BRlsBaneDtseaseD:Contagi ons, Curesand ControversyEdited by Alana Piper

BRISBANEHislory 0roup

Papers No.252016

Copyright O 2016 Brisbane History Group & The Authors

This publication is copyright. Apafi from fair dealing for the purposes ofprivate study, research, criticism or review permitted under the Copyright Act.no part of this work may be stored or reproduced by any process without priorwritten permission. Inquiries should be made to the publishers.

All rights reserved.

First published 2016

Jointly published by Brisbane History Group, PO Box 12, Kelvin Grove DC.

Qld 4059 and Boolarong Press, Salisbury Qld.

National Library of Australia, Cataloguing-in-Publication entry:

Tirle:

ISBN:

Series:

Notes:Subjects:

Brisbane diseased : contagions, cures and controversy,Alana Piper (editor).97 819252367 29 (paperback)

Papers (Brisbane History Group) ; no.24.Includes bibliographical references and index.Diseases-Queensland--Brisbane--History.Communicable diseases--Queensland--Brisbane--Histon .

Diseases--Treatment--Queensland--Brisbane.Other Creators/Contributors :

Piper Alana, editor.Brisbane History Group.

Dewey Number: 616.0099431

Typeset in Liberation Serif 12 pt

Cover Design by Boolarong Press

Printed and bound by Watson Ferguson & Company, Salisbury, Brisbane.

Proudly supported by Brisbane City Council

Deilicateil to a better Brisbane

ConrenTsContributors

Illustrations

Preface

1 Diseases come and go: Combating disease in theMoreton Bay settlement and early Brisbane

John Pearn

2 Protecting Brisbane: Health offlcers and maritimequarantine in pre-Separation Queensland

Jennifer Harrison

3 Sex, women and the venereal, Brisbane, 1859-1911

Gerald Hugo R6e

4 Lead poisoning in Queensland

Michael JohnThearle

5 The black death in Brisbane: Researching and writing a

historical novel for children, The ratcatcher's daughter

Pamela Rushby

6 Dr Thomas Pennington Lucas and plague denial: 'Moreterrible than warl'

BilI Metcalf

7 Medical treatment of alcoholism in turn-of-the-centuryBrisbane

Alana Piper

B When 'Spanish flu' came to Brisbane

HelenV. Smith

v

vii

xi

19

')-

59

79

99

131

I49

Brisbane Diseased

9 'Last of the great childhood plagues': Queensland'spolio experience

PauI Sayer 169

10 Art, healing and local native medicinal plants ofMinjerribah (North Stradbroke Island)

Ren1ta Buziak 193

fl Prosecuting medical quackery: Foreign practitioners,pseudo-medicine and cancer curers

Alana Piper 21.5

12 Guardians of women's health: Corsetieres and themedicalisation of corsetry

Rosemary Knight 239

13 Sister Elizabeth Kenny: A prophet unrecognised?

Paul Sayer 259

L4 Well! Where will I put the b***'{<'F thing? The battle toupgrade the Brisbane city morgue

Lee Butterworth 277

Measures 295

Abbreviations 296

l{ofes 298

References 324

Index 340

Stylesheet 344

Publications 347

lv

Chapte r IIPnosecurtnc meDlcatOUACKCRY:Foreign practitioners,pseudo-medicineand cancer curersAlana Piper

In early November 1952 the Brisbane criminal Investigation

Bureau announced that it was preparing to iaunch a 'blitz' attack

on 'phony experts' in the city, including herbalists, naturopaths,

dieticians, trichologists, psychologists, fortune-tellers and others

who claimed the ability 'to soothe sick or lonely individuals'.

Police Inspector Bischof was vocal in his condemnation of such

individuals as quacks, unhesitatingly deriding them as 'heartless

and ruthless' charlatans.l As medical historian Roy Porter points

out, however, quackery has long been a problematic term'2

Historically, it has been applied indiscriminately to anything at

odds with orthodox medicine, something that is itself subject to

shifting definitions and limits.3 The quack could lange from the

doctor who advocated experimental treatments through to the

practitioner of alternative therapies. Ot, as Bischof suggested,

Brisbane Diseased

the quack could be nothing more than a simple confldence-trickster.

The nineteenth century has been recognised as a golden agein Australia for quackery of all.descriptions.4 Laws regulatingthe provision of healthcare were limited while demand forservices was great, especially on the rural frontier. yet themost roaring trade was found in the capital cities.s In Brisbane,unorthodox doctors, alternative therapists and simple medicalfraudsters treated all manner of diseases. However, the quackdid have some specialties. Among these were the provision ofcure-all remedies that promised to heal every disease; treatmentof embarrassing diseases that patients might be reructant toapproach their regular doctor about; and the offer of miraclecures to victims suffering fatal diseases and desperate enoughto try anything. It has been contended that the worst examplesof such medical quackery had been eliminated by the 1g20s.6Yet, as the 1957 Brisbane police raid demonstrates, concernsabout unorthodox medical practitioners continued weli into thetwentieth century. This was in part due to prolonged tensionsbetween the medical profession, the government and otherregulatory bodies about how, and even whether, such activityshould be prosecuted. This paper will examine the role ofquackery in the treatment of disease in Brisbane, chartingthe deveiopment of attempts to take legal action against suchactivity from the nineteenth century onwards. However, itwill concentrate predominantly on the less-examined issue oftwentieth-century quackery.

