Buy new:
$54.95$54.95
FREE delivery:
Saturday, April 1
Ships from: Amazon.com Sold by: Amazon.com
Buy used: $46.95
Other Sellers on Amazon
+ $5.57 shipping
95% positive over last 12 months
& FREE Shipping
91% positive over last 12 months
Usually ships within 2 to 3 days.
+ $3.99 shipping
94% positive over last 12 months
Usually ships within 4 to 5 days.

Download the free Kindle app and start reading Kindle books instantly on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required. Learn more
Read instantly on your browser with Kindle for Web.
Using your mobile phone camera - scan the code below and download the Kindle app.


Mammography Screening: Truth, Lies and Controversy 1st Edition
Price | New from | Used from |
- Kindle
$36.64 Read with Our Free App - Paperback
$46.95 - $54.95
Enhance your purchase
- ISBN-101846195853
- ISBN-13978-1846195853
- Edition1st
- PublisherRoutledge
- Publication dateJanuary 21, 2012
- LanguageEnglish
- Dimensions6.77 x 0.91 x 9.69 inches
- Print length400 pages
Customers who viewed this item also viewed
Editorial Reviews
About the Author
Product details
- Publisher : Routledge; 1st edition (January 21, 2012)
- Language : English
- Paperback : 400 pages
- ISBN-10 : 1846195853
- ISBN-13 : 978-1846195853
- Item Weight : 2.2 pounds
- Dimensions : 6.77 x 0.91 x 9.69 inches
- Best Sellers Rank: #1,015,777 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)
- #516 in Health Policy (Books)
- #534 in Breast Cancer (Books)
- #568 in Obstetrics & Gynecology (Books)
- Customer Reviews:
About the author

