| |
| |
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 | |