Lecal FRamewoRr(

Attempts to establish a medical orthodoxy began soon afterQueensland's emergence as a separate colony. Using an inheritedprovision of the New south wales Medical practitioners Act1855, the Queensland governor-in-council appointed theMedical Board of Queensland on 18 February 1860.7 Thereafter,

2L6

Prosecuting medicaI quacl<ery I Alana Piper

any individual who wished to be certified in Queensland as a

qualified medical practitioner had to submit their qualiflcations

to this board. on 1 August 1861, the first Medical Act was

passed by the Queensland Parliament. Proponents claimed that

part of its mandate was 'to protect the public from the quacks

ind unskillful vendors of medicine who were more injurious

to the community than robbers and assassins'.8 In reaiity, the

Act, like subsequent legislation in 1925 and l-939, did nothing

to prohibit unqualified individuals from treating patients.e It

simpty prevented those not certified by the Medical Board from

representing themselves as qualifled medical practitioners.

Initial activity by the Medical Board therefore concentrated

on preventing individuals with limited training from passing

themselves off as doctors. This practice abounded in the

colonies due to the relative ease with which individuals could

reinvent their identity, leading to Australia's reputation as

the .elysium of quacks'.l0 of particular concern wele those

who ciaimed to be doctors on the basis of dubious foreign

credentials.ll One of the flrst applicants that the Board refused

to register was william smith, who presented a certif,cate

from the unrecognised Pennsylvania College of Homeopathic

Medicine. Another was German Ernest wuth, whose studies

at the University of Gissen were acceptable, but who had never

undertaken the necessary examinations to practise medicine in

Germany.

The rejection of both men became a subject of controversy

after they enlisted the aid of the North Brisbane Member of

Parliament to request govelnment intercession in the matter.

In 1866, amendments to the 1861 Act were proposed that

would enable the Government to over-rule the board's refusal

to register practitioners, with pariiamentarians blaming the

need lor such provisions on the board's 'obstructiveness''12

The bill faiied by a single vote. A new Act was passed in 1867

that would not be amended for nearly sixty years, but it did not

2L7

Brisbane Diseased

substantially alter the board's position.l3 However, the episodeinstituted what wouid continue to be a fraught relationshipbetween the government and the medical fraternity on the issueof who had the right to determine the legitimacy of healthcarepractitioners and practices. The'validity of the qualifications offoreign doctors also continued to be a troubling issue for theMedical Board well into the twentieth century.la

However, as the Brisbane press reported from the latenineteenth century, exclusions from the register of qualifiedmedical practitioners did little to stop unqualifled individualsfrom exercising 'all the most profitable privileges of the medicalprofession'.1s From 1861 the board received frequent complaintsof unregistered persons representing themselves as doctors.Having no funds to prosecute such activities, the board advisedcomplainants to undertake prosecutions on the Board's behalf,offering assistance in the collection of evidence. If convicted,the maximum penalty was only a twenty pound fine.16 The boardwas even less empowered to deal with what was regarded as

the main branch of quackery: so-called pseudo-medicine. Thisterm was used to cover traditional practices like herbal medicinethrough to treatments incorporating new technologies, suchas electrotherapy.lT Legal action could only be taken againstsuch activity when practitioners misrepresented themselvesas doctors. The only exception was when a death occurred inconnection with questionable remedies, such as in 1BB5 whenmanslaughter charges were instituted against Patrick Beardafter a man died of exhaustion and starvation while receivinglive-in treatment at Beard's hydropathic establishment at SouthBrisbane.ls The medical profession itself remained dividedover whether to agitate for greater legai action against pseudo-medicine, some believing such attempts would simply encouragesuch practices by drawing greater attention to them.ls

The media meanwhile attributed suspect motives tothe medical community's antagonism towards quackery,

218

Prosecuting medicaI quacl<ery I Alana Piper

encouraging public distrust of the profession. In lBgZ theTelegraph questioned how quackery was to be determined,declaring:

The popular meaning of the name 'doctor' is 'one who curesdisease.' Now, when half who profess to cure disease, havesuccessively and unsuccessfully treated a patient, and he isafterwards taken in hand by the 'irregular,' or 'quack,' andpromptly cured...who is the doctor, and who are the quacks?20

The newspaper also expressed the belief that the professiononly wanted quacks out of the way in order to increase theiralready extortionate prices. The inability of many to afforddoctor's fees was one of the reasons that quackery remainedpopular, and public support for its suppression remained limited.

The Medical Board did sometimes receive help from policein prosecuting alternative therapists who misrepresentedthemselves as genuine doctors. Arthur Foote, herbalist and'metaphysician' of New Farm, was thus prosecuted in 1919.

The case rested largely on testimony from Kate Condon, a

private detective recruited by police to obtain evidence against a

number of the city's 'quacks'. Condon visited Foote undercoverpretending to be suffering from muscle aches. During herconsultation, Foote not only claimed to be a qualified doctorwho had previously consulted at the Cailan Park LunaticAsylum in Sydney, but to possess the gift of second sight, whichhe used to diagnose Condon's case and prescribe a bottle ofmedicine to her.

