzzard.net/journal/scammed-to-death-how-francine-scrayen-killed-penelope-dingle.html

My Second post about Francine Scrayen
http://www.danbuzzard.net/journal/homeopath-francine-scrayen-in-court-for-the-death-of-her-pat.html


Update on Thursday, April 5, 2012 at 6:48PM by Dan Buzzard

In the interest of fairness and accuracy I will be reviewing the posts
in question over the next few days. Just as I would with any other
complaint about my comments here. While I certainly don't expect to find
any inaccuracies, any that are found will be corrected as appropriate.
Corrections made (if any) will be documented for transparency.

Dan Buzzard | 13 Comments | 1 Reference | Share Article
in Free-Speech, Homeopathy, Skepticism, ten23


References (1)

References allow you to track sources for this article, as well as
articles that were written in response to this article.

--------------------------------------------------------------

Response: Ms Scrayen? Ms Streisand on Line 1
by Guy Chapman at ChapmanCentral on April 5, 2012
Francine Scrayen is probably about to find out all about the Streisand
Effect. I would refer her lawyers to the reply in Arkell v. Pressdram
(1971).
Reader Comments (13)

Surely this part of the Melbourne Comedy Festival, an Easter treat
maybe? She can't really be serious. Crazy homeopath is crazy.
April 5, 2012 | Dave

How can anyone 'cause damage to the reputation' of Ms Scrayen?
Her 'reputation' has already been totally shredded by the Coroner!
April 5, 2012 | @brendano

I'm incredulous at the actions of charlatans such as Ms Scrayen. It's
time that homeopathy was shown for what it is, and that those who
practice it be held accountable when they convince sick and vulnerable
people to trust them over proven medical treatments.
April 5, 2012 | Darren Griffin

A simple "I refer you to the response given in the case of Arkell v
Pressdram " would suffice. I particularly laugh at the "...damage my
client's reputation in the eyes of right-thinking members of the
community in general"- I would love to see this claim substantiated.
April 5, 2012 | Paul Morgan

I'd like Ms Scrayen to know I'm now aware of this case and her role
thanks to the cease and desist.
April 5, 2012 | Simon

I am a right thinking member of the community in general and I think
Francine Scrayen is full of shit.
April 5, 2012 | nik

I appreciate your point of view, but I have to tell you, you really need
a professional copy editor to go over your work before you post it. It
is full of grammar and punctuation errors, and this comes across as very
unprofessional and detracts from your message.
April 5, 2012 | Rose

Couldn't that lawyer make more money off of someone who is terrible at a
real job as opposed to being terrible at one that isn't based in
reality?
April 5, 2012 | Stu

Don't retractions usually state what's actually being retracted more
specifically than "certain statements"?
April 6, 2012 | Liam

I'm a medical professional (retired, in the US,) with many years'
experience in gastroenterology.
The account of this unfortunate woman's illness and death was horrific
to read, and I'm not sure I understand why criminal charges have not
been brought against both her husband and the homeopath. This is a
history of clearly intentionally criminal acts, gross negligence and
willful fraud. Certainly the patient herself made tragically wrong
decisions, but they were obviously based on misinformation and misplaced
trust. I hope your blog postings result in at least a review by some
authoritative board and serious consequences for the people involved.
Thank you for your reporating.
April 6, 2012 | C. Hallam

Christ on a bike! This is unbelievable!
April 6, 2012 | Catastraspie

I applaud you Dan. Don't take no guff from the swine!!

Homeopathy is a nice hobby, but it's just that. It isn't, and never
should be, a replacement for professional medical attention...

If that were the case, I would buy myself some flowers, seeds and roots,
and a pestle and mortar, and I would go earn the money of a brain
surgeon, rather than wasting those 10 or so years at university learning
how to save lives.

The woman's a con artist, plain and simple. And that goes for 'mediums'
too, that scam sad, deperate, mourning people out of their cash while
they're in a vulnerable position.

Grrrrrr.........
April 6, 2012 | Dave Crandle

Isn't it odd that someone who ferverently denies the effect of
mainstream medicine has such staunch faith in mainstream lawyers?
April 6, 2012 | One Of The Scruffies
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[*/QUOTE*]
Logged
Steine kann man nicht essen!

Omegafant

  • Boltbender
  • Jr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 851
Re: Das Sterben der Penelope Dingle (nee Brown)
« Reply #14 on: April 06, 2012, 01:02:57 AM »

Steelclaws, eine britische Bloggerin, unterstützt den von der Homöopathin angegriffenen Blogger Dan.

Wir beteiligen uns selbstverständlich am Support für Dan. Und am Support für Steelclaws. Dies ist der Text, mit dem sich das Krebsforum-Lazarus.ch hinter Dan und Steelclaws stellt:

http://steelclaws.wordpress.com/2012/04/05/who-was-penelope-dingle-and-why-what-happened-to-her-matters/

[*QUOTE*]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Who was Penelope Dingle and why what happened to her matters

Penelope Dingle was an Australian woman. She was 45 years old when she
died of colorectal cancer on 25th August 2005. Without wishing to sound
callous, people do die of cancer. What makes her case remarkable is that
she was not given any chance to survive.

At the time of her death, Penelope Dingle was being treated by homeopath
Francine Scrayen. Scrayen forbade Penelope to take even painkillers for
her extremely painful condition and was treating her with homeopathy
alone. You can read Penelope’s own words
http://www.abc.net.au/austory/content/2011/s3260776.htm
for what she went through. Penelope at last, after all that intense
suffering sought medical help, but by then it was far too late. The
coroner’s report
http://www.safetyandquality.health.wa.gov.au/docs/mortality_review/inquest_finding/Dingle_Finding.pdf
makes this clear:



<*quote*>
-----------------------------------------
Professor Platell described the pain associated with such an obstruction
as extremely severe and arising from a combination of pain from the
tumour causing blockage of the bowel, but also the tumour invading
adjacent organs. He stated that the tumour was invading the cervix, the
uterus, the left ovary and retroperitinal structures causing severe pain
and in addition there was an “incredibly distended large bowel, almost
to the point of splitting” which would cause even more severe pain.

Professor Platell explained that during the following procedure it was
necessary for him to remove the cervix and uterus as well as the ovaries
and the bowel from the pelvis as well as the fallopian tubes. The large
intestine above the blockage was completely full with between 1½ and 2
kgs of faeces which had to be washed out prior to rejoining the large
intestine.

Professor Platell was extremely disappointed as after the initial
investigations and assessments it seemed that the deceased had a
potentially curable rectal cancer which had been contained within the
rectum and was then not invading adjacent structures. He believed that
if the deceased had followed the initial treatment course she would have
had a good chance of curing her disease.

It was not possible to remove all the cancer during the surgery and so
the procedure was essentially a palliative operation, in that there was
still residual tumour left in the pelvis.
-----------------------------------------
<*/quote*>



So it is clear that Penelope’s reliance on homeopathy is directly
responsible for her cancer to have gone from potentially curable to no
longer easily treatable. What was Francine Scrayen’s part in this? This
is what the coroner’s report has to say about her conduct:



<*quote*>
-----------------------------------------
Although Mrs Scrayen stated that she had completed a first aid course
with St John Ambulance Service, she stated that it was a “very basic”
course and that her understanding of medical issues was relatively poor.

Mrs Scrayen’s records reveal very regular contact with the deceased over
2001 and 2002 and then in 2003 extremely regular contacts. During 2003,
for example, Mrs Scrayen’s notes, which the evidence indicated were not
entirely comprehensive, reveal a total of 109 different days on which
she had contact with the deceased up until mid October. In the months of
July, August, September and October she had contact with the deceased
almost every day.

In my view the number and extent of these contacts was grossly excessive
for any legitimate professional interaction and provided evidence of an
increasing unhealthy dependence of the deceased on Mrs Scrayen and her
homeopathic remedies and treatments.

In evidence Mrs Scrayen stated that she was not purporting to treat the
cancer to the exclusion of medical treatment and that there was no
reason why medical treatment and homeopathic treatment could not be
administered at the same time, except where the medical treatment might
cause the homeopathic picture to become “blurred or antidoted”. This
claim was entirely inconsistent with the account of the deceased as
recorded extensively in her diaries and contained in her unsent letter
[the one linked to above] addressed to Mrs Scrayen dated 29 November
2004.

Mrs Scrayen claimed that she did not purport to treat the deceased’s
cancer and said that she had no knowledge that the deceased had a belief
that she was advising that homeopathy could provide a cure for cancer.
I do not accept this claim by Mrs Scrayen, whom I did not generally
regard to be a witness of truth.

It is clear from the evidence of many witnesses at the inquest some of
which is detailed in these reasons that the deceased did believe that
she was being treated by homeopathy for her cancer and repeatedly said
so. In my view Mrs Scrayen could not have been in any doubt as to that
issue, particularly in the context of their multiple interactions in
relation to her treatment. In addition the fact that the deceased was
telling people at the time that Inquest into the death of Penelope
DINGLE page 47.
she was relying on homeopathy to cure her was recorded in notes written
at the time such as the Silver Chain Nurse entries referred to earlier.
-----------------------------------------
<*/quote*>


So there you have it. Scrayen was doing her level best to deny that she
had been treating Penelope’s cancer, but her denial is not believable.

And what was the verdict?


<*quote*>
-----------------------------------------
Apart from receiving limited and inadequate pain relief the deceased did
not receive any medical treatment from a mainstream medical practitioner
over the latter part of this period and relied on the treatments
provided by Mrs Scrayen. Mrs Scrayen’s influence on the deceased played
a major part in her decision making which contributed to the loss. Dr
Dingle, her partner, insofar as he supported and assisted with Mrs
Scrayen’s treatments and kept the deceased away from outside influences,
contributed to that loss of a chance of survival. Ultimately, however,
the decisions were those of the deceased, sadly those decisions were to
a large extent based on misinformation.

During the period in 2003 while the deceased was relying on the
treatment provided by Mrs Scrayen, not only did she lose whatever
chances of life she had, she suffered extreme and unnecessary pain.
Evidence at the inquest was to the effect that had surgery been
performed earlier much of that gross pain would have been avoided.

This situation was made even worse by the fact that Mrs Scrayen’s advice
to the deceased was that she should avoid or take a minimum of pain
reducing medications. The deceased accepted this advice and only
reluctantly used minimal analgesia.

I find that the death arose by way of natural causes but in the
circumstances described above.
-----------------------------------------
<*/quote*>


This is why what happened to Penelope Dingle matters: she relied on
people who had either no or very limited medical training, no diagnostic
ability or training and an unfounded belief in the treatments they used
on her. As the coroner said, she was misinformed by the very people she
trusted and on whose advice she relied on.

There are lots of people like these around: they write books, they have
slick websites where they sell their treatments, they appear on podcasts
and DVDs or YouTube clips. Don’t rely on their advice alone, ever. If
someone claims they can cure cancer, AIDS or any other life-threatening
condition with a secret or “alternative” treatment, don’t believe their
claims. Always ask for a qualified medical opinion. There is no
conspiracy out there to suppress cancer cures, that is just marketing
hype by the snake oil salesmen. And every life lost to their worthless
treatments is a life too many.

Aftermath

Penelope’s sister is now suing Francine Scrayen.
http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/breaking/13310801/woman-sues-homeopath-over-sisters-cancer-death/

Scrayen, on her part, is also involved with law, though in her case
she’s using lawyers to silence a blogger.
http://www.danbuzzard.net/journal/francine-scrayen-sends-me-a-cease-and-desist.html
The sheer gall of that woman is unbelievable! Her part in the death of
Penelope Dingle is undeniable – though she certainly tries to deny it –
and now she’s concerned about her reputation. What reputation can she
have left after the coroner’s report is beyond me.

Here’s my personal challenge to you, Ms Scrayen. Please show where
anything I’ve written in my blogpost about the case of Penelope Dingle
is in any way incorrect and does not reflect the real events. Please
have your lawyer to check it over to see if you have a case.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[*/QUOTE*]


Weitere Blogger haben sich bereits angeschlossen. Bei Steelclaws und Dan sind die entsprechenden Links und Kommentare.
Logged
Steine kann man nicht essen!

