[vacri]

the likelihood of someone misunderstanding what they've read still exceeds the chance that they've uncovered ways to further optimize.

It's also worth noting that many of the "I had access to my own records and it was great" stories are of autodidacts who already know how to consume and digest complex information. The first story in the article is of a PhD student. Not everyone is like this, and that's worth remembering. A simple example is the vaccines-create-autism movement, full of people who aren't digging deep into the treatment or research. They see their child is affected, they are upset, and so they look for something to blame and rail against, causing lots of damage for other people.

People certainly feel a lot more in control if they can see what the experts are thinking about their condition, but there is some selection bias in the stories that accompany these articles. On the whole I absolutely think medical records should be shared with patients (except in certain cases, eg discussion of certain mental illnesses), but whatever guidelines we come up with should remember we're talking about an issue affecting "the general public" not "PhD students and medical scientists".