Undercover operatives were often employed in gatheringevidence in quackery cases. Existing patients tended to bereluctant to testify, either embarrassed that they had beenduped or in the belief that they had received sound treatment.One patient of Foote's who did agree to testify against him wasRobert Alexander Gow assistant undertaker and son of thefounder of Alex Gow Funerais. Gow stated that both he and his

2L9

Brisbane Diseased

deceased father received treatment from Foote in the belief hewas a duly qualified medical practitioner, Gow having paid fivepounds for treatment of an infected ear.21 Foote was convicted exparte and fined twenty pounds.22.

The police were particularly interested in quackery caseswhere practitioners claimed to deal with secret diseases andprivate complaints. This hinted that they were engaged inpeddling abortifacients or performing illegal operations.Such suspicions were raised in 1913 regarding the cooniey'sLadies college of Health, operated by Mrs olive Moore at thecorner of Queen and Eagle Street.23 The college, which did notemploy any qualified medical practitioners, treated only femalepatients with proprietary formulas imported from the unitedstates.2a Howard Freeman, who later achieved fame as the co-founder of the Freeman wallace Electro-medical and surgicalInstitute in sydney, had similarly established a progressiveRemedy Institute in Brisbane in 1891 that offered to dealwith 'female complaints', among other diseases.2s The 1890ssaw efforts by Queensland's Medico-Ethical Association tointroduce legislation preventing the advertising of such services.During debate over the legisiation, doctor and parliamentarianCharles Marks complained that whiie walking down eueenStreet his young son had been handed a pamphlet dealingwith 'troubles peculiar to women'. Despite the passage of theIndecent Advertisements Act in 1892, which prohibited anyadvertisement related to 'complaints arising from or relatingto sexual intercourse', suggestive medical advertisementscontinued to appear in local papers into the twentieth century.26

venereal disease was another quack speciaity that attractedpolice attention. The control and treatment of such complaintswere subject to stringent legal regulations in eueensland,especially when it came to female patients. At the urging ofthe Medical Board of Queensland, the police thus initiatedan investigation of Arthur Binstead in 1920. Binstead was a

220

#&3&ffiffiffi ffifld-ffi WWffiffiWWmW,,

Prosecuting medicaI quacl<ery I Alana Piper

**_.:@

6"rT?'s 53 | f @1W W: {"i wriky {v W||W\W tW I%,'"fi ff-#*+ 6s W*W S4d' fr'4-PU6 4-ffilqK g, oo

--$44ru - ffie"ffikffi"WeWd ffi&'e,g

'ffiw{ trF{ffiwwi;.tj ::.'-

,,V['K,ffi w*g\nTnm ffi:wam*y@

C,jg H/tffi.'dtqqi ti\.dvqt\4 anq& K^'#-fL#i$.t

;@ ". ,,.

i4 Vii\* fun u, '?' t"t n\ng n&i Iq a ;s!,.!b. # htr H Bii#$# Vf"e{fiPWSWE'

f .,, I :

11.1 Quackery headline and sexually indecent advertising.

chemist specialising in face creams and powders, which he sold

from premises at Wickham Street, Fortitude Valley. However,

it was rumoured that he also treated men for venereal disease.

Poiice suspected he might be helping women evade medical

scrutiny by treating them as well, as he was often seen in South

Brisbane in the company of prostitutes and persons of ill repute.

Binstead's flash style of dress created additional suspicion,

suggesting a dubious prosperity not derived from a 'legitimateprofession', which would demand more sober attire. Between

1904 and 1915 Binstead had moreover been arrested several

times for housebreaking and other offences.2T Nevertheless,

Brisbane police were unable to obtain sufficient evidence to

charge him in relation to his medical activities.

rw#., : ,:r,;ia

.

s*WmWauw

i" 'd 6 i{-&, &"4 WB L {

22L

Brisbane Diseased

Even when the police and the Medical Board had the will andthe resources to investigate quackery cases, the vagueness of the1867 Medical Act meant they often had difficulties obtainingconvictions. Individuals who had seemingly comportedthemselves as doctors could escape conviction by claiming theyhad never represented themselves as qualified practitioners,and could not be blamed for false assumptions made by theirpatients. In 1925 a new Medical Act was flnally passed thatmore clear$ specified the terms and behaviours that could beviewed as misrepresentation.2s One of the first prosecutions wasagainst Northey Du Maurier, who in 1926 operated a practice atNorth Quay, advertising himself as a 'fully qualif,ed doctor ofMedical Electro-Therapy'. He was convicted, but appealed onthe grounds that the new Act was unclear in its intention, as wellas being grammatically incorrect. The judge hearing the appealrejected these claims, including the matter of faulty grammar.He pointed out that the Act prohibited unqualified medicalpractitioners from five means of representing themselves as

being any one of tweive things, thereby creating a total of sixtypossible offences. Du Maurier's conviction and flne of flvepounds was ordered to stand.2e

While the ability of the medical community to assert itsauthority had increased by the 1920s, the issue of quackery wasstill an active one, in part because of ongoing tensions betweenthe government and the profession. In 1911 the governmenthad sought to introduce legislation that would allow medicalpractitioners refused certiflcation by the board to appeal thedecision to the government, and which would recognise faithhealing as a legitimate activity immune from prosecution.3oThe medical profession was scathing in its criticism of the Bill,which ultimately was not enacted. However, the interwar periodsaw further governmental efforts to assume authority over theissue of medical legitimacy. It also witnessed one of Brisbane'smost infamous episodes of quackery.

