[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Challenge for Peter Banks
- To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
- Subject: Challenge for Peter Banks
- From: Richard Feinman <RFeinman@downstate.edu>
- Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2005 20:05:09 EDT
- Reply-to: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
- Sender: owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
I am afraid Peter Banks is right. It is not access to the literature that is preventing patients from getting real information. It is that they trust government agencies and medical organizations who, rather than pointing them to published information, provide interpretations and recommendations. Patients are not inclined to access the literature and assume that official interpretation of the literature must be correct. For example, although it takes some surfing one can find, on the internet, the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) showing that, during the obesity and diabetes epidemic of the past thirty years, consumption of carbohydrates has drastically increased. Consumption of total and saturated fat has decreased - for men, the absolute amount of both total and saturated, for women (whose caloric intake has increased more than men) the per cent has decreased. Also, although many of the original articles are not easily obtainable, there are numerous papers showing that replacing fat with carbohydrates is deleterious to control of insulin, blood sugar and other features of diabetes and metabolic syndrome (the combination of high blood triglycerides (fat), HDL ("good cholesterol"), blood pressure and body mass). This information is summarized in a recent article by Arora & McFarlane in our open access journal, Nutrition & Metabolism (http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/2/1/16). Nonetheless, the American Diabetes Association continues to recommend still lower fat and still higher carbohydrate. Their website is very well constructed and convincing. It does not seem like there is any conflicting data. Who needs access to the literature. So here's the challenge for Peter Banks (or anybody else). Actually, two challenges. In the first year course at Downstate Medical Center, we give students a questionnaire on nutrition. We then use the answers to discuss certain topics in nutrition and metabolism. We recently published a discussion of the use of this questionnaire in an open access journal, Nutrition Journal (http://www.nutritionj.com/content/4/1/2). The article first gives the reader a chance to take the quiz as we give it to medical students. My first challenge is to take the quiz without looking at the answers. I am sure Mr. Banks will do well although the discussion in the article points out that not all physicians do. The second challenge: the discussion of the answers, emphasizes the real inconsistencies between the recommendations of government and health agencies and the data in the literature. The article is directed at medical education but the point for this group is: shouldn't health agencies be directing patients to the relevant literature and giving them access to data that may conflict with their own position. Under these circumstances we would find out if the public needs more information through open access. My final challenge is for Peter Banks: How say you, Sir. Can you deny all this? Richard Feinman Professor of Bichemistry Co-editor-in-chief, Nutrition & Metabolism Department of Biochemistry SUNY Downstate Medical Center 450 Clarkson Avenue Brooklyn, NY 11203
- Prev by Date: Re: OA benefits associations & is easy too
- Next by Date: Chronicle article: Whose Work Is It, Anyway?
- Previous by thread: JISC International Colloquium
- Next by thread: Re: Challenge for Peter Banks
- Index(es):