Omegafant

  • Boltbender
  • Jr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 851
Wie man eine Ehefrau stirbt: Dr. Peter Dingle und die Hypnose
« Reply #15 on: April 06, 2012, 01:12:14 AM »

Gibt es mehrere Dr. Peter Dingle oder nur einen? Wem gehören diese Domain

http://www.drdingle.com

und dieser Blog?

http://drpeterdingle.blogspot.com



Blogspot gehört zu Google und praktiziert den Nazidreck der "Geolocation". Beim Aufrufen aus einem Netzwerk mit der deutschen Landesfläche zugeordneten Providern bekommen Surfer die -de-Version vorgesetzt.

Die Domain ist registriert auf eine Firma "Dingle Presentations":

[*quote*]
Registrant Details:
  Dingle Presentations
  74B Brown Street
  East Perth, WA 6004
  AU

  Domain Name: DRDINGLE.COM

  Administrative Contact:
    Frame, Russell 
    74B Brown Street
    East Perth, WA 6004
    AU
    +61.863113600   Fax: +61.863113688

  Technical Contact:
    Frame, Russell 
    74B Brown Street
    East Perth, WA 6004
    AU
    +61.863113600   Fax: +61.863113688

  Name Server:  ns1.reseau.com.au
  Name Server:  ns2.reseau.com.au

  Registrar of Record: Enetica Pty Ltd
  Record last updated on 2011-09-14
  Record created on 2002-03-13
  Record expires on 2021-09-13
[*/quote*]

Quelle:
http://whois.domaintools.com/drdingle.com

Logged
Steine kann man nicht essen!

Omegafant

  • Boltbender
  • Jr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 851
Re: Das Sterben der Penelope Dingle (nee Brown)
« Reply #16 on: April 06, 2012, 01:19:27 AM »

Die Domain http://www.drdingle.com gehört tatsächlich dem Ehemann der Verstorbenen, einem Peter Dingle. In den Texten auf der Domain  habe ich die Frau nicht erwähnt gefunden. Allerdings taucht sie doch auf, in zwei Blogseiten, und zwar indirekt in Leserkommentaren, die sich teilweise auf Fernsehsendungen beziehen, die Peter Dingle gemacht hat oder in denen er erwähnt wurde:

http://www.drdingle.com/blog-220212/2011/6/13/dr-dingle-in-the-media.html
http://www.drdingle.com/blog-220212/2011/6/13/dr-dingle-in-the-media.html?currentPage=2


http://www.drdingle.com/blog-220212/2011/6/13/dr-dingle-in-the-media.html

[*quote*]
Home
Sustainable Health
About Dr. Dingle
Peter's Presentations
Blog
Shop
Contact
Newsletter

 
Search    

Blog Categories
add
adhd
Cancer
children
Cholestrol
Depression
diabetes
diet
drugs
heart attack
nutrition
statin drugs
Stress
Vitamin D
« what makes a good workplace wellness program | Main | Dr Dingle the Public Health Advocate »
Dr Dingle in the media
Sunday, June 12, 2011 at 11:26PM

Since 1988 Dr Peter Dingle has been a regular in the Australian media as a researcher and presenter in health and environmental issues. Peter Dingle has been a regular on current affairs programs such as Today Tonight, ACA and ABC programs like “Can we help” as well as being featured on 4 corners and the 7.30 report. Dr Peter Dingle has made so guest appearances on Sunrise, George Negus, Insight and many other programs.

Peter Dingle started out his television presentation on a channel 9 program called Grant and Cameron in 1992 where Dr Dingle appeared as a fortnightly environmental commentator on daytime TV. Most recently, Dr Dingle co presented in the award winning 7 week TV series shown on SBS and now featured around the world “Is your home killing you”.

Dr Peter Dingle has been a regular on New Zealand (TV3) TV on a program called “What’s in your food” and most recently he himself has been part of a 2 part Australian Story covered on ABC.

Dr Peter Dingle is a regular on Australian radio, news and talkback topics, and has presented a weekly segment on health research for radio programs on 94.5, 96 FM, 6PR, ABC 720.He has had some extended segments on various ABC radio programs over the years from Launceston to the Sunshine Coast and Geraldton and included weekly programs with Verity James and Peter Holland.

Dr Dingle had a 90 minute radio program called Dr D and the free radicals for 3 years at Fremantle radio until 2003. Dr Dingle is reported weekly in the national media speaking on the latest research topics of health and the environment and is seen as one of Australia’s leading public health advocates on sustainable health. As a result, Dr Dingle has been known to do more than a dozen interviews for the media in one week.

Dr Dingle has written a monthly article, based on health research topics for NOVA magazine for the past 5 years with around 300,000 readership. Dr Dingle also had a regular segment in the Western Australian paper, Mind Body Spirit section for a number of years. Dr Dingle has written dozens of articles for home, health and business magazines and has been quoted in hundreds of magazine articles around the country.

Dr Dingle’s passion, excitement and gift for sharing information exactly as it is, has made him a sought after authority on any topics of his research around health and the environment. His enthusiasm is contagious and his audience of every day ordinary Australian families continue to grow.
Dingle Presentations | 38 Comments | Share Article
tagged Dr Dingle, Peter Dingle
Reader Comments (38)

Thank you Dr Dingle for getting out there and spreading your message to the general public with such passion and energy. If only more academics followed in your footsteps!
 June 28, 2011 | Jane Genovese

Great work
 June 28, 2011 | Tj

Wonderful dedication
 June 28, 2011 | Anonymous

A lone voice in how to genuinely reform the way we eat and the way we should look after ourselves through nutrition.

This is a man that dared to speak the truth.

Peter is an outstanding Australian.
 June 28, 2011 | Ross B. Taylor

Peter Dingle has always been an inspiration to me and our team at ONEgroup (miessence). Peter has the ability to inspire, make you laugh and educate you at the same time. Thanks Peter for the work that you do.
 June 28, 2011 | Alf Orpen

Thanks for continuing to bring health information to the people of Australia - much appreciated.
Regards
Andy
 June 28, 2011 | Anonymous

Go Peter. Keep shining your light mate & love to the family.
 June 28, 2011 | Tania Ferrier

fantastisch !!
 June 28, 2011 | Tobias Titz

Great to have Peter Dingle's thoroughly researched and highly original articles on natural health appearing regularly in NOVA Magazine. Our readers respond to his passionate belief in taking responsibility for our own health, an important counterpoint to the "pop a pill for everything" viewpoint so pervasive in our media. Keep them coming Peter!
 June 29, 2011 | Margaret Evans

Great to have Peter Dingle's thoroughly researched and highly original natural health articles appearing regularly in NOVA Magazine. Our readers respond to his passionate belief in taking responsibility for our own health, an important counterpoint to the "pop a pill for everything" viewpoint so pervasive on our media. Keep them coming Peter!
 June 29, 2011 | Margaret Evans

Peter it is great to see someone who has a voice and is not afraid to say what needs to be said. More people need to speak out especially when it comes to our health. BIG pharma has a lot to answer for. Your research and hard work is appreciated by many. Keep up the good work!!!
 June 29, 2011 | Yabeenfishnlately

I am really happy to hear about Peter's great work. It is essential that there is increased awareness through educating people to understand the ramification from eating unhealthy food. Keep it up Peter!
 June 29, 2011 | Micko O'Byrne

All the best Peter
 June 30, 2011 | Kerry

It will be great to see your audience of every day ordinary Australian families grow even more after they see Monday night's 'Australian Story'!
 July 1, 2011 | Anonymous

They will be clamouring to receive your fantastic health knowledge and advice.
 July 3, 2011 | Anonymous

Keep on working on those books Peter Australia needs them to see what is really happening.

Be strong
 July 4, 2011 | Anonymous

I just wanted to send you my condolences for your partner. I just watched “Australian Story”. I don’t normally write to strangers but I really felt for you as I watched the show.


I would have been like your wife. I think that if she had died after chemo and radiotherapy and surgery then there would not have been any questions and no one would have asked you why you let her have that therapy. I feel so sad for what you have been through, and I know that the judicial system is so biased in favour of medical treatment and pharmaceutical drugs. I admire you for letting your wife have the treatment that she wanted. I just can’t imagine what you have been through.
I have recently watched a couple of young friends die after chemo and surgery for their cancer.

Personally I had a severe anal fissure years ago and was in extreme pain for about a year. The pain was almost unbearable and I played mind games to manage the pain. The anal fissure was the result of a medical procedure. The colorectal surgeon told me that I would have to have my spinture muscle cut and that the fissure would NEVER heal on its own. The operation that they recommended had a 10% chance of incontinence. I fasted in order to rest my bowel so that it could heal and after a long process it healed even though the specialist told me that it would never heal.

There are so many stories of natural treatments working. I feel sad that your wife’s treatment did not work . Most of all I do feel sad for you and the questioning that you have had to endure- all because you choose a treatment that was unsuccessful and that you followed your wife’s wishes. I think it is sad that if a natural therapy fails people are questioned and have the legal system against them, yet if they choose a medical treatment that fails then there is no backlash.

I do hope that you are OK. I used to watch your TV show and I really enjoyed it. I really just wanted to send my condolences and let you know that there are even strangers out there that support your decisions.
Kindest Regards
 July 5, 2011 | kate

Thank you. Unfortunately there are a lot of people out there making judgements of me without any idea of what really happened. My late wife did not die at the time the coroners were investigating(2003). She lived 2 more years until under experimental chemotherapy in Sydney she had an anaphalactic shock and began to decline rapidly (2005). I still wonder why her actual death was not investigated?
 July 5, 2011 | Dr Peter Dingle

I also watched Australian Story 4th July, 2011. Have a read of Mercola's latest, re celiac disease, not only wheat is a problem, but potatoes, rye, tomatoes, barley may also be an issue.
 July 6, 2011 | Annie

Peter, I met you and Penny when you attended the 2005 Hamilton Island Enjo Conference. I was so sorry to hear about her passing not that long after.
I couldn't believe all the rubbish that was being dredged up last year (or whenever it was)....it was so dreadful and my heart went out to you then, and still does. I know I'd only met her for a couple of hours but I just couldn't imagine that anyone could have made Penny do something she didn't want to.
Anyway I just wanted to show my support and wish you all the best in your new career.
You are an inspiration for us all. Thanks.
 July 9, 2011 | Anonymous

Peter

I am sure you would not remember me but you certainly know my daughter. I have just watched the second part of Australian Story and felt the urge to send this email saying I am thinking of you. I have heard the stories around Murdoch University from my four years of study there. You did a class for Jane Pearce in 2004 it was Unifocus in Rockingham and I remember thinking Oh yeah an motivational speaker, wont be falling for that I have read How to win friends and influence people. I came away from that class high as a kite you got into me in a way that changed my life. I completed unifocus got my Bachelor of Education and a Bachelor of Arts in Australian Indigenous Studies. When my daughter decided to go to Uni and got into Murdoch I enrolled her in your Health and Environment Degree along with Legal Studies.

Any way I dribble, I will never forget your motivational speech that day and pushed my daughter to do your degree (She can hate me for pushing when she finishes). At that time I was desperate and thinking I couldnt continue fighting in this life as i had many tragedies at the time. Anyway your 45 min presentation made me look at myself and my circumstances and now I sit on the door step to Karijini National Park teaching year 5/6 at a Primary School. I needed to send this email thanking you for your speech and your passion for living life. It changed everything for me and my daughter.

I want you to know you do make a difference to people and the way they see their lives DO NOT STOP THAT EVER.

Regards

Stephanie
 July 12, 2011 | Stepahnie

Hi Peter
Saw the show tonight on the ABC and I can only say keep doing what you do best and that is supplying the truth about so many medical issues that the pharmaceutical companies would not want you to say. You have so many supporters and help so many people with your research. I am a cancer survivor and have written to you previously and we all have to continue to do the things we believe are the truth in life how ever hard that may be at the time. From one of your loyal supporters and I will talk to others about you and the good work you do at any opportunity. Regards Sarah
 July 12, 2011 | Sarah

Hi Peter,
We have met but it was a number of years ago at a seminar at which you were one of the guest speakers so you won't remember.

I watched the programs last night and a week ago and I felt that I would like to remind you that not all of us out here just accept everything as it is dished up to us. When they emphasized that you were the one who made the juices for your wife it struck home to me that I could have been in exactly the position that you are in as I did the same thing for my wife who died of breast cancer. She was the reason for attending the seminar I mentioned and you met her also. The tragedy of loosing the one you love is enough to destroy one, but to have that accusation that you were responsible for her death on top is something I cant imagine having to bare.