222

Prosecuting medicaI quacl<ery I Alana Piper

A sranrltnc announcemenr

On 12 October l-932, Mr George A. Roberts, director of Roberts

Clinics Proprietary, gave a lecture at his company offices in

the Queen Street National Bank Chambers. The large audience

included members of the Brisbane press. After dramatically

taking a vial from his pocket and staring at it thoughtfully,

Roberts made the startling pronouncement that after nine and a

half years of research, he had discovered 'a positive cure for the

dread disease of cancer'. Roberts claimed that he had discovered

a combination of acids that would dissolve both internal and

external cancerous growths within a matter of seven to 21 days.

He had offered the cure for free to the Queensland Government

for use in the public hospitals. The Government had ignored

this offer, referring him to the Queensland Cancer Trust. This

body had insisted he disclose the details of his formula before

any experiments were undertaken; he refused to do this on the

grounds of proprietary concelns, and his offer to give practical

demonstrations was rebuffed. His request to attend the Cancer

Research Conference in Canberra had also been refused.3l

The 34-year-old Roberts represented himself as a victim of

grave injustice at the hands of the medical community. Refusing

to believe anyone outside the profession could develop a cure for

cancer, they were not only ignoring his efforts, but threatening

him with prosecution if he advertised his claims. staunchly

disregarding such threats, Roberts asserted, 'Whether they wiliprosecute me remains to be seen. I stand here as a sane man, and

I am going to say that I have cured cancer, and I am going to

continue to cure it.'32 The medical fraternity was quick to defend

itseif against Roberts's allegations. The Queensland Cancer

Trust declared it was eager to investigate any avenues that

might further research of the disease, but could not facilitate

the administration of an unknown substance to patients. They

pointed out that ownership of any cure would not be threatened

by their investigations, which were necessary to determine the

22t

Brisbane Diseased

effects of new treatments, and how they compared to existingremedies.

The early twentieth century had in fact witnessed greatprogress in cancer research, .with significant advances inmedical understanding of the disease. Radiation therapyhad begun to be used to inhibit the progress of, and evencure, certain cancer types. The first radium institute for thetreatment of cancer had been opened in Brisbane at the MaterMisericordiae Hospital in 1-928.33 However, misinformationabout the disease remained rife, prompting the launch of apublic education campaign across the British Empire during the1930s.3a To the lay public, cancer remained a mysterious disease,one that had come to represent one of the leading causes of deathin the industriaiised world.3s

It therefore proved a fertile ground for quackery. WhileRoberts stated he was making a 'bold assertion' in declaringhis ability to cure cancer, such claims were in fact commonthroughout Australia, Britain, and North America.36 Newspaperadvertisements had long appeared for pills and potionsprofessing to cure everything from cancer to the commoncold.37 Although some who made such assertions were simplyswindlers, others genuinely believed in the efflcacy of their'cures'. Brisbane plague-denier Dr Thomas Pennington Lucasused his famous papaw ointment not only to treat diseases suchas dengue fever, diphtheria and appendicitis, but conductedresearch into its efficacy as a cancer cure. He reportedencouraging results, particularly in regard to cancers of thestomach, liver and bowels. In an expos6 on Lucas by Truth in1911, accusing him of causing delays in cancer patients seekingproven medical treatments, the paper did Lucas the justice ofadmitting the doctor 'evidently believes much, most, or all, thathe says'.38

A prominent Brisbane doctor, asked to comment on GeorgeRoberts's cancer cure claim in 1932, revealed that the medical

224

Prosecuting medicaI quacl<ery I Alana Piper

world was frequently beset by laypersons who believed theycould cure cancer. In some cases their treatments even workedto a certain extent, with their acidic formulas able to burnoff skin cancers, usually in. a manner far more painful and

dangerous than existing medical remedies. Other cases ofmiraculous 'cures', particularly in cases of internai cancers,

were explained to be the result of misdiagnoses of the originaicondition; this was particulariy likely when the 'curer' was theone making the diagnosis.3e

The Medical Board of Queensland was quick to takelegal action in response to Roberts's claim, although theirtarget was not Roberts himself, as he had carefully avoidedmisrepresenting himself as a doctor. On 27 October 1932, theMedical Board of Queensland instead heard evidence againstDr Thomas Eastoe Abbott of Toowong for associating withand covering for G. A. Roberts of the Roberts Clinic, a person

offering medical treatment while not a registered medicalpractitioner. Abbott was accused of acting as a kind of 'frontman' for the clinic, providing it with a medical bona f,des.

