Do You Use the Internet to Self-Diagnose Illnesses? (1 in 4 Get It Wrong)
SodaHead Living
2012/04/22 22:22:35
|
|
|||||
|
52 votes
|
|
17% | |||
|
166 votes
|
|
53% | |||
|
95 votes
|
|
30% | |||
We admit it. Sometimes we too turn to Dr. Google to try to self-diagnose illnesses. It’s quick, free, and often far less embarrassing than going to the doctor. But according to a recent study, we may be doing ourselves more harm than good.
A British study, which focused on females, found that individuals facing unexplained health problems were twice at likely to consult the Internet than go straight to the doctor. Unfortunately, it is difficult to get an accurate diagnosis by typing symptoms into a search engine. (Anyone who has spent some time on WebMD will know what we’re talking about.)
According to the study, one in four misdiagnosed themselves entirely. One in ten women endured unpleasant side effects as a result of their misdiagnosis. A fifth had at some time wrongly suspected that they had a serious disease. While for many others, symptoms that seemed relatively harmless were left untreated and developed into something more serious.
A British study, which focused on females, found that individuals facing unexplained health problems were twice at likely to consult the Internet than go straight to the doctor. Unfortunately, it is difficult to get an accurate diagnosis by typing symptoms into a search engine. (Anyone who has spent some time on WebMD will know what we’re talking about.)
According to the study, one in four misdiagnosed themselves entirely. One in ten women endured unpleasant side effects as a result of their misdiagnosis. A fifth had at some time wrongly suspected that they had a serious disease. While for many others, symptoms that seemed relatively harmless were left untreated and developed into something more serious.
On a certain level, it seems fairly obvious that we should put our trust in real health care professionals instead of the Internet. However, things like long wait times for appointments, rising health care costs, and negative experiences with doctors, often make Dr. Google far more appealing. Another huge barrier is sheer embarrassment.
Three quarters of those polled said that there are some health issues they do not feel comfortable discussing with friends or family. Half of the women admitted that they always try to deal with embarrassing medical problems on their own before seeking help from others. Over a quarter said they dread talking to doctors about such problems.
What about you SodaHeads? Do you use the Internet to self-diagnose illnesses?
Read More: http://theweek.com/article/index/226999/dangerous-...
Top Opinion
-
FordCrews 2012/04/23 15:33:52Yes, sometimes.
I'll leave the big things like cancer, dementia, and heart disease to the docs, i think i can handle the sniffles and the occasional panic attack.
Unless the 1 in 4 have taken any nursing courses or are trained doctors whom have attended medical school. The internet does not replace doctors. When consulting the internet for an idea of what you "may" have, follow that up with a doctors visit for proper diagnosis and medical help dumbasses.
It's also the reason why i had to wait 6 hours in an emergency room with a broken nose bleeding from my face, while the fat lady who's not having a heart attack and has been there 3 times already that week gets her fix. Then the kicker, they handed me 2 pills, referred me to my family doctor, and charged me three thousand dollars for their troubles.
Had i have been smart enough at the time to use the web, i'd have known emergency room doctors are just there to keep you from dying and ship you down the line, and saved my self half a day and a European Vacation.
Next time you decide to call the DIY segment of the population collective dumb asses (two words dumb ass), stop to consider that they may have something figured out that you don't.
Also M.D.'s are just people who were directed in their research and paid for a diploma. The same knowledge they have in their head can be found on the web.
Now, how bout people who get their medical advice from Dr. House?
Dr Gershon developed a treatment that was based on a holistic diet and he CURED several 100's of people in the 1930's. There are verifiable charts and test results and testimonies. He was set up at a hospital and was curing previously deemed terminal cancer patients with a wide range of cancers like leukemia, colon cancer, breast cancer, and many more. He died under suspicious circumstances and his treatment was discontinued at the hospital and all of his remaining patients died of their cancers.
