I don't see there any evidence that a major methodological mistake was made, or that these women did not receive expert opinion. This seems to be just science.

I don't see there any evidence that a major methodological mistake was made, or that these women did not receive expert opinion. This seems to be just science. There is a lot to discuss about reproducibility of science. But mistakes are and will be part of the process, because science can not absolutely prove anything. Scientist normally expect that assuming null hypothesis they will gather data falsely pointing something significant in 5% of cases. In reality it seems to be a lot higher and that is not good. But if the type of mistake from the article is indeed rare, I assume less than 5%, then taking chance of that mistake might have reduced the best guess of cancer only by some small procentage points. These women had to take very difficult decision under high uncertainty anyway.