It was also alleged that he had ordered restricted drugs on theclinic's behalf. Both Abbott and the Medical Board employedlegal representation in the matter, which was heard before a

panel of six doctors. The main evidence against Abbott wasprovided by Harry Johnson, a private enquiry agent, who had

visited the clinic complaining of arthritis and been introducedto Abbott as the clinic doctor. Abbott, however, minimised hisassociation with the clinic, stating he was simply a pathologist

who occasionally consulted on the diagnosis of cases. This was

disputed by a certifled copy of indenture between Abbott and

the clinic. Abbott was found guilty, and his name was erased

from the Queensland Medical Registry.a0

Outside the medical community, however, there weremany who were prepared to credit Roberts's claim that he

could cure cancer. Testimonials to the treatment's efficacy

225

Brisbane Diseased

were provided by a number of reputable citizens. The hostilitydisplayed between Roberts and the medical establishmentmay have only encouraged his success. As the Brisbanecourier noted on 28 November 1932, public ignorance aboutthe causes and existing treatments for cancer was intensifiedby a 'deep-rooted and unreasoning prejudice to the medicalprofession'.a1 The newspaper placed pressure on the governmentto investigate Roberts's remedSr, and on Roberts to submitto such a demonstration. Declaring that the cure needed to betested in 'the interests of suffering humanity', the paper urgedthe medical community to accede to Roberts's demand formedical trials conducted on his own terms. On 30 November,Roberts met with the Premier and Home Secretary, Edward'Ned' Hanlon, a man who himself seems to have been of theopinion that the medical community was more concernedwith protecting their interests than the public's. A few dayslater, it was announced that Roberts had agreed to demonstratehis cure on six volunteer patients under the observation ofthree government-appointed medical professionals.a2 Theworker newspaper in particular welcomed the government'swillingness to trial Roberts's cure on his own terms, using theannouncement as an opportunity to publish a lengthy diatribeagainst the prejudice of the British Medical Association.a3

The testing was to begin early the foliowing year. By 5January 1933, however, Roberts was threatening to pull outof the proposed trial. He claimed that the government hadaltered the conditions of the original agreement by involvingprofessionals from the Queensland Cancer Trust, which wasprejudiced against him. He also objected to the proposal thattwo of the patients should be suffering from advanced phasesof the disease, one of skin and the other of breast cancer.aa TWodays later a revised agreement had been reached. Roberts wasto have complete control of the treatment process, which wouldbe observed by a medical committee comprising three membersnominated by the government, and three nominated by Roberts

226

Prosecuting medicaI quacl<ery I Alona Piper

himself. At the conclusion of the trial this committee would

report directly to the government; no pubiication or statement

about the progress of the tests would be made before then.

Roberts had the right to refus.e to treat any patient nominated bythe committee who he deemed too far advanced for treatment.

The medical committee was to have no contact with the

patients without Roberts being present.as On 1 February 1-933,

testing began on six mutually agreed-upon patients at the then

unoccupied Wattlebrae Hospital for Infectious Diseases at

Herston.46

At the commencement of the testing Roberts appeared

confident, declaring that in five or six weeks he would be

vindicated by the disappearance of the cancerous growths from

the test patients.aT A week later, however, a request was made

for more volunteer patients after Roberts rejected several of

the original cases following further examinations.a8 Testing

eventually continued on three patients only. Three weeks into

the trial, Roberts suddenly departed from Brisbane withoutnotice. A few days later he sent a telegram to the Home

Secretary from Cooktown, stating he was going to Cairns for ashort holiday to repair his health, which was run down from the

stress of the testing process. By 7 March, he had returned, and

the trial continued. The doctors who had volunteered to observe

the treatment adhered to the conditions of secrecy that had been

imposed about the progress of the trial, but Roberts began to

make dark hints that the committee was far from impartial.ae

Man or mYsreRY, I(tnc oF sPleteRs

While the medical profession was investigating the legitimacy

of Roberts's cure, the Brisbane police were trying to solve the

problem of who he actually was. Roberts had disclosed a version

of his life history in August l-932, when he applied for a divorce

from a woman he had married in Victoria in 1925. During the

proceedings, Roberts stated that he had been born in South

227

Brisbane Diseased

Australia as John Alexander Cooke and had studied medicine at

an Adelaide university. After several years study, he had beeninformed by the university that he would not be aliowed to sitfor his degree examinations - by accepting fees for practisingmedicine while still a student he'had been guilty of professionalmisconduct. After that Roberts travelled first to Melbourne andthen to several north Queensland towns intent on pursuing workin laboratory research. Here, he offlcially changed his name toRoberts, and eventually arrived at his medical breakthrough.s0

In March 1933, however, the police received a report thatquestioned this version of events, and suggested that Robertswas not merely a quack, but a thief who had stolen his cancercure from someone else. This individual was farmer CharlesBudgen.sl During an interview with police, Budgen revealedthat while farming in the Kolan district near Bundaberg manyyears before he had discovered a formuia for treating diseasedgrowths in stock. Having enjoyed success in curing animals, he

decided to use the formula on his mother's skin cancers, whichseveral doctors had failed to treat. A poultice removed thegrowths, and she lived for a further eleven years without theirre-emergence. Following this, Budgen treated other individualsin the district for supposed skin cancers, demonstrating thepersistence of public faith in alternative or home remedies overmedical care, especially in rural communities. In August 1931,

