Slashdot Mirror


Doctors Seeing a Rise In "Google-itis"

It's one of the fastest-growing health issues that doctors now face: "Google-itis." Everyone from concerned mothers to businessmen on their lunch break are typing in symptoms and coming up with rare diseases or just plain wrong information. Many doctors are bringing computers into examination rooms now so they can search along with patients to alleviate their fears. "I'm not looking for a relationship where the patient accepts my word as the gospel truth," says Dr. James Valek. "I just feel the Internet brings so much misinformation to the (exam) room that we have to fight through all that before we can get to the problem at hand."

5 of 368 comments (clear)

  1. Google-itis by oldspewey · · Score: 5, Informative

    As made up words go, google-itis is particularly stupid, since it literally means "inflammation or irritation of the google."

    --
    If libertarians are so opposed to effective government, why don't they all move to Somalia?
    1. Re:Google-itis by psychicninja · · Score: 4, Informative

      Also, when I first saw it my brain was pretty sure it said "google-tits", which is probably an even more common problem...

  2. Re:Hypochondria? by ducomputergeek · · Score: 4, Informative
    --
    "The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
  3. It's called "cyberchondria" by tepples · · Score: 4, Informative

    Wikipedia lists sources that have referred to it as cyberchondria.

  4. Re:It wouldn't be so much a big deal... by Mindcontrolled · · Score: 5, Informative

    As much as I tend to encourage people to do a bit of science on the side, I have to make a couple of remarks on this, being a biochemist myself. First - your conclusion is wrong. You at best showed that penicillin stays active when stored in dry powdered form. Drawing conclusions to any arbitrary substance is a bit far-fetched. That is a very important thing that you have to learn when doing science properly - how to assess what conclusions you can actually draw from your data.

    Second - what where the concentrations you used? If you applied the penicillin at significant "overkill" concentration, you would basically see the statistical average amount of resistant cultures left in both cases. To be sure, you gotta do the experiment at different concentrations, and you gotta duplicate the plates for the experiment and the control, so you can compare the patterns of kill-off.

    Third, even if you showed that the potency stays roughly the same, you did not show if there are degradation products which could possibly be harmful for a patient - you would need to do a toxicity assay to be sure that it stays harmless for the patient.

    Forth, regarding the remaining colonies - did they survive because of innate resistance or because the antibiotic concentration was too low?

    Generally I think your conclusion is probably right, but the data you showed are not sufficient to make that conclusion. What you did is great for a college-level experiment, but in reality, there are more factors that you have to check for. That's why I sunk a couple of years of my life into studying that stuff. As I said, this is not to discourage you - doing science at home is great fun and you can learn a lot, but you gotta be careful evaluating your data. The most important part about science is, at least to me, that you gotta be aware that a single experiment might answer one question, but raises 10 others, on which you gotta follow up.

    --
    Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.