Some of us also know that if you choose the alternative route you are up against a vicious opposition. Back then doctors had no empathy at all with anyone who wanted to try anything alternative and some of them were just plain rude and ignorant. The head of oncology at Charlie Gairdners at the time told us that he didn't ever want to see us again. He was a very inflexible man who got angry at any suggestion of anything to do with good nutrition etc.

The people that I have mentioned you to, by the way, have a very high regard for you and are of the opinion that you were accused because of who you were and what you stood up against. Many of us have too much experience with the medical profession to be fooled into thinking that they get it right every time as opposed to alternative treatments which we are told to believe are just quackery.

I attended the funeral last week of a family member who died of cancer after having surgery, chemo and radiation. She came back from Perth in a terrible state and just a few months later discovered that she was riddled with it. So much for her being "managed" by her doctors. You don't see TV programs on these failures of the medical profession because for some strange reason they are not regarded as such but a scenario like yours is one that they can make mileage out of and they have certainly done that.

So Peter, I hope I'm not intruding but I just wanted to say that we are not all fooled and I wish you well as you try to put it all back together again.
 July 12, 2011 | jim

we walk a difficult path when we uncover the truth on matters! It was an eyeopener for me, I think I need to see a lawyer and set my path in black and white lest my family and husband are dragged through the mire. We are no longer free in our choice of how we live or how we die..............I find it a very strange country, ruled by the pharmaceutical companies..............if we choose to look after ourselves we are treated harshly but if we join the sheep we can have all the support we need....................there will be a silver lining for you down the track, it may take time but it will come
kind regards
 July 12, 2011 | nansi

Dear Peter

We just want to encourage you in all you do and to let you know we feel compassion for all you have been through and accused of. Your persecution seems clearly unwarranted and cruel. From our perspective you were doing all you could to support and stay positive for Penelope, despite your own opinions and feelings. What a cruel twist of fate that your love and support was turned around and aimed as an arrow to wound you further.

We will pray for your continued success and recovery from the attacks on your character, and wish you a wonderful and blessed future. We feel sure that you are not one to hold unforgiveness towards those who have wronged you, but that you are able to forgive and move on with your life, unhampered by the negativity that would try to hold you down.

Our very best wishes for your days ahead! May God restore to you the years that the locust has destroyed.

Madeleine and Barrie
 July 12, 2011 | Madeleine and Barrie
 Page 1 2  Next 25 Comments  Most Recent Comment »
Post a New Comment
 Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
 Author:   
 
 Author Email (optional):
 
 Author URL (optional):
 
 Post:
↓ | ↑
 

Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>

 Notify me of follow-up comments via email.

     
 Dr. Dingle Presentations. - Tel: 0414 360 569 - © 2010-forever. All Rights Reserved - Login - Website: CR
[*/quote*]
Logged
Steine kann man nicht essen!

Omegafant

  • Boltbender
  • Jr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 851
Re: Das Sterben der Penelope Dingle (nee Brown)
« Reply #17 on: April 06, 2012, 01:21:17 AM »

Die zweite Blogseite:

http://www.drdingle.com/blog-220212/2011/6/13/dr-dingle-in-the-media.html?currentPage=2

[*quote*]
     
Home
Sustainable Health
About Dr. Dingle
Peter's Presentations
Blog
Shop
Contact
Newsletter

 
Search    

Blog Categories
add
adhd
Cancer
children
Cholestrol
Depression
diabetes
diet
drugs
heart attack
nutrition
statin drugs
Stress
Vitamin D
« what makes a good workplace wellness program | Main | Dr Dingle the Public Health Advocate »
Dr Dingle in the media
Sunday, June 12, 2011 at 11:26PM

Since 1988 Dr Peter Dingle has been a regular in the Australian media as a researcher and presenter in health and environmental issues. Peter Dingle has been a regular on current affairs programs such as Today Tonight, ACA and ABC programs like “Can we help” as well as being featured on 4 corners and the 7.30 report. Dr Peter Dingle has made so guest appearances on Sunrise, George Negus, Insight and many other programs.

Peter Dingle started out his television presentation on a channel 9 program called Grant and Cameron in 1992 where Dr Dingle appeared as a fortnightly environmental commentator on daytime TV. Most recently, Dr Dingle co presented in the award winning 7 week TV series shown on SBS and now featured around the world “Is your home killing you”.

Dr Peter Dingle has been a regular on New Zealand (TV3) TV on a program called “What’s in your food” and most recently he himself has been part of a 2 part Australian Story covered on ABC.

Dr Peter Dingle is a regular on Australian radio, news and talkback topics, and has presented a weekly segment on health research for radio programs on 94.5, 96 FM, 6PR, ABC 720.He has had some extended segments on various ABC radio programs over the years from Launceston to the Sunshine Coast and Geraldton and included weekly programs with Verity James and Peter Holland.

Dr Dingle had a 90 minute radio program called Dr D and the free radicals for 3 years at Fremantle radio until 2003. Dr Dingle is reported weekly in the national media speaking on the latest research topics of health and the environment and is seen as one of Australia’s leading public health advocates on sustainable health. As a result, Dr Dingle has been known to do more than a dozen interviews for the media in one week.

Dr Dingle has written a monthly article, based on health research topics for NOVA magazine for the past 5 years with around 300,000 readership. Dr Dingle also had a regular segment in the Western Australian paper, Mind Body Spirit section for a number of years. Dr Dingle has written dozens of articles for home, health and business magazines and has been quoted in hundreds of magazine articles around the country.

Dr Dingle’s passion, excitement and gift for sharing information exactly as it is, has made him a sought after authority on any topics of his research around health and the environment. His enthusiasm is contagious and his audience of every day ordinary Australian families continue to grow.
Dingle Presentations | 38 Comments | Share Article
tagged Dr Dingle, Peter Dingle
Reader Comments (38)

Hi Dr Dingle,

I watched Australian Story this fortnight - It was a great story in that it showed how our chosen life path can lead us to an incredible path of self-exploration. From the beginning, I could see that Pen had chosen a path of vibration and connection, well before the cancer. She came across as natural, earthy and spirited.

I'm sorry that her family, who came across to me as controlling, felt the need to drag you through court over a decision to not involve them or conventional medicine on her road to wellness. It's all very well to say in hindsight X, Y and Z, but I know people similar in ethics to you and Pen, and I believe they too would choose a path of no intervention.

I really felt your pain in the end, that you thought you should've, could've, would've... but really, the basis of your relationship was what it was. I commend you for ALLOWING Pen, in her most confronting days, to live her life as she chose. To me, that's true partnership.

I trust that you can regain your reputation – we need people like you, with positive views and enthusiasm for health and wellbeing in our community. What stood out for me in the doco, was how well you look. You've clearly chosen a healthy lifestyle.

Wishing you all the best as you rebuild your life.

Cheers,
Liz Dunmurphy.
 July 14, 2011 | Liz Dunmurphy

Hi there Dr Dingle,
I watched the last two episodes of Australian Story and felt like I’d do something I rarely ever do- stick my nose into someone else’s business. This story had such an effect on me that I thought I’d like to do the right thing. I just wanted to say I found you completely honest and believable and thought that the Australian Story was completely disrespectful to a bloke who was standing by the beliefs and wishes of his loved one. I’m sorry for your loss and even more sorry that you have had to go through this reticule. I’ve seen you speak and read your book in the past which sparked my interest in the story (sorry but your ugly mug is pretty recognizable!) Anyway can’t say any more than that, I support you 100% in what you did and would have done exactly the same for my wife if that was her wishes. Regards.

Tim
 July 15, 2011 | Dr Peter Dingle

After seeing Australian Story recently just wanted to send words of support in life's decisions. Unless we walk in another's shoes there is no true knowing, all that remains is another's perception. That which is good in our lives is the intention of that which comes from the heart. Keep up the good work Peter. Blessings to you and your family.
 July 15, 2011 | M

" Great Minds Discuss Ideas... Average Minds Discuss Events...

Small Minds Discuss People... "


 - Eleanor Roosevelt -
 July 15, 2011 | Dr Peter Dingle

Dear Dr Dingle
I watched the second episode of your late wife's story on the ABC's Australian Story and felt so sad that you should be publicly crucified in such a manner.
Please accept this as confirmation that not everyone believes what they see on television.
 It seems unfair that you should have to justify what you did or didn't do for your wife during her illness. How easy it is for others to judge your actions, and how easy it appears that they can affect the rest of your life.
Please take comfort in the fact that YOU ARE THE MASTER OF YOUR LIFE. They can appear to harm you, but they can never harm your mind....for only you have the ultimate control of YOURSELF.
I am sure that Penelope surrounds you with all the love and support for your future. Have courage as you go forward. In the face of great diversity, there is great reward which will unfold in time. Every good wish to you and your wife on your journey forward!
Regards
 July 16, 2011 | Deeny from Queensland

I recently watched 'Australian Story' & immediately wanted to contact you to let you know there are many people out there, like myself, who support what you have done when you supported Penny in the path she chose to take in her journey with cancer. Keep Strong & don't let the small minds of others affect you. You have done a wonderful job in supporting Penny, who you obviously adored. I also wish you all the love & support in your new relationship too.

Keep Strong Peter & know that many people would have done exactly what you did.
 July 18, 2011 | Trish

Hello Pete
I met you at a Conference & watched with interest the recent Australian story on the ABC. My reason for comment is not so much any judgement or telling you my opinion or concerns in relation to what went on over what must have been a never
ending nightmare. What l would like to say is that l am very, very sorry that you & Penny had
to go through what you did. l can see the obvious love that you felt for each other, this must
be the most heartbreaking part of the whole experience. So please except my most cencere
condolances as l can only guess as to what you have had to endure over the past ten years or
so. Hang tough Pete & keep moving forward to continue to battle on. Your story is very inspiring
as to the heartache that people have to deal with only to rise up & come out the other side
bigger, better & smarter. Good luck & best wishes on the next part of your lifes journey.
 July 18, 2011 | Anne

Pete,
i'm so sorry about what you have been through. Im sorry about pen. I know how strong willed penny was and can't imagine the hell you have been through. Just watching the abc about it all now. I believe Pen would in no way blame you for this.
Good luck this time round.
 July 18, 2011 | Kathy

Hello Professor Dingle

I have been to your blog previously, but I have just seen the show Australian Story about your wife Penelope and the resulting investigation by her sisters.
Sadly when people lose someone they love they want to lay blame
Peter My sister in law died age 47 of Ovarian Cancer, she was diagnosed at age 42, she had operations , she had 5 years of chemo.
She still died.
My Mother had Ovarian Cancer for a few years , she died Age 72, she couldn’t have chemo because of her other health issues.
I think one day down the track that people will realise that there are many things that cause cancer that they do not, will not believe currently.
I’m really sorry you lost the love of your life , I hope one day you may find happiness again.
I feel sure Penelope would be sad to see the pain you are in from her death and sadly her sisters looking to lay blame at your feet as well.
I wish you well
 July 18, 2011 | Caroline

Hello Peter,
I recently saw a documentary about the horrible ordeal that was experienced by you and others last year with Penelope's cancer.

I know coming from a stranger it means very little but I think you did the right thing. I honestly believe you are a kind hearted person never capable of hurting anyone. I admire the courage you've displayed and truly hope that you are able to put the pain and suffering you've endured behind you. It is an awful thing to lose a partner to such an awful illness but I can't even imagine how hard it was to be falsely accused as a participant in her death. You mentioned in the documentary that you were receiving abusive letters from people and I felt a strong need to let you know (if you haven't already been told) that there are people out there who honestly believe you are a victim and we are 100% behind you.