Budgen met Roberts at the Burdekin hotel in Ayr. Roberts triedto convince Budgen to go into partnership with him to marketthe cancer cure. Budgen refused, but a month later consentedto providing Roberts with a poultice to treat a friend. Uponreading about Roberts's cancer clinic in the newspapers, Budgenconcluded that Roberts had obtained the poultice to analyse hisformula. TWo respected citizens of Innisfail supported Budgen'sclaims that he had cured them of sores on their faces. Budgenasserted that he was not interested in making a fortune from theformula, but was concerned that Roberts's lack of experience

228

Prosecuting medicaI quacl<ery I Alana Piper

Matstbonugl &alictt ]ian't S:tange Vill*Page |3

@rmf[l ,ARE ilALT

VINECAR

Tjil1*r,f* 0i tAcs.l

PL Ttt

i^ :.;r:

ilr;'"-'.@_

1,7.2 Photograph of George Roberts that appeared following his first

disappearance.Tr 12 Mar 1933, 1

with it would mean it did not leceive a fair trial during the

testing.

The police believed Budgen's story, and tried to discover

Roberts, antecedents before his sudden entrance onto the

public stage in Brisbane. Roberts's assertions about his past life

were investigated, but no evidence was found to support his

claim that he studied medicine in Adelaide, oI had undertaken

scientific research in north Queensland.s2 Instead, the Brisbane

police received information that a man matching Roberts's

description had previously been employed as a stockman in

Charters Towers, where he was well known for perpetrating

frauds.s3 In Cairns, Roberts was apparently known as a

businessman named Watson.sa Another report suggested that

Roberts was identical with 'Teddy' A. E. cooke, a professional

cyclist who had formerly resided in New Zealand.ss Rumours

also circulated that he came from Texas, had served in the AIF

during world war one, and had once been awarded a medal by

229

Brisbane Diseased

the Royal Humane Society for saving a child from drowning.soThe mystery surrounding Roberts's background did not inspireconfidence that his 'cure' was genuine and not the work of a

confidence-trickster. When more deflnitive information wasuncovered, it was no more encouraging. Like many fraudsters,

Roberts's history appeared to be one of suspicious activity and

general instability.

As a result of interstate inquiries, Senior Detective Lynchof the Melbourne police reported that he had met Roberts inAdelaide in L922, when Roberts was employed as a private

detective. Roberts, then going by the name George AlexanderCooke, had arrived in Melbourne in l-924. He became somethingof a public figure after claiming to have walked across

Australia for a wager. He was employed as a driver in the MotorTransport Branch of the Herald; he also gave several lectureson his travels. After being dismissed from the Herald off,ce,he obtained a position at an aviation school for three months,

during which time a motorcycle was stolen. Roberts/Cookevolunteered his services as detective and within a few hours

the cycle was discovered. He was dismissed under suspicion ofhaving perpetrated the theft himself.

In 1927 a fire had occurred at Cooke's home in Moreland,where he was living with his wife and child; while the insurance

company was suspicious about the fire's origins, nothing couldbe proven, and he was awarded t80 compensation. Afterreceiving this money, Cooke abandoned his wife and childand left for South Africa. Lynch's personal estimation of the

man was that he was 'nothing more or less than an adventurer,

and in short a man of doubtful character'.s7 Cooke apparently

boasted that on several occasions he had pretended to be a police

officer to hold up drivers of motorcars for alleged breaches ofthe traffic regulations in order to obtain money from them. Aninterview by Victorian police with Roberts's former wife also

revealed that he had told her his conect name was Roberts, but

2ro

Prosecuting medicaI quackery I Alana Piper

that he went by the name of Cooke because it was the name of

his adopted family in South Australia.ss Support for this account

was provided by the south Australian poiice, who identifled a

photograph of Roberts as that of a man named cooke who had

carried on a business as a private enquiry agent in Adelaide in

1922.ss

At the same time the police were making these discoveries,

the medical testing of Roberts's cancer cure was drawing to a

conclusion. on 4 April 1933, it was announced that a report on

the trial had been due to the Home Secletaly eight weeks from

the trial's commencement, but this had not yet been submitted.60

Three days later, the experiment was discontinued in relation

to the two patients suffering from internal cancet, who Roberts

pronounced incurable. Treatment continued on a third man who

had been suffering from skin cancers.ol At the end of April, the

medical committee delivered a scathing report on Roberts's

method of treatment, stating it was not only ineffective, but

deleterious. A 47-year-old patient suffering from a large tumour

on his ieft cheek had suffered facial paralysis as a result of

Roberts,s injections; he had also received second-degree burns

when some of the acidic substance spilied down his chin and

neck. A 70-year-old woman who had received the injections had

developed an abscess above the cancerous growth. The third

test subject had passed away on 27 April 1933. The committee

further went on to say that Roberts was almost entirely ignorant

on the subject of medicine and chemistry, and did not know the

meaning of the simplest medical terms.62

Roberts defended his reputation by claiming that the

report was 'appallingly biased', as the tests had been stopped

prematurely and the patients submitted to treatment had been

ielected poorly. He intended to continue treating the skin

cancer patient in order to vindicate himself.63 A few days later,

the government, which had spent f567 in conducting the test,

announced that it had submitted all the information they had on

25L

Brisbane Diseased

Roberts to the Crown Law Office for consideration, and wouldlikely introduce more stringent legislation against unqualifledmedical practitioners at the next parliamentary session.6a

