In their responses to criticism of their article (1), Jørgensen and
Gøtzsche (JG) accuse others of using a “smokescreen” of irrelevant
arguments, but proceed to use the very same tactics themselves. They claim
that the results of the Dutch mammography screening program “are
depressing” but attempt to substantiate this claim with only one citation
(2). This single-author article was published in the ‘opinion’ section of
a journal not currently listed in the Journal Citation Reports®, and
written in the Dutch language, making it inaccessible to most of those
participating in this discussion. Furthermore
this article was criticized (in Dutch) by the “Netherlands National
Institute for Public Health and the Environment” since it was based on
outdated data (3).
I support an academic discussion on the advantages and disadvantages
of mammography screening, but a fair discussion requires all participants
to be able to access and verify the arguments published in the relevant
peer-reviewed literature. Citing an obscure opinion letter and ignoring
the enormous database of peer-reviewed articles on breast cancer screening
in the Netherlands, as Jørgensen and Gøtzsche have done, is a tactic used
to bolster one’s opinion rather than scientifically discuss the facts.
timendi causa est nescire – (ignorance is the cause of fear, by
Seneca)
References:
1. Jorgensen KJ, Zahl PH, Gotzsche PC. Breast cancer mortality in
organised mammography screening in Denmark: comparative study. BMJ
2010;340:c1241
2. Bonneux L. De voor- en nadelen van borstkankerscreening [In Dutch:
Advantages and disadvantages of breast cancer screening: time for evidence
-based information]. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd 2009;153:A887.
3. Programmacoördinatoren bevolkingsonderzoek naar kanker, Centrum
voor Bevolkingsonderzoek, RIVM [In Dutch: Population cancer-screening
program coordinators, Centre for Population Screening, RIVM]. Voorlichting
borstkanker [In Dutch: Breast cancer awareness]. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd.
2009;153:A887
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests:
No competing interests
12 May 2010
Ronald J. H. Borra
Post-Doctoral Fellow, Harvard Medical School / Massachusetts General Hospital
Athinoula A. Martinos Center for Biomedical Imaging, 02129, Charlestown, Massachusetts
Rapid Response:
Rapid response
Dear Editor,
In their responses to criticism of their article (1), Jørgensen and
Gøtzsche (JG) accuse others of using a “smokescreen” of irrelevant
arguments, but proceed to use the very same tactics themselves. They claim
that the results of the Dutch mammography screening program “are
depressing” but attempt to substantiate this claim with only one citation
(2). This single-author article was published in the ‘opinion’ section of
a journal not currently listed in the Journal Citation Reports®, and
written in the Dutch language, making it inaccessible to most of those
participating in this discussion. Furthermore
this article was criticized (in Dutch) by the “Netherlands National
Institute for Public Health and the Environment” since it was based on
outdated data (3).
I support an academic discussion on the advantages and disadvantages
of mammography screening, but a fair discussion requires all participants
to be able to access and verify the arguments published in the relevant
peer-reviewed literature. Citing an obscure opinion letter and ignoring
the enormous database of peer-reviewed articles on breast cancer screening
in the Netherlands, as Jørgensen and Gøtzsche have done, is a tactic used
to bolster one’s opinion rather than scientifically discuss the facts.
timendi causa est nescire – (ignorance is the cause of fear, by
Seneca)
References:
1. Jorgensen KJ, Zahl PH, Gotzsche PC. Breast cancer mortality in
organised mammography screening in Denmark: comparative study. BMJ
2010;340:c1241
2. Bonneux L. De voor- en nadelen van borstkankerscreening [In Dutch:
Advantages and disadvantages of breast cancer screening: time for evidence
-based information]. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd 2009;153:A887.
3. Programmacoördinatoren bevolkingsonderzoek naar kanker, Centrum
voor Bevolkingsonderzoek, RIVM [In Dutch: Population cancer-screening
program coordinators, Centre for Population Screening, RIVM]. Voorlichting
borstkanker [In Dutch: Breast cancer awareness]. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd.
2009;153:A887
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests