This article is only available in the PDF format. Download the PDF to view the article, as well as its associated figures and tables.
Important findings of medical research, especially those supported by general tax revenues, should be made known to the public as well as to the medical profession. However, both the public and the profession are entitled to an accurate account, and any speculation that goes beyond what can be firmly supported by the data should be curtailed.
An article by the University Group Diabetes Program (UGDP) in the July 7, 1978, issue of The Journal and a news story based on that article in the Wall Street Journal on July 5 have reopened a bitter controversy that could be harmful to patients and physicians if not placed in a proper perspective. The article in The Journal compares macrovascular complications in adult-onset, non-insulin-dependent diabetics who were divided into three groups: one received a placebo, one a fixed dose of insulin, and one a variable dose of insulin that was adjusted to keep
Barclay WR. University Group Diabetes Program Revisited. JAMA. 1978;240(4):377–378. doi:10.1001/jama.1978.03290040055026