I'm sorry for your loss and wish you all the best as you rebuild your career. I think it is fantastic that you have a new partner to help you through this time and wish you both the best of luck for your bright future together.
Riley
 July 18, 2011 | riley

Hi Peter,
I watched the Australian story pieces and all I want to say to you is...
I applaud your love and devotion to Penny. Few husbands would have the courage to do as their partner wanted under those circumstances.
Your story prompted me to speak to my husband about what I want to happen should I ever be in such a situation. Thank you!
 July 24, 2011 | stephanie

Hello Peter,
 Thank you for the newsletter , I look forward to future letters as i do try to live a healthy lifestyle but there is so much to remember.I have only two of your books on my coffee table but keeping them out means others do pick them up and see what you have to say. I have always admired and respected you,both as a good human being and as a health professional. I am 67 years old and have always been conscious of my health ,my first pay packet in the late fifties was spent on the wellbeing book, not much around back then, I was fifteen. Since my husband died at home (because he been looking after myself as well as I should. Today is the day I rectify
 that and the first person I thought of to keep me up to speed on all things good and bad was Dr Dingle.Thank you for your passion on keeping our bodies and mind healthy. I too buy my oats from Kakulas Sister, my husband and I shopped at the family shop in northbridge every week. The first time I stepped into the freo shop I received a big hug from the young lady who
 owns it, we watched her grow up behind the counter of the family store. Once again,thank you for trying to educate us in living healthy.
Kind regards,
 July 28, 2011 | Marilyn.

Hello Peter

We watched the first program last Monday night and will be in the viewing audience again tonight. We felt the presentation provided the family and sisters with way too much time and little time for you to present your side of the story. Your portion of the discussion however, was enough for us to understand the pain and suffering you have endured as silent witness to someone you loved very deeply and with such respect. It takes huge courage to bear witness to death and the loss of someone held so close particularly in the moments and hours of their pain and suffering. In these circumstances, the overwhelming desire to “fix” the pain becomes unbearable.

There is little or no tolerance in our home for the biased reporting from the media, print or TV ... Journalism in Australia is without ethics in some many areas. A further example of unethical journalism now threatens Rupert Murdoch as he battles to save the rising uproar over phone hacking in the UK.

Just wanted you to know, people are behind you. As I move around in my world, friends and family support for you. We certainly support you and do not hesitate to express our views publicly.

 We are saddened to hear you have left your position at Murdoch, it would be difficult for you to know how many students lives you have touched. How motivated they feel after a lecture presented by you. I guess, it is time for you to move on.
 Our blessings and wishes go with you.
 July 28, 2011 | Marilyn & Bob
 Page 1 2
Post a New Comment
 Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
 Author:   
 
 Author Email (optional):
 
 Author URL (optional):
 
 Post:
↓ | ↑
 

Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>

 Notify me of follow-up comments via email.

     
 Dr. Dingle Presentations. - Tel: 0414 360 569 - © 2010-forever. All Rights Reserved - Login - Website: CR
[*/quote*]
Logged
Steine kann man nicht essen!

Omegafant

  • Boltbender
  • Jr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 851
Re: Das Sterben der Penelope Dingle (nee Brown)
« Reply #18 on: April 06, 2012, 01:28:47 AM »

Die nun folgende Seite sollte man sehr genau lesen. Sie zeigt, daß

- Peter Dingle keine Privatperson ist, sondern eine Person, die schon lange eine Person des öffentlichen Interesses ist: Dingle hat Sendungen für das Fernsehen gemacht und war und ist  landesweit bekannt.

- Peter Dingle über Medizin geschrieben und für das Fernsehen gearbeitet hat. Besonders wichtig ist der von ihm genannte Begriff "Sustainable Health". Im Fall seiner Frau dürfte es sich eher um "Sustainable Death" handeln, auch als "Permanent Death" bekannt.

- Peter Dingle ist Assitenzprofessor an einer Universität und dort tätig als Lehrkraft in Umweltmedizin.

- Peter Dingle ist professioneller Redner ("highest level of professional speaking") und er ist Hypnotiseur ("group hypnotherapist").

Damit bekommen die in dem Bericht des Gerichtsmediziners erwähnten Fakten eine ganz besonders schwere Bedeutung. Wenn auch die Homöopathin eine Totalversagerin ist, wie kann dann der Ehemann zulassen, daß seien Frau deren Opfer wird? Bei Licht betrachtet ist es sogar so, daß der Ehemann die Kranke indoktriniert hat, daß sie, wie die Geschwister feststellen, ihm schon Jahre vorher vorher ergeben und hörig war. Wozu ganz sicher auch seine Fähigkeiten als Zauberer ("member of the Western Australian Society of Magicians") erheblich beigetragen haben dürften, denn zum Zaubern gehört nicht nur Fingerfertigkeit, sondern vor allem auch die bewußte Kunst und der Wille zur Täuschung, nicht nur mit den Händen, sondern auch mit Worten.


http://www.drdingle.com/about-dr-dingle

[*quote*]


http://www.drdingle.com/storage/subheaders/2.jpg?

Home
Sustainable Health
About Dr. Dingle
Peter's Presentations

Blog
Shop
Contact
Newsletter

Search    

About Dr. Dingle

Dr D is an Associate Professor and leading researcher in Health and
the Environment.  Dr D has spent the past twenty years as a researcher,
educator and communicator.

Dr Peter Dingle (or Dr Dingle) has made public speaking an art. His presentations are enthusiastic and inspirational, entwined with memorable stories and spiced with a slice of magic. He interacts and motivates. He takes complex scientific information and converts it so that it is dynamic, easy to understand and informative.

Dr Dingle is a Certified Speaking Professional (CSP) of the Australian Speaker’s Association, the highest level of professional speaking and a member of the Western Australian Society of Magicians. He is also a group hypnotherapist and motivational coach to some of Australia’s elite junior athletes and business people. In his spare time he practices what he preaches, rides a bicycle to work, loves his family, the beach and the gym, juggles, meditates, plays with a unicycle and cooks a mean minestra (but not all at the same time!)

Dr Dingle has spent the past twenty years as a researcher, educator and communicator. He has a Bachelor of Education in Science, a Bachelor of Environmental Science with first class honours and a PhD. He has more than 100 scientifically reviewed papers, several books which have sold over 25,000 copies each, a couple of CDs, and a team of researchers breaking new ground and hundreds of students collecting data each year. Books include Dangerous Beauty, The DEAL for Happier, Healthier, Smarter Kids a Parents 21st century survival guide, Goal Getting, How to improve your memory your thinking and your life, My dog eats better than your kids, Is Your Home making you Sick and his book with his wife Martine “The Six week healthy eating planner” and the newest member of the family, Cholesterol Deception. He conducts ongoing research into diet and nutrition, lifestyle and environmental impacts on health, well being and productivity. Dr D is one of the rare speakers who conducts and presents his own professional research. He is internationally recognised and often quoted by other speakers.

Dr Dingle is an Associate Professor and leading researcher in Health and the Environment at Murdoch University. In recognition of his excellence in teaching, he won the University’s “Teaching In Excellence Award” in 2001 and 2003, he won the coveted Vice Chancellor’s Award for outstanding community service. In 2003, Dr Dingle was a co founder in the award winning Living Smart Program which won the WA adult education award in 2003 and the Eureka Award with $10,000 prize money in 2004.  In 2004 he was recognised with special commendation in the WA Environmental Awards and Greenhouses won the best education program and in the same year won the Conscious Living, Nova communicators award. He recently retired after 6 years as a director of the National Registration Authority in Canberra and the Amanda Young Foundation, and is currently a Director of Dingle and Bird Environmental.

Dr Dingle commits to over one hundred public and professional presentations each year. In Perth demand is so high he may present up to 6 times a week. He is popular internationally for his lively presentations and has presented in 11 countries on 4 continents.

Dr Dingle has appeared on the Media for the last 20 years as expert in environmental and health issues and recently presented in the award winning 7 week TV series shown on SBS and now around the world “Is your home killing you”. He is currently in the planning stages for another TV series. He is a regular on current affairs programs such as Today Tonight and ABC programs like “Can we help” and featured on 4 corners and the 7.30 report.  He has appeared on occasions on Sunise, George Negus and other programs. He is a regular on Australian and New Zealand (TV3) TV and radio news and presents a weekly radio program on 6PR and 96 FM. He does a fortnightly program with ABC regional radio and has had extended segments on various ABC radio programs over the years from Launceston to the Sunshine Coast and Geraldton.  He is reported weekly in the national media and writes a column for the west Australian and a few public magazines.

For the past 18 years, Dr Dingle has been researching active learning and success strategies to increase the productivity and wellbeing of individuals and organisations. He integrates the top tried and true methods via the experts, along with newer discoveries into memory, goal setting, brain function and emotional perception. Incorporating his study of clinical nutrition and exercise, Dr D has developed ‘THE DEAL,’ his own unique program for individual and corporate success and wellbeing.

He uses his ongoing personal research plus discoveries drawn from top scientists around the world to constantly update his program, maintaining cutting edge science.

To contact Dr Peter Dingle today, use our enquiry page.
 Dr. Dingle Presentations. - Tel: 0414 360 569 - © 2010-forever. All Rights Reserved - Login - Website: CR
[*/quote*]


Herr Staatsanwalt, Ihr Zeuge!
« Last Edit: April 06, 2012, 01:39:57 AM by Omegafant »
Logged
Steine kann man nicht essen!

Omegafant

  • Boltbender
  • Jr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 851
Re: Das Sterben der Penelope Dingle (nee Brown)
« Reply #19 on: April 06, 2012, 01:56:49 AM »

Anita Petek Dimmer ist tot. Sie starb wahrscheinlich an Krebs.

Bärbel Mohr ist tot. Sie starb an Krebs.

Penelope Dingle ist tot. Sie starb an Krebs.

Dr. Braunstein ist tot. Er starb mit Mitte der 30er an Herzversagen.
(http://ariplex.com/ama/ama_ml14.htm)


Das sind vier Personen, die direkt (Petek-Dimmer, Mohr, Braunstein) bzw. indirekt (Penelope Dingle durch ihren Ehemann) in der Öffentlichkeit auftraten für "alternative" "Medizin". Sie sind das beste Beispiel dafür, daß die "alternative" "Medizin" nichts ist als ein tödlicher Mist. Sie starben jung, und sie waren nicht einmal in der Lage, ihren eigenen qualvollen Tod zu verhindern (Betonung auf qualvoll!), der doch zu verhindern gewesen wäre, wenn sie sich vernünftig verhalten hätten.

Marc Braunstein starb schnell - Herzinfarkt. Doch das Sterben von Anita Petek-Dimmer war langsam und qualvoll, das Sterben von Bärbel Mohr war langsam und qualvoll, das Sterben von Penelope Dingle war langsam und qualvoll.

Und Dr. Peter Dingle macht weiter, macht weiter Reklame für offenkundigen Irrsinn.
Logged
Steine kann man nicht essen!