Search about Lakhovski coils.... and there are still more than that but you get my drift.... there ARE cures... but not in the form of a pill or shot that can be sold. They want a pill that just stops the effect but keeps the cancer so they can keep selling you the pills.....watch the movie " the Beautiful Truth"... hopefully your eyes will be opened to just how badly we have been screwed by the health system that is controlled by big pharmaceutical companies......
Now, there is believed to be an "anti-oxidant" effect from certain foods. The idea is based on antioxidants quenching free radicals. The problem with this theory, is it is stochiometric, as in it requires one molecule of antioxidant to one free radical. It is unlikely you could get this dose. Even if you could, it probably won't do any better than your natural antioxidant glutathione (present in 5 mM in the cell). Most studies on these foods don't test against glutathione for that reason. There are other problems with this popular theory. This isn't to say that the food doesn't have positive effects...the effect is observed so it probably does....more likely the effect is caused by the food's chemicals hitting an enzyme or receptor and getting amplified downstream. Either way this goes, food chemistry is fascinating there are whole journals on the subject...and many more related to it.
Pharma doesn't really care if people choose to go this route. They disagree with its validity and may possibly ...
Now, there is believed to be an "anti-oxidant" effect from certain foods. The idea is based on antioxidants quenching free radicals. The problem with this theory, is it is stochiometric, as in it requires one molecule of antioxidant to one free radical. It is unlikely you could get this dose. Even if you could, it probably won't do any better than your natural antioxidant glutathione (present in 5 mM in the cell). Most studies on these foods don't test against glutathione for that reason. There are other problems with this popular theory. This isn't to say that the food doesn't have positive effects...the effect is observed so it probably does....more likely the effect is caused by the food's chemicals hitting an enzyme or receptor and getting amplified downstream. Either way this goes, food chemistry is fascinating there are whole journals on the subject...and many more related to it.
Pharma doesn't really care if people choose to go this route. They disagree with its validity and may possibly be annoyed that people don't understand the complex problem that is cancer...but this doesn't effect them otherwise. A few curious researchers would probably even look into its validity by trying to find if there are any active compounds in the food that would give the food anti-proliferative effects, (or other etc.).
The facts still hold up regardless of what you say, cancer cannot be cured in the standard definition simply because it is a disease that we cannot stop ALL mutations. Unless that can be done...there is no cure. We can treat cancer, and some treatments are better than others. You can argue that this treatment has a 100% success rate and that (using your numbers b/c this is something that isn't known or can be tested) a 90% preventative success rate...but you cannot claim a cure.
Your statements are false, there is no cure for cancer, nor can there ever be a cure as per the nature of the disease (this is my only point from the beginning). There can be really good treatments, but not a cure. This to many is just semantics...but it is a very important distinction. At one time, some have called cis-platin a "cure" or "magic bullet" but this also simply isn't true for the same reasons I stated above (even still there are other problems of resistance etc.).
You haven't addressed more than your opinion of me for the majority of this discussion....should I call you ignorant then?
Lastly, you refer to charts and x-rays. This is nothing that can be interpreted. Results with no further experiments that get at the reason for the treatment working. There is surely a reason that this works (assumi...
Your statements are false, there is no cure for cancer, nor can there ever be a cure as per the nature of the disease (this is my only point from the beginning). There can be really good treatments, but not a cure. This to many is just semantics...but it is a very important distinction. At one time, some have called cis-platin a "cure" or "magic bullet" but this also simply isn't true for the same reasons I stated above (even still there are other problems of resistance etc.).
You haven't addressed more than your opinion of me for the majority of this discussion....should I call you ignorant then?
Lastly, you refer to charts and x-rays. This is nothing that can be interpreted. Results with no further experiments that get at the reason for the treatment working. There is surely a reason that this works (assuming it is accurate). There are no cell studies, no enzymatic assays, no DNA gels. At best this is statistics which is useful but still of what population size? I loathe documentaries even of subjects I agree with...they are overly opinionated with little factual evidence. All I want is the facts...that shouldn't be hard to find...I would assume the movie cited something....maybe I give documentaries too much credit.