MAMMOGRAPHY SCREENING : Truth, lies and controversy [printed text] / Peter, C. Gotzsche, Author . - Oxford ; Seattle [Wash.] : Radcliffe, 2012 . - 400 p. : ill. ; 22cm. ISBN : 978-1-84619-585-3 : £24, Languages : English ( eng)
| Descriptors: |
Indexation
Education, Medical, Continuing ; Mass Screening ; Neoplasms ; Palliative Care ; Public Health
Classification
WP 815 Breast -- Examination. Diagnosis. Diagnostic methods. Monitoring
|
| Abstract: |
'This book gives plenty of examples of ad hominem attacks, intimidation, slander, threats of litigation, deception, dishonesty, lies and other violations of good scientific practice. For some years I kept a folder labeled Dishonesty in breast cancer screening on top of my filing cabinet, storing articles and letters to the editor that contained statements I knew were dishonest. Eventually I gave up on the idea of writing a paper about this collection, as the number of examples quickly exceeded what could be contained in a single article. |
| Contents note: |
Foreword by Iona Heath -- Foreword by Iona Heath -- Foreword by Fran Visco -- Acknowledgements -- Introduction -- What it really means to be ‘controversial’ -- Our collaboration with the media -- Important issues in cancer screening -- What it means ‘to have cancer’ -- Overdiagnosis and overtreatment -- Erroneous diagnoses and carcinoma in situ -- Basic issues in cancer epidemiology -- Randomised trials, observational studies and a little statistics -- Why screening leads to misleading survival statistics -- Why 10--year survival is also misleading -- Does screening work in Sweden? -- Stonewalling the Cochrane report on screening -- The Danish National Board of Health interferes with our report -- Troubling results in the Lancet -- The Canadian trials -- Media storm -- Email from researchers -- Our collaboration with the trialists -- Ten letters to the editor -- Creative manipulations in Sweden -- Peter Dean, a remarkable character -- Bad manners also in Norway -- Continued troubles in Denmark -- Harms dismissed by the Cochrane Breast Cancer Group -- The process with the Cochrane review -- Of mites and men -- Confusion over who is in charge -- The Lancet publishes the harms of screening -- Vitriolic mass email from Peter Dean -- Beating about the bush in the United Kingdom -- Condemnations in Sweden -- Contempt of science in Denmark and Norway -- Delayed media storm in the United States after our 2001 reviews -- Miettinen and Henschke’s cherry--picking in the Lancet -- Additional reactions in the United States -- The Danish National Board of Health circles the wagons -- US and Swedish 2002 meta--analyses -- US Preventive Services Task Force’s meta--analysis -- Nyström’s updated Swedish meta—analysis -- Scientific debates in the United States -- Peter Dean is wrong again -- Multiple errors in the International Journal of Epidemiology -- Publication of entire Cochrane review obstructed for 5 years -- Cochrane editors stonewall our Cochrane review -- Lessons for the future -- Welcome results in France -- Editorial misconduct in the European Journal of Cancer -- Editorial misconduct -- Threats, intimidation and falsehoods -- Debates in the Scientist and the Cancer Letter -- Tabár’s ‘beyond reason’ studies -- Criticism of our work in the Journal of Surgical Oncology -- Other observational studies of breast cancer mortality -- The United States and the United Kingdom -- Denmark, Lynge’s 2005 study -- Denmark, our 2010 study -- Overdiagnosis and overtreatment -- Cancers that regress spontaneously -- The 1986 UK Forrest report -- Overdiagnosis in the randomised trials -- Systematic review of overdiagnosis in observational studies -- Observational studies from Denmark and New South Wales -- The doubt industry -- Duffy’s studies on overdiagnosis -- Lynge’s studies on overdiagnosis -- Carcinoma in situ and the increase in mastectomies -- Ad hominem attacks: a measure of desperation? -- UK statistician publishes in Danish -- Inappropriate name—dropping -- Further ad hominem arguments -- Lynge’s unholy mixture of politics and science -- Ad hominem attacks ad infinitum -- US recommendations for women aged 40–49 years -- What have women been told? -- Website information on screening -- Invitations to screening -- A scandalous revision of the Danish screening leaflet -- Our screening leaflet -- Breast screening: the facts, or maybe not -- American Cancer Society -- Information from other cancer societies -- Getting funding or not getting funding -- What do women believe? -- Extraordinary exaggerations -- What is the ratio between benefits and harms? -- Duffy’s ‘funny’ numbers -- Exaggerating 25—fold -- The exaggerations finally backfire -- The ultimate exaggeration -- Tabár threatens the BMJ with litigation -- Falsehoods and perceived censorship in Sweden -- Celebrating 20 years of breast screening in the United Kingdom -- Can screening work? -- Plausible effect based on tumour sizes in the trials -- Lead time -- Plausible effect based on tumour stages in the trials -- No decrease in advanced cancers -- Where is screening at today? -- Problems with reading mammograms -- False promises -- Important information is being ignored -- Beliefs warp evidence at conferences -- Does breast screening make women live longer? -- Where next? -- Is screening a religion? -- A press release from Radiology that wasn’t -- Has all my struggle achieved anything? -- Why has so much evidence about screening been distorted? -- Time to stop breast cancer screening -- Appendix 1: Tabár’s explanations in the Cancer Letter and our replies -- Appendix 2: Our 2008 mam-mography screening leaflet -- Appendix 3: The press release Radiology withdrew at the last minute -- Index |
| Record link: |
https://kce.docressources.info/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=2927 |
|  |
Add the result to your basket Make a suggestion Refine your search Apply to external sourcesEvaluating mental health services for older people / Jenny Finch / Oxford ; Seattle [Wash.] : Radcliffe (2004)