Österhasi

  • Jr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 10
Re: Das Sterben der Penelope Dingle (nee Brown)
« Reply #20 on: April 08, 2012, 08:59:06 PM »

The university still employs Peter Dingle?

https://lectures.murdoch.edu.au/lectopia/podcast.lasso?ut=827&feed=7
[*quote*]
Lectopia - Pollutants and Toxicology (Audio - Low Speed Modem)
Learn more about feeds
Subscribe to this feed using  Subscribe
2011-05-18 - 11:30

Wednesday May 18, 06:42:37 GMT+0200 2011
 Speaker: Peter Dingle
2011-05-16 - 11:30

Monday May 16, 08:57:49 GMT+0200 2011
 Speaker: Peter Dingle
2011-05-11 - 11:30

Wednesday May 11, 06:34:09 GMT+0200 2011
 Speaker: Peter Dingle
2011-05-09 - 11:30

Monday May 09, 07:35:10 GMT+0200 2011
 Speaker: Peter Dingle
2011-05-04 - 11:30

Wednesday May 04, 06:32:12 GMT+0200 2011
 Speaker: Peter Dingle
2011-05-02 - 11:30

Monday May 02, 08:28:19 GMT+0200 2011
 Speaker: Peter Dingle
2011-04-20 - 11:30

Wednesday April 20, 06:34:23 GMT+0200 2011
 Speaker: Peter Dingle
2011-04-18 - 11:30

Monday April 18, 07:36:26 GMT+0200 2011
 Speaker: Peter Dingle
2011-04-13 - 11:30

Wednesday April 13, 06:37:55 GMT+0200 2011
 Speaker: Peter Dingle
2011-04-11 - 11:30

Monday April 11, 08:24:26 GMT+0200 2011
 Speaker: Peter Dingle
2011-04-06 - 11:30

Wednesday April 06, 06:39:35 GMT+0200 2011
 Speaker: Peter Dingle
2011-04-04 - 11:30

Monday April 04, 07:56:05 GMT+0200 2011
 Speaker: Peter Dingle
2011-03-30 - 11:30

Wednesday March 30, 06:31:05 GMT+0200 2011
 Speaker: Peter Dingle
2011-03-28 - 11:30

Monday March 28, 08:07:22 GMT+0200 2011
 Speaker: Peter Dingle
2011-03-16 - 11:30

Wednesday March 16, 06:19:47 GMT+0100 2011
 Speaker: Peter Dingle
2011-03-14 - 11:30

Monday March 14, 07:20:51 GMT+0100 2011
 Speaker: Peter Dingle
2011-03-09 - 11:30

Wednesday March 09, 05:40:57 GMT+0100 2011
 Speaker: Peter Dingle
2011-03-07 - 11:30

Monday March 07, 07:57:15 GMT+0100 2011
 Speaker: Peter Dingle
2011-03-02 - 11:30

Wednesday March 02, 05:35:17 GMT+0100 2011
 Speaker: Peter Dingle
2011-02-28 - 11:30

Monday February 28, 07:05:40 GMT+0100 2011
 Speaker: Peter Dingle
2011-02-23 - 11:30

Wednesday February 23, 05:32:41 GMT+0100 2011
 Speaker: Peter Dingle
2011-02-21 - 11:30

Monday February 21, 06:49:05 GMT+0100 2011
 Speaker: Peter Dingle
This page was generated by Opera from https://lectures.murdoch.edu.au/lectopia/podcast.lasso?ut=827&feed=7
[*/quote*]
Logged

Österhasi

  • Jr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 10
Re: Das Sterben der Penelope Dingle (nee Brown)
« Reply #21 on: April 08, 2012, 09:14:18 PM »

[*quote*]
This is Google's cache of http://www.environment.murdoch.edu.au/curriculum/units/ENV555. It is a snapshot of the page as it appeared on 19 Feb 2012 07:40:17 GMT. The current page could have changed in the meantime. Learn more

Text-only version
These search terms are highlighted: dingle            SEARCH| MURDOCH| INDEX| PEOPLE

School of Environmental Science

Home
Welcome to the School

Contacts
Staff Directory

Courses
Units

Information and Links
General
For Staff
For Students
Links
Research
Research Interests
Research Groups
Honours Projects
Publications
Administration
Student Forms
Staff Forms
Policies
Safety & Health

 
 The information displayed is derived from a variety of sources and is relevant to the 2012 enrolment year.
Alternatively, you may switch to 2011 data.

Pollutants and Toxicology

Unit Code: ENV555

 Develops an understanding of toxicology, how it is used and its limitations. Examines some chemical and physical pollutants and their presence in homes, the workplace, and the wider environment. Emphasis is placed on how we use chemicals, our day to day exposure to toxic substances, and the concept of risk. Discusses the interaction between toxins and the development of illnesses like asthma, allergies and multiple chemical sensitivity, as well as their impact on quality of life, health and work performance.Enrolment Options   
Not available 2012
Points   
4
Workload   
Lectures: 3 hours per week; tutorials: 1 hour per week.
Prerequisites   
Enrolment in a honours or postgraduate level course. Co-requisite: Internet access if studying externally.
Unit Coordinator   Associate Professor Peter Dingle (P.Dingle@murdoch.edu.au)


>>  Return to List of Units on Offer

 © 2004 Murdoch University | Copyright & Disclaimer | CRICOS Code: 00125J | Page Information
[*/quote*]
Logged

Österhasi

  • Jr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 10
Re: Das Sterben der Penelope Dingle (nee Brown)
« Reply #22 on: April 08, 2012, 09:21:40 PM »

This I would call a hoax:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb3252/is_3_119/ai_n29200752/pg_2/
[*quote*]
FindArticles / Journal of Banking and Financial Services / June-July, 2005

Why busy people waste time and die young: perhaps the greatest disease of the twenty-first century is 'being busy'. What does it really mean for productivity and what can we do about it?
 by Peter Dingle
 For Lifestyle you need to build in the go and the stop. Integrate your physical activity into your work-day. Walk or cycle to the bus/train station or to work once or twice a week. Get out of your comfort zone, it's squeezing you too tightly. I often recommend that business clients have some of their one-on one meetings while walking. Get out of the office.

 Being fit means being able to engage in life to the full. Being unfit lowers your productivity, increases your suffering and simply reduces your chances of survival. Also learn to stop. The research on the benefits of meditation and yoga are overwhelming. Finally, learn to manage your energy. Identify when you have your energy highs and lows. This knowledge can reduce your arguments and mistakes dramatically.

 Remember only you can look after your health and it starts now, not tomorrow.

 [GRAPHIC OMITTED]

Dr Peter Dingle is an Associate Professor in Health and the Environment at Murdoch University He is a professional speaker, educator and trainer who works with businesses that want to improve their employees' health and productivity He has written a number of books on these issues For more information see www.drdingle.com Email: p.dingle@murdoch.edu.au
 COPYRIGHT 2005 Australian Institute of Banking and Finance
 COPYRIGHT 2008 Gale, Cengage Learning
[*/quote*]


Being dead in deed lowers productivity. Penelope Brown/Dingle is dead.
Logged

Österhasi

  • Jr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 10
Re: Das Sterben der Penelope Dingle (nee Brown)
« Reply #23 on: April 08, 2012, 09:29:50 PM »


This has a smell of death:

http://www.domaincrawler.com/starfoods.org
[*quote*]
Domain ID:D118285476-LROR
 Domain Name:STARFOODS.ORG
 Created On:12-Mar-2006 22:39:31 UTC
 Last Updated On:06-Mar-2008 23:30:05 UTC
 Expiration Date:12-Mar-2013 22:39:31 UTC
 Sponsoring Registrar:Allindomains LLC (R1377-LROR)
 Status:OK
 Registrant ID:DOT-40N78VJ5WL13
 Registrant Name:peter dingle
 Registrant Organization:drdingle
 Registrant Street1:29 hulbert st
 Registrant Street2:
 Registrant Street3:
 Registrant City:south fremantle
 Registrant State/Province:WA
 Registrant Postal Code:6162
 Registrant Country:US
 Registrant Phone:+1.61893364730
 Registrant Phone Ext.:
 Registrant FAX:
 Registrant FAX Ext.:
 Registrant Email:p.dingle@murdoch.edu.au
 Admin ID:DOT-HYCIG96AYS2A
 Admin Name:peter dingle
 Admin Organization:drdingle
 Admin Street1:29 hulbert st
 Admin Street2:
 Admin Street3:
 Admin City:south fremantle
 Admin State/Province:WA
 Admin Postal Code:6162
 Admin Country:US
 Admin Phone:+1.61893364730
 Admin Phone Ext.:
 Admin FAX:
 Admin FAX Ext.:
 Admin Email:p.dingle@murdoch.edu.au
 Tech ID:DOT-EWCM9N5JN0H1
 Tech Name:peter dingle
 Tech Organization:drdingle
 Tech Street1:29 hulbert st
 Tech Street2:
 Tech Street3:
 Tech City:south fremantle
 Tech State/Province:WA
 Tech Postal Code:6162
 Tech Country:US
 Tech Phone:+1.61893364730
 Tech Phone Ext.:
 Tech FAX:
 Tech FAX Ext.:
 Tech Email:p.dingle@murdoch.edu.au
 Name Server:DNS2.ALLDOMAINS.COM
 Name Server:DNS1.ALLDOMAINS.COM
 Name Server:DNS4.ALLDOMAINS.COM
 Name Server:DNS3.ALLDOMAINS.COM
 Name Server:
 Name Server:
 Name Server:
 Name Server:
 Name Server:
 Name Server:
 Name Server:
 Name Server:
 Name Server:
 DNSSEC:Unsigned
[*/quote*]

Was this intended to work as a food shop?
Logged

Österhasi

  • Jr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 10
Re: Das Sterben der Penelope Dingle (nee Brown)
« Reply #24 on: April 08, 2012, 09:37:02 PM »

This is a real explose:

http://www.law.murdoch.edu.au/staffs/l.young.html
[*quote*]
     2:32:17 AM
 
Murdoch | Index | People


   
            Courses    |
         Research  |
         Library & Resources  |
         School and Staff  |
         Career Development  |
         Publications  |
         Contact Us       
         
      







   Dean's Message   



   School's Mission   

   INTERNATIONAL
PROGRAMS   

   Current Programs   

   COMPETITIONS   



   International Maritime
Law Arbitration Moot   



   Australian Vis Pre-Moot   



   International
Virtual Moot   

   MOOT COURT BENCH   

   Moot Court Bench
(MCB)   

   INSTITUTES   

   Western Australian
Institute of Dispute
Management (WAIDM)   



    Western Australian
Legal Theory Association
(WALTA)   



   Asia Pacific
Intellectual Property
Law Institute
(APIPLI)   

   CONTINUING LEGAL
EDUCATION   



   Continuing
 Professional
Development (CPD)   

   SCALES   

   Legal Clinic   



   ALUMNI & SPONSOR   

   Murdoch Law Alumni   



   Law School Sponsors   



   FACILITIES   



   Law Building History   



   Laboratory   



   Freehills Moot Court   



   Coffee House   



   Virtual Tour   



   WebTV   

   STUDENT CENTRE   

   How to Apply?   



   Faculty
Student Administration    



   Central Student
Administration    



   Murdoch Student Law
Society (MSLS)   



   LINKS   

   Quick Links   







         

Lisa Young

 Associate Professor
B.Juris, LL.B., LL.M(Cantab)

Associate Professor in Law. Young is a graduate of The University of Western Australia (B.Juris., 1983, LL.B., 1984) and Cambridge University (LL.M., 1986). She is admitted as Barrister & Solicitor of the Supreme Court of Western Australia and the High Court of Australia.

Lisa practised property and family law in Western Australia before commencing teaching (as an Assistant Lecturer) at The University of Western Australia. She joined Murdoch Law School in 1993. In 1999 Lisa took a fractional appointment at Murdoch to enable her to take up a year long position as Acting Deputy Director of the Articles Training Program. In 2000 she spent half the year as Acting Director of that Program. Her research interests are in family and child support law.

Lisa’s community service activities have included acting as Secretary to the Forum on Child Protection Forum on Family Court Matters, membership of the National Board of NAPCAN and pro bono legal representation in the family law area, including a High Court challenge.


