It is difficult for me to reconcile such diametrically opposed views of the value of screening in our lives, with some researchers suggesting that no women should undergo breast cancer screening, regardless of age.
The tobacco industry has, in effect, caused the biggest toxic spill in history, one that has very literally killed millions of Americans. It is time that the courts compel the industry to clean up their mess.
The first obvious problem with peer review is delay. On other occasions, I observed what appeared to be strong and persistent bias on the part of reviewers that ultimately led to rejection or intrusive revision of the manuscript.
In the late 1960s, I quickly learned that a large proportion of requests for narcotics in this population were spurious. Patients would simulate renal stone, acute myocardial infarction, and many other painful illnesses in order to obtain narcotic drugs.
Recently, the US government released new “Sunshine” standards requiring more rigorous disclosure of potential financial conflicts of interest in medicine. Such new standards are driven by revelations of misdeeds on the part of pharmaceutical and device manufacturers.
Most Americans are aware that technical experts from Consumer Reports magazine consistently rank televisions and automobiles manufactured by Japanese companies higher than their US counterparts, but I believe that neither Consumer Reports nor US physicians understand how much better lung cancer treatment results are in Japan.
Reading the contents of the NCI Cancer Bulletin in recent years, I have become increasingly concerned by what I perceive as an irrational, pervasive, and persistent editorial bias against cancer screening.