Peter C. Gøtzsche, DrMedSci, MD, MSc
Professor Peter C Gøtzsche graduated as a Master of Science in biology and chemistry in 1974 and as a physician 1984. He is a specialist in internal medicine; worked with clinical trials and regulatory affairs in the drug industry 1975-1983, and at hospitals in Copenhagen 1984-95. Co-founded the Cochrane Collaboration (the founder is Sir Iain Chalmers), and established the Nordic Cochrane Centre in 1993. Became professor of Clinical Research Design and Analysis in 2010 at the University of Copenhagen and has been a member of the Cochrane Governing Board twice. Co-founded Council for Evidence-based Psychiatry in the UK in 2014 and International Institute for Psychiatric Drug Withdrawal in Sweden in 2016. Founded the Institute for Scientific Freedom in 2019. Currently works as researcher, lecturer, author and independent consultant, e.g. in lawsuits. Visiting professor, University of Newcastle.
Peter’s greatest contribution to public health was when he, in 2010, opened the archives of clinical study reports in the European Medicines Agency after a 3-year long battle that involved a complaint to the European Ombudsman. EMA was solely concerned with protecting the drug industry’s interests while ignoring those of the patients. The Ombudsman ruled there was no commercially confident information in the study reports.
Peter has published more than 75 papers in "the big five" (BMJ, Lancet, JAMA, Annals of Internal Medicine and New England Journal of Medicine) and his scientific works have been cited about 50,000 times (his H-index is 70 according to Web of Science, April 2019, which means that 70 papers have been cited at least 70 times). Peter is author of several books. The most recent ones are:
• Mental health survival kit and withdrawal from psychiatric drugs (2020, will appear in other languages).
• Vaccines: truth, lies and controversy (2020, will appear in at least 7 languages).
• Survival in an overmedicated world: Find the evidence yourself (2019) (will appear in 7 languages).
• Death of a whistleblower and Cochrane’s moral collapse (2019).
• Deadly psychiatry and organised denial (2015) (in 9 languages).
• Deadly medicines and organised crime: How big pharma has corrupted health care (2013) (Winner, British Medical Association’s Annual Book Award, Basis of Medicine in 2014; in 16 languages).
• Mammography screening: truth, lies and controversy (2012) (Winner of the Prescrire Prize 2012).
• Rational diagnosis and treatment: evidence-based clinical decision-making (2007).
Peter has given numerous interviews. One, about organised crime in the drug industry, has been seen about 350,000 times on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dozpAshvtsA. Peter was in The Daily Show in New York on 16 Sept 2014 where he played the role of Deep Throat revealing secrets about big pharma. A documentary film about Peter’s reform work in psychiatry, Diagnosing Psychiatry, appeared in 2017.
Peter has an interest in statistics and research methodology. He has co-authored CONSORT for randomised trials (www.consort-statement.org), STROBE for observational studies (www.strobe-statement.org), PRISMA for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (www.prisma-statement.org), and SPIRIT for trial protocols (www.spirit-statement.org). Peter was an editor in the Cochrane Methodology Review Group 1997-2014.
Peter is Protector for the Hearing Voices Network in Denmark.
Peter’s websites: scientificfreedom.dk and deadlymedicines.dk.
Twitter: @PGtzsche1
Email: pcg@scientificfreedom.dk
Customer reviews
Customer Reviews, including Product Star Ratings help customers to learn more about the product and decide whether it is the right product for them.
To calculate the overall star rating and percentage breakdown by star, we don’t use a simple average. Instead, our system considers things like how recent a review is and if the reviewer bought the item on Amazon. It also analyzed reviews to verify trustworthiness.
Learn more how customers reviews work on Amazon-
Top reviews
Top reviews from the United States
There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.
For those like myself who have watched the politics of cancer over the past 30 years there is nothing surprising in this book. But for those who rely on the media for information about cancer screening, they will find much of the contents unbelievable.
The politics of cancer screening is almost identical to that behind the similar controversies of the cholesterol debate in relation to heart disease and the debate about global warming. Many people ask the simple question: How can 95% of the experts be wrong?
Peter Gotzsche's book explains in fine detail how the majority of so called experts apparently don't understand the basic principles of how to run, and how to interpret the results of a randomised controlled trial.
What is shown in this book probably also applies to all of the other types of cancer screening that have been evaluated using randomised controlled trials: screening for prostate, lung, bowel and ovarian cancers. In none of these areas has there been any clear evidence that earlier surgery made possible by screening has produced any saving of lives. Yet In all of these areas the experts have been promoting cancer screening in their area after misunderstanding the results of these trials.
The only shortcoming I found in this excellent book is the author's failure to grasp the significance of his findings: screening doesn't help people with cancer because cancer is a systemic disease. If tumours are only symptoms of a systemic disease, it is not surprising that surgery doesn't help, or that earlier surgery made possible by screening also doesn't help. It in fact causes more harm than good.
Gilbert Welch's excellent book "Overdiagnosed: making people sick in the pursuit of health" shows how screening and other testing often causes more harm than good by finding symptoms that would not have led to death if left alone.
With these two books we are at last getting some of the nitty gritty behind the findings in the earlier ground-breaking books such as Ivan Illich's "Medical Nemesis (1975), Richard Taylor's "Medicine Out of Control" (1979) and more recently Ray Moynihan's "Too much medicine" (1998).
However none of these authors hs concluded from the lack of progress with cancer over the past 70 years that the reason is the unproven assumption that cancer starts locally and later spreads.
Gotzsche clearly shows that mammography screening does not prevent breast cancer and has little effect on mortality from breast cancer. Women need to hear that it's reasonable to refuse mammograms and that the most effective way to decrease women's risk of becoming a breast cancer patient is to avoid this screening. They need to understand that by accepting mammography screening they are exposing themselves to the possibility of totally unnecessary biopsies, surgeries, and sometimes even chemotherapy or radiation. For a short summary of these statements see the author's 2008 Cochrane Report on mammography at [...] cochrane.dk
Gotzsche makes it clear that for every 2000 women who are screened annually for ten years only one life is saved while at the same time ten women are given false diagnoses that can lead to extreme emotional distress and unnecessary medical treatment, sometimes even costing them their breast unnecessarily. I recently experienced this after a mammogram showed microcalcifications. After a very painful inconclusive needle biopsy in three areas I was told I needed a surgical biopsy (a lumpectomy where I lost part of my breast). I couldn't stop feeling that I had been trapped into two unnecessary, painful, emotionally traumatic procedures even though no cancer was present and my atypical (non-cancerous) cells may have regressed on their own without ever giving me a problem. I know this experience affected my life negatively for months, leaving me shaken and fearful. Thankfully I have now informed myself through this book and will reject further mammograms.
Gotzche makes it clear that many times cancer regresses and that ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) often never becomes invasive and that up to 40% of observed cancers had limited malignant potential and would have regressed if undetected. Women need to read this book and invite their physicians to read it so they have this information and can make informed decisions about screening and treatment.
I found this book to be eye-opening. I believe every woman needs to be aware of its conclusions so she can protect her health and emotional well-being and avoid unnecessary treatment.
Peter C., M.D. Gotzsche
This is a great book. If you are interested in breast cancer you must read it. If you have concerns about ethics in medical research and the influence of self-interest, power, or money on research and publication, this is the book for you. If you are a woman undergoing routine screening, you will want to read this. If you are a physician who deals with cancer or women you must read this book.
This is the personal story of an heroic Danish researcher who was asked by the Danish Board of Health to "take a look at" breast cancer mammographic screening because of a pending vote. The book details a 10 year odyssey and battle to expose the truth and lies and harms of routine mammographic screening. Peter Gotzsche discovered that no one knew, or at least no one was discussing, the harms of screening, and further, that the benefits were severely overrated.
The basic premise of screening, "find cancer early, treat it when it is small, results will be better," is questioned. Does screening decrease the number of mastectomies? No, and you will discover why. What has happened to the incidence of breast cancer since screening has started? Why is there such an increase in the number of women being treated for non-malignant breast disease (called cancer in situ)? Has screening decreased the amount of advanced breast cancer? Clue: no. Why does a decrease in 5 year breast cancer mortality mean nothing?
If you start to get bogged down in the book, jump to the last few chapters. To see current recommendations from Dr. Gotsche see this:[...]
Finally, Dr. Gotsche will explain how to decrease the incidence of breast cancer by one-third.
Top reviews from other countries





The overall information is encouraging in as much as it is clearly demonstrated that screening can do more harm than good but there is quite a lot of "gripe factor" in the narrative but one supposes that campaigning against the grain of established thought will always generate controversy and thus criticism, much of which is documented in the book. If you ignore that it is well worth a read but there is less clinical information than I would have expected. It is really a book about statistical evidence but nevertheless a very useful source of information. It seems to be generally Scandinavian based - not surprising given the author's nationality!
I would recommend it if only to generate wider understanding of how dogma sets policy.