Career:   Top

 Solicitor, Freehills
 Solicitor, Clayton Utz
 Associate Lecturer, The University of Western Australia
Senior Lecturer, Murdoch University
 Acting Deputy Director & Acting Director, Article Training ProgramEducation:   Top

 BJuris, University of Western Australia, 1983
LL.B., University of Western Australia, 1984
 LL.M.,Cambridge University, UK, 1986

Admitted to practice in the Supreme Court of Western Australia and the High Court of Australia.Teaching:   Top


Units in which I have taught:
Family Law
Advanced Family Law
Legal Practice and Transactions
Torts
Injury and Compensation
Feminist Legal Theory
Children and the Law
Company Law
Legal Framework of BusinessResearch:   Top

6th Edition, Family Law in Australia, with Assoc Prof G Monaghan, UTS. Chapter, Australia, in Asian Family Law, LAWASIA project.
Earning Capacity in Child Support Decision Making, with Prof N Wikeley, University of SouthamptonPublications:   Top

L. Young and S Shaw, ‘Magill v Magill: Families and Deceit’, (2005) 19(1) AJFL 44.
L. Young, ‘Reforming child support laws: Breaking the cycle’ (2005) 30(1) Alt LJ 29.
 N Wikeley and L. Young, ‘ Smith v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions: child support, the self-employed and the meaning of ‘total taxable profits’ – total confusion reigns’, (2005) 17(2) Child and Family Law Quarterly 267.
B Fehlberg, C Banks, B Batagol, R Carson, M Harrison, R Hunter, R Kaspiew, M Maclean, Z Rathus, H Rhoades, G Sheehan, .L Young, ‘Review of exposure draft of the Family Law Amendment (Shared Parental Responsibility) Bill 2005’, (2005) 19(2) AJFL 79.
A Buti and L. Young, Family Law and Customary Law, Background Paper No 4, The Law Reform Commission of Western Australia, 2004.
L. Young, ‘ Earning Capacity and child support: The fascination with motivation continues’, (2004) 10(4) Current Family Law 178.
 L. Young, "Rich Women and Divorce: Looking for a 'Common Sense' Approach" (2004) 22(1) Australian Canadian Studies 95.
 L. Young, "U and U: Reflections on the High Court and Family Law" (2003) 28(2) Alt LJ 78.
 L. Young, "U and U: The High Court Reconsiders Relocation in the Family Court" (2002) 6  University of  Western Sydney Law Review , 241.
 L. Young, "Child Support: A Practical Approach to the Change of Assessment Process" (2002) 9(2) Current Family Law, 45.
 L. Young, "A Special Rule for 'Special Skill': Is it really common sense?" (2001) 7(6) Current Family Law, 189.
 Esteal, P., Behrens. J. & Young, L., “Relocation Decisions in Canberra and Perth : A Blurry Snapshot “ (2000) 14(3) AJFL, 234.
 L. Young, “Child Sexual Abuse Allegations in the Family Court: An Old Light on An Old Problem” (1998) 2 Sister in Law.
 L. Young, “Sissinghurst, Sackville-West and ‘Special Skill’” - (1997) 11/3 Australian Journal of Family Law, 268.
 L. Young, “B v B Family Law Reform Act 1995: Relocating the Rhetoric of Rights” - (1997) 21  Melbourne University Law Review.
 L. Young, “Parenting Disputes under the Family Law Act 1975: The New Regime” (1996) 1 Sister in Law.
 L. Young, “Children in the Family Court: The New Law “ (1996) 21(6) Alt LJ 278.
 L. Young, “Will Primary Residence Parents be as Free to Move as Custodial Parents Were?” (1996) 11( 3) Australian Family Lawyer,  31
 E. Handsley, C. Iorns, C. Kendall, L. Young, * “Reasons for the Absence of Women: Affirmative Action Practice Report”. (1996) 7 Australian Feminist Law Journal, 127.
L. Young, C. Barton & P. Dingle, “The Legal and Regulatory Implications of Injury Arising from Inadequate Indoor Air Quality” in Indoor Air: An Integrated Approach, Eds L Morawska , ND Bofinger and M Maroni , (Elsevier, 1995).
 L. Young, C. Barton & P. Dingle, “How Best to Make Sick Buildings Well Again: The Legal Implications of Sick Building Syndrome” in Proceedings of the Clean Air Society of Australia and New Zealand Inc. 12th International Conference, Perth 23 -23 October 1995, p 647.

  Contact:   Top
    
Address:   
ECL/2.028, School of Law    +61 8 9360 6061
Murdoch University   +61 8 9310 6671
South Street    L.Young@murdoch.edu.au
MURDOCH WA 6150   www.law.murdoch.edu/staffs/l.young.html
[*/quote*]


Written by Peter Dingle and a lawyer:

"The Legal and Regulatory Implications of Injury Arising from Inadequate Indoor Air Quality"

This calls for deeper investigations.


Logged

Österhasi

  • Jr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 10
Re: Das Sterben der Penelope Dingle (nee Brown)
« Reply #25 on: April 08, 2012, 10:04:41 PM »

http://theconversation.edu.au/alternative-medicine-can-be-scientific-say-besieged-academics-5058
[*quote*]
28 January 2012, 11.26am AEST
Alternative medicine can be scientific, say besieged academics

RMIT University’s School of Health Sciences has rejected the suggestion that it peddles pseudo-scientific quackery via its courses in complementary and alternative medicine (CAM). Acting head of the school Dr Ray Myers has defended RMIT’s health science programs as “evidence-based education and practice…
Author
 Matthew Thompson

Editor

Interviewed
 John Dwyer

Founder of the Australian Health Care Reform Alliance & Emeritus Professor at University of New South Wales

 Jon Wardle

NHMRC Research Scholar, School of Population Health at University of Queensland

 Dr Ray Myers

Acting Head of School of Health Sciences at RMIT University

The Conversation

 The Conversation is an independent source of information, analysis and commentary from the university and research sector—written by acknowledged experts, curated by professional editors and delivered direct to the public. read more
 Spicy debate: RMIT is researching the effectiveness of ginseng in improving lung function in patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease. Flickr/wparadiso.


RMIT University’s School of Health Sciences has rejected the suggestion that it peddles pseudo-scientific quackery via its courses in complementary and alternative medicine (CAM).

Acting head of the school Dr Ray Myers has defended RMIT’s health science programs as “evidence-based education and practice”, citing collaboration in clinical research of CAM treatments funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC).

Dr Myers was speaking in the face of a campaign by a coalition of prominent medical researchers to expunge higher education of the “undisciplined nonsense” taught in CAM courses at Australia’s “somewhat lesser universities”.

The campaigning group, Friends of Science in Medicine (FSM), has about 400 signatories, including immunologist Sir Gustav Nossal and Professor Jock Findlay, chairman of the NHMRC’s Embryo Research Licensing Committee. It has written to every vice-chancellor in Australia asking for a review of their health science courses to “ensure that primacy is given to scientific principles based on experimental evidence”. The letter laments the spread of chiropractic studies to 19 Australian universities, and complains that ‘energy medicine’, ‘tactile healing’, homeopathy, iridology, kinesiology, acupuncture, and reflexology are taught “as if they were science”.

Group co-founder Emeritus Professor John Dwyer from the University of NSW said that FSM wants “vice-chancellors to ask their deans of science what’s the heck’s going on … It’s just extraordinary that such undisciplined nonsense is being taught in universities around Australia.”

“One of the complaints that we have about so-called alternative medicine is that it doesn’t strive to be tested. … modern medicine is totally devoted to doing everything we can to take this evidence-based approach and do good science and do good research into the things we do to people,” he said. “Alternative medicine doesn’t do that – it’s more than happy to rely on tradition and anecdote and it doesn’t really want to be tested.”

However, Dr Myers said that CAM research at RMIT was conducted in a thoroughly scientific manner, with the NHMRC funding clinical trials of alternative medicines. In a clinical study granted A$560,000 by the NHMRC and A$30,000 by the National Institute of Complementary Medicine, the university was collaborating with two Melbourne hospitals on a clinical study investigating the use of ginseng, a herb used in traditional Chinese medicine, for improving lung function in patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD), he said.

The NHMRC had also granted A$400,000 for a project in which the university was collaborating with three Melbourne hospitals on a three-year clinical trial of acupuncture for pain management in emergency departments, Dr Myers said. “The project follows the promising results of pilot studies by RMIT researchers, in which more than 1,000 patients received acupuncture treatment for acute pain relief at the emergency department of the Northern Hospital.”

The professions of Chinese medicine, chiropractic and osteopathy are government regulated, Dr Myers said, with RMIT programs in these fields meeting current professional standards and subject to external accreditation. Chiropractic and osteopathy were areas in which clinical research was limited, but RMIT’s education program incorporated the “best available evidence, while promoting further clinical research into these treatments,” Dr Myers said. “RMIT stands by its long record of evidence-based research and the high quality of its health sciences programs.”

But FSM is not buying it. “Those universities involved in teaching pseudoscience give such ideologies undeserved credibility, damage their academic standing and put the public at risk,” the group’s letter states.

The great danger, said Professor Dwyer, was that people who have chronic health problems or who have been persuaded that doctors do not have the answers are delaying the “proper investigation and treatment” of their illness by instead seeking help from therapists offering alternative medicine.

“These are dangerous delusions, and our campaign at the moment is aimed at those somewhat lesser universities, but nonetheless universities, that are offering and teaching pseudoscience as if there was an evidence base to support it, because obviously that gives credibility in the eye of the public,” Professor Dwyer said.

Citing the late CEO of Apple, Professor Dwyer said that “Steve Jobs spent a year with his cancer of the pancreas trusting homeopathic remedies, and by the time he got to the surgeons it was all over.” It is worth noting the veracity of this claim by Professor Edzard Ernst about Mr Jobs treating his cancer with homeopathy has left some struggling to find evidence for it, while others have claimed that for nine months after his diagnosis, Mr Jobs spurned what could have been life-saving surgery in favour of not homeopathy but a vegan diet and herbal remedies.

The “lesser universities” that have aroused the ire of FSM include the Australian Catholic University, Charles Sturt University, Central Queensland University, Edith Cowan University, Macquarie University, Monash University, Murdoch University, RMIT University, Southern Cross University, Swinburne University, the University of Ballarat, the University of New England, the University of Newcastle, the University of Queensland, the University of Technology Sydney, the University of Western Sydney, and the University of Wollongong. To buttress its case, FSM has gathered a list of offending courses, which includes Chinese Medicine, Wellness studies, Applied Eastern Anatomy, Clinical Science with options to study osteopathy and naturopathy, Mind/Body Medicine, and many others.

“It should be a policy that all universities, higher education institutions, should not be involved in in this woolly teaching,” Professor Dwyer said, adding that “I suspect that these are well attended, popular, money-earning courses for cash-strapped universities.”

The claims of FSM, however, ignore the evidence about CAM in higher education, said Dr Wardle, a NHMRC Research Fellow at the University of Queensland’s School of Population Health and co-director of the Network of Researchers in Public Health and Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NORPHCAM), an international group promoting clinical research in CAM.

“They’re actually not that interested in evidence, because the overwhelming evidence is that putting CAM into universities has increased the standards, decreased the fringe element, and improved public safety, so it definitely smacks of dogmatism,” said Dr Wardle, who is a naturopath.

“They love to say that there’s no such thing as complementary medicine and conventional medicine, there’s just evidence-based and non-evidence-based, but, for example, St John’s Wort for over a decade now has been shown to be equally as effective as any pharmaceutical indication for mild to moderate depression, yet there’s still a large group of doctors who refuse to integrate it simply because it’s a herbal medicine,” Dr Wardle said.

The world of CAM is not a “homogenous entity”, said Dr Wardle. “There is a lot of crap, but there’s good stuff, and treating it like it’s all the same thing is very, very fraught. Taking it out of universities runs a real risk of the fringe element getting a stronger voice in the profession.”

“There are studies from Canada, Australia, and Britain that show that CAM practitioners are less anti-vaccination when they’re university trained, and they refer more to conventional [medical] providers when things get serious if they’re university trained.”

“If you look at chiropractic courses [in universities], most of it is human physiology. Chiropractic is certainly not the dominant part of the course. If you look at naturopathy, they do learn herbal medicine and nutrition but they also learn basic health science: they learn the common language of health practice – they learn what a physio or a medical doctor or a nurse would learn. Putting it into the universities diminishes the fringe element,” Dr Wardle said. “If they [FSM] are really worried about public safety they should be not trying to exclude and ostracise them from the university sector.”

He questioned how representative FSM’s roll call of doctors really is, saying that he has just completed a survey of every rural GP in NSW and qualitative interviews with about 30. “About a third wouldn’t have anything to do with complementary medicine providers, another third were very open to it – maybe too open – and the other third if they knew a practitioner who got results they’d send people on.”

About 70 per cent of Australians use CAM and it thus makes sense for research and training to be carried out within the regulation and scientific rigour of the universities, Dr Wardle said.

Comments welcome below.

Join the conversation

Comments (408)
[...]
[*/quote*]


To sum it up: "Research" in "complementary and alternative medicine" is nothing but a role play to finance its actors and actresses. At best it is paid behavioral therapy. It has a killing resemblance with an ordeal or, worse, a lottery. Sic!




Logged

Österhasi

  • Jr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 10
Re: Das Sterben der Penelope Dingle (nee Brown)
« Reply #26 on: April 09, 2012, 12:37:08 AM »

http://rwdb.blogspot.de/2010/06/dr-dingle-dangerous.html
[*quote*]
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
Dr Dingle dangerous?

Penelope Dingle died in 2005 having rejected conventional cancer treatment in favour of alternative therapies. Here's husband Dr Peter Dingle – an academic; not a medical practitioner – in a TV interview
http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/homeopath-treatment-a-catastrophe-david-dingle-tells-channel-nine/story-e6frg12c-1225883330456
arising from the inquest into wife Penelope's cancer death:

**--quote--**
"This isn't Peter Dingle the academic or the researcher, this is Peter Dingle the husband, who just got lost and didn't know what was going on in the end," he says.

