The MJA and Gawler: a case of self-censorship?

To the Editor: An important and controversial article authored by Haines and Lowenthal1 was recently published in the Internal Medicine Journal. The authors challenged evidence used by Ian Gawler on his website (iangawler.com) and in his book2 to support meditation and dietary interventions as cancer therapy. Publication of the article was subsequent to initial submission to the Medical Journal of Australia, whose editors at first accepted the article but later rejected it on the grounds that Gawler did not consent to publication of the study.3 Could the editors of the MJA please inform its readers and authors why they chose to reject the article?

The answer cannot lie in concerns regarding patient confidentiality, as all the information contained in the article was found in the public domain, including in journal articles4 and in Gawler’s book and on his website. Consequently, there was no privileged patient–doctor relationship and, as Ruth Gawler points out,5 the authors did not seek information from Ian Gawler’s treating doctors.

Testing anomalous claims of cure and suggesting rational alternative explanations is part of the discourse of science. Should not the role of the journal editor be to support those who contribute rational criticism of untested claims? Can the MJA therefore clarify its policy?