| |
| |
| Foreword | |
| |
| |
| |
| Foreword | |
| |
| |
| |
| 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 | |
| |
| |
| Nystr�m'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 | |
| |
| |
| |
| Tab�r'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 | |
| |
| |
| |
| Tab�r 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 | |
| |
| |
| |
| Tab�r's explanations in the Cancer Letter and our replies | |
| |
| |
| |
| Our 2008 mammography screening leaflet | |
| |
| |
| |
| The press release Radiology withdrew at the last minute | |
| |
| |
| Index | |