Shortly after this, Roberts again disappeared from Brisbane.He left a farewell note to his coileagues at the clinic that hintedhe had decided to take his own life. This maudlin missivestill maintained the efflcacy of his cure, and recriminated hisdetractors.65 As Roberts had departed with cash and a suitcase ofclothes, the possibility of suicide was quickly rejected. After a

few weeks the Truth, which had cast aspersions on Roberts fromthe first, tracked him down in Tenterfield, where he was livingunder an assumed name.66

In July, police arrested Roberts at Goondiwindi on a warrantissued from Brisbane for having stolen f16 from the RobertsClinic at the time of his departure. Roberts claimed that thecharge was just an excuse by the clinic to get him back toBrisbane, as they could not 'get on' without him.67 Yet on 2l-

July 1933, Roberts appeared before the City Court and pleadguilty to the theft. The money involved had been claimed as arefund by a patient, E Jesberg, who had presented previouslyat the clinic with an ulcerated foot, and had been promisedhe would be cured within three months or would have hismoney back.68 Receipt of this ietter drew attention to the factthat Roberts had been fraudulently banking some of the fees

received by clinic patients into his personal bank account. Acomplete audit of the books suggested that Roberts had alsoappropriated a large amount of money by drawing on companyfunds for mythical debts, or by inflating the amounts owed forthe clinic's expenses. Police concluded that the fraud would be

difficult to prove in court and no charges were laid.6e

The controversy was not concluded though. In late July 1933,

Dr Thomas Abbott, who had been removed from the medicalregistry due to his connection with the Roberts' clinic, lost anappeal of this decision at the Supreme Court.7o Then in early

232

Prosecuting medica[ quacl<ery I Alana Piper

August, the Roberts clinic was sued by shareholder Percy

Douglas Ryiance for the refund of his shares in the company

on the grounds that several of the claims by which he had been

induced to invest in the company were fraudulent, including:

that Roberts had a cure for both external and internal cancer;

that the formula was Roberts's property; and that Roberts had

received four and a half years training at a leading medical

school in Adelaide. During the hearing Lachlan Martin

McKillop, chairman of the medical committee appointed by the

government to investigate Roberts's aileged cure, reported that

only one patient had shown any improvement under Roberts's

treitment, and this was a man named Smith. In his case it

was only a temporary improvement owing to the sloughing

away of excrescence, an effect that could be achieved through

conventional medical means or radium. Judgment was made for

the plaintiff, and the clinic was ordered to make repayment of

1.300 in relation to the shares.71

After this, the police had hoped Roberts would depart from

Queensland. He apparently intimated to one senior offlcer his

intention to start a new clinic in Sydney.72 In October, however,

George Alexander Roberts appeared once more before the

Brisbane supreme court, charged with false pretences after

allegedly duping a man into paying him L195 to take up apartnership in a phony import business based in cooktown.-Even

during this tlial, Roberts continued to proclaim that his

cancer cure was genuine. Roberts stated that the committee

had made it clear before testing the cure that their attitude

was anything but friendly, adding 'It is not to be expected

that medical men will iet a layman come in when they have

spent millions of pounds on it and failed'.73 He totally denied

the charge against him. Despite a summation from the judge

favouring the prosecution's case, Robelts was acquitted. But

this ended Roberts's Brisbane career. He was later heard of

in the Torres Strait Isiands, where it was said he continued to

235

Brisbane Diseased

perpetrate frauds and run a gambling ring, while boasting thathe was the 'King of Spielers and confidence men'.74

Orxen canceR quacKeRY

The Roberts's case was the most outrageous episode of cancer

quackery, and perhaps of medical quackery in general, to occurin Brisbane. However, George Roberts was by no means the lastperson claiming the ability to cure cancer to reside in the city.

The disease emerged as a new specialisation for quacks of alldescriptions in the twentieth century. In 1940, for example, theMedical Board of Queensland was called upon to investigate

allegations of misconduct against a refugee doctor fromGermany, who had established an x-ray practice in Brisbane.The doctor had allegedly advised a female patient that she

was suffering from cervical cancer, which he told her he couldcure with radiation. After a course of treatment, he advised thepatient she was cured. However, two other doctors who broughtthe complaint to the board claimed that the patient had also

visited their clinic and that there had never been any evidence ofcervical cancer.

The accused doctor was brought before the recently-established Medical Assessment Tribunal, where he argued

that he was a victim of the British Medical Association'sprejudice against refugee doctors and announced that he didnot expect a fair hearing from the tribunal assessors. The

tribunal was unimpressed. The doctor was found guilty and hisname removed from the register. However, this order was laterquashed on a point of law in an appeal to the Supreme Court in

banco.Ts

Ten years later, Brisbane hosted one of the world's most

famous cancer quacks, John Braund, after he was forced toflee controversy in Sydney. In 1947 Braund's claim that he

could cure cancer received international publicit5u, and even

2t1

Prosecuting medicaI quacl<ery I Alana Piper

its own British Path6 newsreel.To Braund believed cancer was

caused by a problem with bodily circulation and treated itthrough massage, hydrotherapy and, like Roberts, an injection

of a secret formula into the tumour. A committee appointed to

investigate Braund's treatment labeled him a fraud and charlatan

in April 1-948. After this, the 79-year-old came to Brisbane, re-

establishing his operation first in Woolloongabba, and later at

Capalaba.

