Intended for healthcare professionals

Letters UK cancer survival statistics

Rebuttal to editorial saying cancer survival statistics are misleading

BMJ 2011; 343 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.d4214 (Published 05 July 2011) Cite this as: BMJ 2011;343:d4214

Scientific Censorship?

I do not profess to understand the intricacies of the statistical
methodology discussed in this article. But the call by the authors for the
withdrawal of Beral & Peto's 2010 editorial sounds like scientific
censorship.

I hope the group of highly eminent authors are not advocating
scientific censorship.

I hope they do support the British Medical Association (BMA) members
who voted for libel reform. http://www.libelreform.org/

Irrespective of the merits of one argument, it should be up to the
readers and peers to make their own judgements.

Disapproval of a scientific hypothesis does not mean that the said
hypothesis should be extinguished from scientific literature.

Competing interests: 1. Scepticism about comparison of national survival statistics born out of experience with prostate cancer statistics which is highly susceptible to various biases.http://info.cancerresearchuk.org/cancerstats/types/prostate/survival/

03 August 2011
S Sundar
Consultant Oncologist
Nottingham University Hospital NHS trust