“The treatment by the homeopath was a catastrophe, and in hindsight what a stupid thing I did supporting Pene, and what a stupid thing Pene did in going down that line.”

"At the end there was no sleep, caring 24/7 . . . I was starting to believe it  . . .I have no doubt I was delusional, in shock, traumatised . . . I was caught up in this nightmare . . . an absolute nightmare”.
**--/quote--**



Dr Dingle is in fact still delusional, as this November 2009 post from his blog
http://drpeterdingle.blogspot.com/2009/11/psoriasis-solutions.html
clearly shows:

**--quote--**
Psoriasis is an inflammatory disease that begins in the gut and often involves the liver and other organs. Yep not the skin. The skin is only the elimination organ where it manifests. If you go through allopathic medicine (your GP or specialist) they will treat the skin and it might get better then it will come back and get worse each time and the creams get stronger each time. You are only treating the symptom. If your medical professional or advocacy group does not talk about nutrition and lifestyle I suggest you look for better information, one that is not influenced by a drug company.

The primary cause of this problem is dysbiosis in the gut. The probiotic bacteria are disturbed and dysfunctional. This can come about for a lot of reasons such as antibiotics, processed foods, other medications and even stress. Psoriasis is also an inflammatory disease linked with an increased risk of heat attack and some cancers, hence why it is obviously not a skin disease, it is chronic inflammation.

First thing to do is modify your diet to be unprocessed, lots of salad and raw food, no milk, minimal wheat and absolutely no white flour products. Cut down meat (it is pro inflammatory). No vegetable oil or margarines but lots of unprocessed olive oil. Lots of salad, nuts, vegetables, beans, fruit and oily fish. The best formula for eating is outlined in our book “the 6 week healthy eating planner" on our website (www.drdingle.com).
**--/quote--**


So despite possessing no medical qualifications whatsoever Dr Dingle, an environmental scientist, contradicts the accepted science in stating that psoriasis "begins in the gut and often involves the liver and other organs" when the cause or causes of psoriasis are unknown but it is known for certain that many psoriasis suffers are genetically predisposed to the condition. Note that along with the suspect dietary advice Dr Dingle also suggests that readers consult, that is, buy, one of his books.


None of this is surprising considering that Dr Dingle's second wife Martine is a naturopath
http://www.naturaltherapypages.com.au/therapist/19248
who, together with her husband, runs the Children's Healing Centre.
http://www.detox4antiaging.com.au/Dr-Peter-Dingle.162.0.html
Martine Dingle, Naturopath (Advanced Diploma), hypnotist and life balance coach promotes The Six-Week Healthy Eating Planner
http://drdingle.com/6-Week-Planner.html
she and husband Peter co-wrote. Bear in mind that neither Dingle has any formal nutrition qualifications, at least none that are stated, whatsoever.


But as they say in the TV advert pitching low quality products at "bargain prices", there's more. Despite Dr Dingle's apparent lack of nutrition expertise the University Of Western Australia bills him as follows:
http://www.extension.uwa.edu.au/UWAE_2.0/Whats_On/Whats_On_files/Winter_2010_UWAEWIPR100200.pdf

**--quote--**
Dr Peter Dingle, Health and Nutrition Specialist

Easily 80-90% of the chronic illnesses we suffer from are a result of our diet and lifestyle. The solution is not in any miracle drug, but in healthy eating and digestion. Food is the best medicine, but only if you can digest it. You will learn how good foods can be your lifelong medicine, and also, how to improve your digestion and why digestion begins before you get the food near your mouth. This course will change the way you eat and feel – for the better!
10311032 Monday 2 Aug 6.30-9.30pm $89
**--/quote--**

Yet according to Murdoch University, here are Dr Dingle's research interests:
http://www.environment.murdoch.edu.au/share/staff/personal/8156.html

**--quote--**
Indoor air quality in homes and office buildings; toxic chemical use; air pollution and health; environmental education; environmental management systems and industry; risk management, environmental leadership.
**--/quote--**

And Dr Dingle's Murdoch page shows no research demonstrating expertise in either health or nutrition.

Dr Peter Dingle has established a veritable alternative health industry that's probably quite lucrative but that almost certainly offer precious little benefit to his clients and could even, as in his wife's case, prove highly detrimental.

posted by J F Beck at 7:43 PM |
5 Comments:
 The Asia Beat said...

This piece has interfered with my digestion. Can it be my lifestyle or sheer revulsion at these creatures.
9:55 PM
 observer said...

well said.
3:43 PM
 Tiina Scientific said...

My understanding is that this centre has shut down many years ago after 12 months of operation. I could be wrong.
Also Toni Brown the dead woman's sister who called the inquest has a similiar business.
Toni Brown Massage Therapy And Aromatherapy Clinic
Ste 2 Nichol House Nichol St, Mundaring, WA 6073
6:33 AM
 Hal said...

Judy Wilyman, one of his PhD students, is a prominent anti-vaccination campaigner. You would have to wonder at the academic standards of Murdoch University.
7:53 PM
 observer said...

Have I told you about my forthcoming publication, a counterpart to Dr Dingle's offensively titled "My Dog Eats better than Your Kids"? (Do you know my kids or me Dr Dingle? No? Then don't tell me what they eat!)

Working title "My Dying Cat Got Better Medical Treatment Than Your Wife."
5:01 PM
[*/quote*]
Logged

Österhasi

  • Jr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 10
Re: Das Sterben der Penelope Dingle (nee Brown)
« Reply #27 on: April 09, 2012, 12:45:23 AM »

The original page
http://www.detox4antiaging.com.au/Dr-Peter-Dingle.162.0.html
is deleted. But the Web Archive spidered it several times.

http://web.archive.org/web/20070513233055/http://www.detox4antiaging.com.au/Dr-Peter-Dingle.162.0.html
[*quote*]
Home
Acid/Alkaline Balance
Acidity Self Test
Acidosis - What's Eating You ?
Test Your pH Level
Free E-Books
Toxicity
General
Natural Cellular Detox
Heavy Metals
Mercury
Cadmium
Lead
Copper
Zinc
Toxins and Weight Loss
Dr Peter Dingle
Health Courses
Pesticides in Foods
Food Additives and Contaminants
A Peanut Hypothesis
Chemicals, Kids and Cancer
Stress and Toxic Chemicals
Indoor Air
Cleaning Questions and Answers
Hydration
Ionized Alkaline Water
Ageing
Disease
What is the Foundation of All Disease?
Acid/Alkaline Imbalance
Dehydration
Toxicity
Incomplete Digestion
Candida Self Test
Unhealthy Bowel Function
Stress
Lack of Oxygen
Nutrition
The Dangers of Grains and Sugar
76 Ways Sugar Can Ruin Your Health
Artificial Sweeteners
Are Fats OK?
Food Combining
Raw food and Enzymes
Sprouts for Your Health
Super Foods
Products
Water Ionizers / Alkalizers
Overview
Jupiter Alphion
Jupiter Melody
Undersink Kit for Jupiter Melody
Jupiter Microlite
Pi-Alkaline Water Filter
Key Benefits of Pi-Alkaline Water Filter
Pi-Alkaline Filter Ingredients
How it Works
Waterman Bio Mineral Pot
Alkabalance
Replacement Filters
Jupiter Biostone Replacement Filter 0.1 micron
Jupiter Biostone Replacement filter 0.01 micron
Waterman Bio Mineral Pot Replacement Filter
About Jupiter Science Water Alkalizers
Why Buy Jupiter Science Alkalizers?
FAQs
90 Day Money Back Guarantee
Two Year Warranty
SIGG Water Bottles
The Bottle Top Range
Helpful Tips Care & Cleaning
Kidz
City
Sports
Classics
Other Products
Heavy Metal Test Kit
pH Reagent Test Kit
pHydrion pH Test Strips
80/20 Alkaline/Acid Foods Chart
Brochure
Information
Shipping and Returns
Privacy Policy
Disclaimer
Workshops
MAY 2007
JUNE 2007
Contact
Newsletter Subscription
Contact Toxicity
General
Natural Cellular Detox
Heavy Metals
Toxins and Weight Loss
Dr Peter Dingle
Health Courses
Pesticides in Foods
Food Additives and Contaminants
A Peanut Hypothesis
Chemicals, Kids and Cancer
Stress and Toxic Chemicals
Indoor Air
Cleaning Questions and Answers
How to Purchase


You can pay safely by MasterCard, VISA, cheque or using your PayPal account. All transactions are made using PayPal's high security checkout facility.

For more information about security, please click here.
Is PayPal safe to use?


PayPal protects your financial information with industry-leading security and fraud prevention systems.When you use PayPal, your financial information is not shared with the merchant. Once your payment is complete, you will be emailed a receipt for this transaction.   
Dr Peter Dingle is an Associate Professor and leading researcher in Health and the Environment at Murdoch University.

His research has led him to believe that the way we lead our modern lives is preventing us from reaching our full potential. Our health, our work, our environments, our outlook.

We live our lives in systems and Dr Dingle believes we've got to take control. And so he has come up with The Dingle DEAL which is his guide to managing Diet, Environment, Attitude and Lifestyle that will, he believes, not only help you to live longer, but more importantly show you how to maintain your productivity and enjoy life.

Dr Dingle and Martine Partridge (ND)  run the Children's Healing Centre, 85 South Street, Beaconsfield  WA  6162

To download copy of their Health Courses click here
http://web.archive.org/web/20070513233055/http://www.detox4antiaging.com.au/fileadmin/user_upload/Downloads/WORKSHOPS/MAY_07/PETER_DINGLE/Health_Courses/Children_s_Healing_Centre_Sem_2.doc


       Hints and Tips

Fussy Eaters: Often the bad eating habits we have as adults begin in childhood, so its important that children are given an opportunity to eat well. But everyone knows how hard it can be convincing our offspring to eat healthy foods. Nutritious foods can be disguised. Children will often eat a vegetable soup when they won’t eat vegetables for example.

Get Even More Water: Drinking eight glasses of water a day can sometimes be hard for busy people in stressful jobs who often forget to drink until their body tells them they’re thirsty. You can hydrate even more by eating high water content foods such as fruits and vegetables.

Ageing; Don’t Forget the Obvious: No matter how well you eat, how much great water you drink and how much you exercise, don’t forget to be happy! The ancient Greek philosopher Epicurus had a formula for being happy; don’t fear gods, don’t worry about death, what is good is easy to get and what is terrible is easy to endure!

 Copyright © 2007 Positive Potential. All Rights Reserved

Site by Pixelsound Web Design Perth
[*/quote*]

As this is a case of something not only we consider a crime, these findings are added to the Streisand.
Logged

Österhasi

  • Jr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 10
Re: Das Sterben der Penelope Dingle (nee Brown)
« Reply #28 on: April 09, 2012, 12:51:59 AM »

Dr. Peter Dingle, being no medical doctor, makes outrageous claims. This is the contents of the doc-file in the above advertisement:

http://web.archive.org/web/20070513233055/http://www.detox4antiaging.com.au/fileadmin/user_upload/Downloads/WORKSHOPS/MAY_07/PETER_DINGLE/Health_Courses/Children_s_Healing_Centre_Sem_2.doc
[*quote*]
Children’s Healing Centre

85 South Street, Beaconsfield WA 6162   
Phone: 94335540
Email: good4us@westnet.com.au
Martine Partridge (ND) and Dr. Peter Dingle

Semester 2 2007 Health Courses

Supercharge your business and your life (Dr Peter Dingle) $100
Friday March 23. 9.30am to 4.00pm

Improve your memory, creativity and your life (Dr Peter Dingle) $100
Saturday April 28. 9.30am to 4.00pm

Eat your way out of depression and mood swings (Dr Peter Dingle) $20
Monday April 30. 7.00 to 9.00 PM

Healthy eating and more energy for over 40’s. For people with low energy, hypertension or high cholesterol who want more in life (Dr Peter Dingle) $20                        Wednesday May 2. 7.00 to 9.00 PM

Weight loss (3 weeks). Lose weight and take control of your life (Dr Peter Dingle and Martine Partridge ND) $120   Monday May 7, 14, 21 . 7.00 to 9.00 PM

Healthy eating for healthy families 3 weeks (Dr Peter Dingle and Martine Partridge ND) $100            Tuesday. June 5, 12, 19. 7.00 to 8.30 PM.