In October !950, Truth reported that Braund's latest patient

had been 78-year-old Capalaba resident Thomas Anthony

coghili. coghill had been treated for a supposedly cancerous

growth on his head. Braund's removal of this growth had left

him with a gaping opening on his scalp through which a portion

of bare skull was exposed. Coghill also complained that the

ointment Braund had given him to rub on the wound burned.

other local residents had been invited to view the removal of

Coghill's cancer by Braund, who informed his audience that his

treatment was accepted in India and that by treating patients in

Australia he was technically violating his contract with India,

for which he was receiving royalties.TT The paper also reported

that another cancer quack, Rupert DArcy Smith, was treating

11.3 John Braund, alleged cancer quack.

235

Brisbane Diseased

patients in Wynnum.78 Foliowing the negative publicity fromTruth, Braund returned to Sydney. In 1954 he was arrested inconnection with the death of a patient, but the case against himwas dropped. He passed away the following year.Te

Yet this was not the end of cancer quackery in eueensland.In 1978, Premier Joh Bjelke-Petersen attempted to entice aCzechoslovakian refugee named Milan Brych to the state.Brych claimed to be a qualified medical practitioner andcancer expert; he had been treating cancer patients in theCook Islands since 1969. Patients seemed to improve underBrych's treatment, which again relied on injections of a .secret

formuia'. It was later speculated that this consisted of injectionsof cortisone, producing a side effect of temporary euphoria inpatients that superficially suggested an improvement of healthuntil their condition eventually worsened. At Bjelke-petersen,sinvitation, Brych met a consortium of politicians and medicalprofessionais. While the medical practitioners formed theopinion Brych had a poor knowledge of medicine and cancertreatment, the Premier remained impressed. He wanted a Brychclinic established in Brisbane and asked the Medical Board ofQueensland if it would be willing to register Brych as a medicalpractitioner. The board refused to consider such a step. Shortlythereafter Brych moved to California, where he later facedcharges of criminal conspiracy, grand theft by false pretencesand feloniously practising medicine without a license.80

Quacrenv conqueReD?

The George Roberts affair did prompt calls for reform to betterprotect the public from dubious healthcare practitioners, butconsiderable division remained between the sentiments of themedical profession, the government and the public. In 1933,Home Secretary Ned Hanlon acted, not to suppress quackery,but to bring the Medical Board of Queensland under tightergovernment control on the grounds that the board .operated

236

Prosecuting medicaI quacl<ery I Alana Piper

in the interests of the respective professions against those ofthe public'.81 Despite strong opposition to the Bill, it passed

into law. Four years later, while laying the foundation stonefor the new medical school at Herston, Hanlon deciared thatthe prosperity of quack healers was due to the fact that theyhad a great following of people with no faith in the medicalprofession.s2 The public indeed remained largely ambivalent onthe subject of quackery, with distrust of orthodox practitioners,and patronage of unorthodox ones, continuing. In l-934, anarticle even appeared in the Sunday moil disparaging the effortsof the medical profession against quacker;2, arguing that agreater danger to the public health was the diseases spread bythe common house-fly.83

The 1939 Medical Act further increased government control,and provided that any appeals in regard to registration would beheard by a tribunal consisting of a Supreme Court judge and twomedical assessors, one appointed by the government and one

by the profession.sa This Act formed the basis of all subsequentActs until 1999. In 1955, however, significant amendmentswere made that, among other provisions, did seek to increase

ref STxNDNNffiAxblfmrsr --,-._...____.,,,,1

lrovt-ltttt rl.tr!*

I1,.4 News article claiming medical community was exaggeratedly anxiousover quackery rather than dealing with more significant concerns.

237

Brisbane Diseased

the scrutiny over alternative or experimental health treatments.

While the Bill passed, it was not without controversy. Members

of both sides of the assembly objected to the stringency of itsprovisions, extolling the virtues of unorthodox practitioners.

The future premier, Joh Bielke-Petersen, commented that

'quacks' did a tremendous amount of good.ss

While the ear$ twentieth century was a period in which

significant advances in medicine were made, and the elite

status of medical professionals was solidifled, this did not

automatically translate into the repression of unorthodox

practitioners. Such attitudes must be understood in the context

of the times. This was an era when great advances in medicine

were being made. Some of these promising new treatments

derived from outside the medical orthodoxy, such as Elizabeth

Kenny's work with polio victims. Both the government and the

public were reluctant to curb an experimental spirit that could

potentially lead to the development of a cure for one or more

dread diseases.s6 Some so-called quacks were indeed vindicated

by the passage of time, and have been redeemed in recent

historical studies. Others, however, were merely fraudsters, ones

who largely escaped iegal consequences for their deceptions.

238