How amazing to hear the Times speak of "the cancer establishment." And that establishment was not slow in responding. Four days later, ten US medical groups, including the American Cancer Society and the American Medical Association, placed a full-page ad in the New York Times, supporting mammography. The ad coincided with an article by Claudia Henschke, MD, of Cornell Medical Center, also published in the Lancet, which analyzed one 1988 clinical trial from Malmoe, Sweden. She concluded that mammography did, indeed, reduce deaths. How could these researchers be so far apart in analysis of the same studies? Because Goetzsche and Olsen looked at all the people who had died of any causes, while Henschke looked only at people who had specifically died of breast cancer in one study, and ignored all other causes of death. This is comparing apples and oranges. Overall survival is a more meaningful outcome than disease-specific survival. The reason is that the treatments themselves may cause deaths. (Even Henschke concedes that early detection and treatment may be associated with "somewhat increased mortality" in earlier years). By failing to take account of all causes of death one conveys an unduly positive estimate of the intervention. ...here is the actual opinion of the Lancet's editor-in-chief, Richard Horton, MD. "The public believes mammography to be far more effective than it really is," he said. "Women deserve an accurate assessment of the benefits or harm from screening mammography. That means encouraging an open debate about the issue." Moss Reports 2/05/02 LINK to newsletters and more Remember we are NOT Doctors and have NO medical training. This site is like an Encylopedia - there are many pages, many links on many topics. Support our work with any size DONATION - see left side of any page - for how to donate. You can help raise awareness of CAM.