Are you over acidic? (Robyn Backhouse)  $10   Wednesday 16th May/ 20th June. 10am – 12 noon.

Want to feel better and rid yourself of unwanted toxins? (Robyn Backhouse)  $10              Wednesday 16th May/ 20th June. 1pm – 3pm.



Other courses available in 2007
Weight Control for families. Smoking cessation, Healthy eating for families. Boost your children’s self esteem, Brain gym for kids, Goal getting for kids, Memory for kids, Art Therapy for Children and much more.
For more information and bookings telephone 94335540 or good4us@westnet.com.au.
[*/quote*]

Logged

Österhasi

  • Jr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 10
Re: Das Sterben der Penelope Dingle (nee Brown)
« Reply #29 on: April 10, 2012, 10:04:56 AM »

Have to push this.

[/quote*]
A homeoquack doesn't like publicity
(7/4/2012)

Penelope Dingle died on August 25, 2005, from rectal cancer. During her illness she was "treated" by a homeopath named Francine Scrayen. Ms Scrayen had no medical training of any kind (except a St John's First Aid Certificate) but her hubris allowed her to give medical advice to someone with terminal cancer. The Coroner was less than complimentary when he referred to Ms Scrayen's involvement in the management of Ms Pringle's illness. Here is part of what he had to say:

COMMENTS IN RELATION TO MRS SCRAYEN'S INVOLVEMENT

It is clear that over a period of time Mrs Scrayen's relationship with the deceased changed and particularly after her diagnosis with rectal cancer that relationship went far beyond what would normally be expected of a health professional/patient relationship.

Mrs Scrayen's explanation in respect of the increased number of contacts was that she was a dedicated professional and that more and more regular contacts were necessary so that she could change her treatment plan to accommodate changes in the deceased's condition.

In my view the relationship between Mrs Scrayen and the deceased was not a healthy one. The deceased clearly became more and more dependent on Mrs Scrayen.

The events which followed highlight the dangers associated with persons relying on non-science based alternative treatments and the importance of placing reliance on reliable information.

I should, however, record that by purporting to treat the deceased's cancer and, for example, suggesting that she insert velvet soap Mrs Scrayen was not acting in accordance with the Australian Homeopathic Association Code of Professional Conduct. It was recognised by Sylvia Neubacher, who gave evidence about homeopathic practices in Australia, that a non-medically qualified practitioner should not claim that he or she could treat, cure or prevent cancer. The use of soap, was not a recognised homeopathic practice as described.

Chemotherapy, radiation and surgical procedures in this type of context are never an attractive option even when they are manifestly the best option available. In that context it was particularly important that any decisions should be based on the available reliable and accurate information and statistics, unfortunately it appears that Mrs Scrayen provided the deceased with false hope and provided a much more attractive non-scientific based treatment plan.

The unhealthy reliance placed on Mrs Scrayen's homeopathic "cures" by the deceased and her husband, Dr Dingle, who appears to have been very much involved in the decision-making process, resulted in a tragic series of events and the deceased suffering extreme uncontrolled pain over an extended period of time at a level not normally experienced in societies where there is access to modern medical treatment. During the period of the deceased's treatment by Mrs Scrayen her cancer developed rapidly and at the time she was taken to Fremantle Hospital for an emergency procedure, tragically it was too late for her to be saved.

It was submitted on behalf of Mrs Scrayen that her evidence should be accepted to the effect that she was not told that the deceased would die reasonably soon if she did not have the operation recommended by Professor Platell. It was noted that her evidence was that if she had been told about the advice that Professor Platell and Dr Barnes had given to the deceased (namely that she would die if she did not have the operation reasonably soon), she would have advised the deceased to follow Professor Platell's advice without delay.

Considerable reliance is placed on the fact that as the deceased was not available to give evidence in respect of the matter, the only direct evidence in relation to what was said during the many consultation was that of Mrs Scrayen.

I do not accept the above contention. While I accept that in the absence of the deceased it cannot be established with precision what was said during the consultations. I am convinced that Mrs Scrayen was well aware of the situation. I make the observation that having observed Mrs Scrayen give evidence I did not consider her to be a witness of the truth in respect of these matters.

Mrs Scrayen had over 100 consultations with the deceased in the period leading up to the emergency operation. Mrs Scrayen knew that the deceased had bowel cancer and must have known that she was experiencing great pain.

The deceased's diary entries are supported by the evidence of all other observers of her to the effect that she experienced gross unmanaged pain in the period prior to the operation which she could not adequately conceal. I do not accept that over the vast number of interactions between them, even though a number of these were over the telephone, Mrs Scrayen could have been in any doubt as to what was happening.

It was submitted that, "it was not incumbent on Mrs Scrayen to ascertain precisely what the content was of each treatment program that Penelope was receiving from other doctors". In respect of that submission I observe that Mrs Scrayen is not a doctor, but was purporting to treat the deceased who she knew was very ill and in that context it was incumbent on her to find out whether the patient she was treating was receiving appropriate medical attention.

It was also submitted on behalf of Mrs Scrayen that she was unaware of the extent of the deceased's rapid deterioration in condition between 16 September 2003 and 9 October 2003 as for some of that time Mrs Scrayen was in Sydney and the contact during that period was over the telephone and not in person.

I do not accept that submission and I am satisfied that Mrs Scrayen was well aware of the fact that during that period the deceased was desperately unwell.

In my view the deceased was extremely unwell prior to 16 September 2003 and that fact was known to Mrs Scrayen. Her own notes contain multiple references to the deceased suffering pain during the period in question and during the very many telephone conversations which took place I am satisfied that the situation must have been made very clear.

Other witnesses who saw the deceased during this period describe her in such pain that she could not have concealed the fact of her deteriorating condition from Mrs Scrayen even if she had wished to do so.

The coroner made some quite clear statements about his opinion of Ms Scrayen:

Although Mrs Scrayen stated that she had completed a first aid course with St John Ambulance Service, she stated that it was a "very basic" course and that her understanding of medical issues was relatively poor.

The problem in this case was that Mrs Scrayen was not a competent health professional.

I do not accept this claim by Mrs Scrayen, whom I did not generally regard to be a witness of truth.

In my view Mrs Scrayen’s advising against surgery in these circumstances was an outrageous thing to do. Mrs Scrayen had minimal medical knowledge and was giving dangerous advice on matters in respect of which she had no expertise.

I accept that Mrs Scrayen discouraged the deceased from receiving appropriate pain management and that she did tell the deceased that she was imagining much of her very real pain.

The events which followed highlight the dangers associated with persons relying on non-science based alternative treatments and the importance of placing reliance on reliable information.

I make the observation that having observed Mrs Scrayen give evidence I did not consider her to be a witness of the truth in respect of these matters.

During the period in 2003 while the deceased was relying on the treatment provided by Mrs Scrayen, not only did she lose whatever chances of life she had, she suffered extreme and unnecessary pain. Evidence at the inquest was to the effect that had surgery been performed earlier much of that gross pain would have been avoided.

This situation was made even worse by the fact that Mrs Scrayen’s advice to the deceased was that she should avoid or take a minimum of pain reducing medications. The deceased accepted this advice and only reluctantly used minimal analgesia.

The Coroner also had some comments about medical quackery:

This case has highlighted the importance of patients suffering from cancer making informed, sound decisions in relation to their treatment. In this case the deceased paid a terrible price for poor decision making.

Unfortunately the deceased was surrounded by misinformation and poor science.

In her decision making the deceased placed great reliance on Mrs Scrayen who represented to her that she could treat cancer by homeopathy. ... I have serious reservations about any efforts to register or otherwise legitimise homeopathy or other similar alternative forms of medicine.

While I do not agree with the proposition that such alternative medical regimes should be outlawed, unless and until their supporters can provide appropriate and sufficient science base, any apparent legitimisation of these regimes could provide mixed messages for vulnerable and often desperate cancer suffers.

In a context where health costs are increasing at an alarming rate and private health insurance companies struggle to meet the full costs of procedures, medications and hospital beds, it is a matter of concern that funds which could be allocated to such fundamental health needs are being allocated to non-science based alternative medicine practitioners.

You can read the full Coroner's Report here.

There can be no doubt that Ms Scrayen was aware of the damage she was doing to Ms Dingle. You can see this in the tragic letters that Penelope Dingle wrote to her former friend. If you do not alternate between sorrow and rage when reading these letters you should probably go away and read some other web site.

In March this year, Ms Dingle's sister sued Francine Scrayen.

So what would you do if you were a discredited homeopath who had caused someone to die horribly in great pain, had been soundly slapped by a Coroner and was being sued by the victim's family? Well you would do what all homeopaths do which is carry on dispensing witchcraft and nonsense. You would also do that other thing that crooks and quacks do when criticised and start threatening to sue people who talk about you.

On April 5, lawyers acting for Francine Scrayen issued a demand to Dan Buzzard, a blogger who had had a few words to say on the matter. You can see the lawyer's letter here. You will note that the the action in response was demanded for midday, April 10, five days after the letter was written. The intervening days were the Easter public holiday, a time when there can be a reasonable assumption that people are neither at home nor at work or are busy with preplanned activities such as religious observation or taking the kids to the Royal Easter Show. This sort of precipitate action, demanding that things have to be done with no time to consult a lawyer, is typical of the way charlatans and crooks behave. (When I was sued by a pyramid scheme operator they actually went to court without notifying me at all, and a friend of mine was served with papers on a Saturday morning demanding he appear in court at 9:30 on Monday.)

Let's look at the things Ms Scrayen and her lawyers are complaining about, taken from the threatening letter.What a homeopath whines about   What I have to say about that


1. has been sued for the death of Penelope Dingle   
2. defrauded Penelope Dingle   Did she provide what was promised and paid for? No, therefore fraud. This leaves aside the fact that homeopathy is always fraud.
3. sold witchcraft   While real witches might disagree because their potions and spells could possibly have more efficacy than homeopathy, selling magic water is close enough to the general public's idea of witchcraft.
4. killed Penelope Dingle   Fine point of law here about whether hastening someone's death by keeping them away from medical care is actively killing. The result is the same. Ask anyone involved in the legalities of the euthanasia debate.
5. intentionally influenced Penelope Dingle into making bad medical choices   Who am I to disagree with the Coroner? Perhaps Ms Scrayen should sue him too.
6. is the very worst type of fraud   Semantics here - can a person be a "fraud" just because they commit fraud? Well, she is a homeopath.
7. cheated her victim [Penelope Dingle] of money   I don't know if the whine here is about the word "victim" which is undoubtedly true or the accusation of cheating. Did Penelope Dingle pay for her treatment? Yes. Did she get what she paid for? No. QED.
8. cheated Penelope Dingle out of life   Have I mentioned what the Coroner found? Ms Dingle might still be alive if she had been allowed to have proper medical treatment.
9. sold fake medicine   Ms Scrayen is a homeopath, so nothing more has to be said.
10. actions are despicable   Read the Coroner's Report. Read Penelope Dingle's letters.

1. is a callous individual who cheats, exploits and swindles the sick and desperate in the pursuit of profit;   Again I must mention Penelope Dingle's letters to Francine Scrayen. The words "callous" and "swindle" just leap from the page.
2. scammed Penelope Dingle to death   Scammed her until death might be more accurate, but there is no doubt that the homeopathy scam contributed to Penelope's early (and painful) death.
3. took Penelope Dingle's money   Is there even any dispute about this?
4. took Penelope Dingle's life   See my comments above about "killed" and "cheated".
5. killed Penelope Dingle   The lawyer must be getting paid by the word to include this twice.
6. is a fraud happily endangering lives in the pursuit of profit.   She is a homeopath, she claimed to be able to cure cancer, she does this for a living. Three out of three ain't bad.


 Dan has rightly refused to make any changes to his published comments. I doubt if Ms Scrayen wants to extend the Streisand Effect any further, but if she goes ahead with court action I can assure her that she will become very (in)famous very soon.

And what is the reaction of the homeopathic and general alternative medicine community to this? Business as usual, of course. What's one dead patient when there's money to be made?
[*/quote*]

more:
Australian Skeptics unite against homeopathy fraud:
http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/
Logged
Pages: [1]