I've read that NYT's article a few times since it was first published, and it always leaves me somewhat confused. Just a couple points that confuse me:

It states that most slow growing cancers would be found with or without screening. Does that mean most of them can be found because the lump ultimately becomes palpabable? And does that assume that one engages in self examination or otherwise regularly visits a doctor who exams your breast. Does anyone know the percentage of women who actually do? I do, but I'm guessing a lot of people don't.

The article's real beef--it seems to me--is with the overtreatment of more benign forms of breast cancer. Is the real issue, then, with the diagnostic or with the treatment? If it's the latter, then I don't know that we gain much by not addressing that issue head on, rather than by criticizing the diagnostic, because there remains that admittedly small segment of people who do catch an aggressive form of breast cancer early through mammography and live to tell the tale. If you're fearful of being in that group--like I am--then mammography makes sense, as imperfect as it is.
But I agree that it also make sense not to overtreat breast cancer, and it certainly makes sense to make clear that mammography doesn't prevent breast cancer.

But all that said, I'm not sure I'm reading the article correctly as to this point. I do want to understand the pros and cons better.