Contradiction in FA 2011 pg. 349 vs. 353

[kaleerkalut]

So at the bottom of page 349 in FA 2011 it says that in sideroblastic anemia there is increased iron, NORMAL TIBC, INCREASED ferritin. On pg. 353 it says under lead poisoning (a cause of sideroblastic anemia): increased iron, DECREASED TIBC, NORMAL ferritin.

Now I thought it should be: increased iron, DECREASED TIBC, INCREASED ferritin. RR also says this. Is this right or am I mistaken? Thanks in advance

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[COdoubleMO2theN]

So at the bottom of page 349 in FA 2011 it says that in sideroblastic anemia there is increased iron, NORMAL TIBC, INCREASED ferritin. On pg. 353 it says under lead poisoning (a cause of sideroblastic anemia): increased iron, DECREASED TIBC, NORMAL ferritin.

Now I thought it should be: increased iron, DECREASED TIBC, INCREASED ferritin. RR also says this. Is this right or am I mistaken? Thanks in advance

What you thought is correct.

 

[Phloston]

I'm not sure if this particular situation applies, but don't forget that the authors have posted a ludicrously long official errata list online, so there should be like 200 errors.

 

[iCY]

thats what you get for using last year's first aid

 

[kaleerkalut]

thats what you get for using last year's first aid

I have FA 2012 (just not using it)...it says the same thing

 

[Phloston]

I have FA 2012 (just not using it)...it says the same thing

I own FA2012 and there are still a billion errors.

Kaleerkalut, you may have already seen this, but here's the link to the errata:

http://firstaidteam.com/updates-and-corrections

 

[kaleerkalut]

I own FA2012 and there are still a billion errors.

Kaleerkalut, you may have already seen this, but here's the link to the errata:

http://firstaidteam.com/updates-and-corrections

Thanks Phloston. Yes I saw that which is the EXACT reason why I decided I didn't want to use FA 2012. The list is so long and the full errata is not usually out until August, things are taken out of the new edition (i.e. Hexamethonium). To be fair, things were added (i.e. lac operon) but it still was a big deterrent for me. I do like the pictures though so when I'm dong with a section in FA 2011 I just flip through the same section in 2012.

 

[Phloston]

Thanks Phloston. Yes I saw that which is the EXACT reason why I decided I didn't want to use FA 2012. The list is so long and the full errata is not usually out until August, things are taken out of the new edition (i.e. Hexamethonium). To be fair, things were added (i.e. lac operon) but it still was a big deterrent for me. I do like the pictures though so when I'm dong with a section in FA 2011 I just flip through the same section in 2012.

I would use both versions then. I, personally, purposely read FA2009 then FA2012 just to see what's been added/removed in order to gain an idea of new material that may have been tested the past few years. In your case though, if you decide to only use the 2011, it probably won't make much of a difference because they're only one year apart, but I've noticed a huge difference between the 2009 and 2012 versions, and will now only use the latter. I should note though that the excitatory/inhibitory dopamine pathways, as pictured in this new diagram in the 2012, are terrible compared to those drawn in the '09, so that's the one thing I've specifically copied over from the '09.

 

[futuredoctor10]

Have you guys also noticed that topics included in FA 2010 are then taken out in FA 2012? It's weird because some of the topics seem important but I guess they determine based on feedback what's low yield...

 

[lookmanohands]

Edit: sorry was thinking about something else

 

[iCY]

Have you guys also noticed that topics included in FA 2010 are then taken out in FA 2012? It's weird because some of the topics seem important but I guess they determine based on feedback what's low yield...

They take the topics out so that they can repackage it as a new edition every year. They probably just rotate the topics year after year. Its amazing how a book can still have pages of "errors" after more than 10 editions in print