Google To Offer Better Medical Advice When You Search Your Symptoms (cnbc.com)

An anonymous reader writes from a report via CNBC: Google said Monday that it will be improving its catalog of searched Googled health symptoms by adding information on related health conditions that have been vetted by the Mayo Clinic and Harvard Medical School. For example, if you type "headache on one side," Google will offer up a list of associated conditions like "migraine," "common cold" or "tension headache." When it comes to general searches like "headache," the company will also give an overview description along with information on self-treatment options or symptoms that warrant a doctor's visit. In Google's official blog post, the company said roughly 1 percent of the searches on Google, which equates to millions of searches, are related to symptoms users are researching. However, search results can be confusing, and result in "unnecessary anxiety and stress," Google said. It plans to use its Knowledge Graph feature, which contains high-quality medical information collected from doctors, to enhance search results.

Comments

better idea

[Anonymous Coward]

How about telling users to get off their asses and go see a doctor rather than self-medicating...

Re:better idea

[advocate_one]

trying to see a Doctor in the UK is an exercise in frustration in trying to navigate the labyrinthine system set up to manage their 48 hour waiting targets.... you have to be really dedicated to push yourself forward to get a same day appointment... if lucky, you'll get a telephone appointment or else be seen by the practice nurse

They release appointments for the next day at 12:30pm and they go very fast...

Re:better idea

[Anonymous Coward]

trying to see a Doctor in the UK is an exercise in frustration in trying to navigate the labyrinthine system set up to manage their 48 hour waiting targets.... you have to be really dedicated to push yourself forward to get a same day appointment... if lucky, you'll get a telephone appointment or else be seen by the practice nurse

They release appointments for the next day at 12:30pm and they go very fast...

Isn't single-payer medicine GREAT!!!

Ask the US veterans who died waiting for care from the US Department of Veteran's Affairs!

Re:better idea

[Bruinwar]

Last time I attempted to get a doctor's appointment I was told "we are scheduling two months out..." & my healthcare insurance is "premium". It should be premium for what I pay for it. I had to get a new doctor last year. After navigating the labyrinthine system I was able to find a doctor that was somewhat in my part of town & of course, 6+ weeks for the first appointment.

De-fund the shit out of a program, then point at it & say "look! It doesn't work!"

Re:better idea

[Anonymous Coward]

It's odd you have such a hard time wherever you are in the UK. I've lived in Devon, several areas of London and Bristol and in all those places same day appointments were very easy to get and simply required calling the practice at a specified time in the morning (usually between 8 and 9) and they would allocate you a time. And if you missed that lots of practices have evening appointments which get released sometime in the afternoon. My current practice even guarantees you a phone appointment if you urgently need a doctor and missed all the appointments. I have a lot of love for the NHS, it might have some issues but when compared with the mess in America it's just amazing.

Re:better idea

[arth1]

Isn't single-payer medicine GREAT!!!

As opposed to the 2-3 month waits for specialist appointments I have to endure here in the land of the free, yes.

When a doctor is affiliated with hospital A, it doesn't matter whether a doctor at hospital B is available sooner. Doctors get penalized for sending too many patients out of their affiliate networks.
When everybody is affiliated with the national health service, that ceases to become a problem.

Re:better idea

[Anonymous Coward]

Blame Thatcherism and New Thatcherism - or, rather, the fucking stupid voting public. The NHS was so damn good up through the '80s, and what can barely get you an appointment today would be met back then by a doctor visiting your house.

If people could put their dicks away for a moment and stop masturbating over a fantasy of an Empire long dead, we might actually start paying attention to how the Tories have been buttraping us for the past 35 years. If you think TTIP is bad after EU moderation, think how bad the raw version supported by the free marketroids like Boris and Farridge will be.

Re:better idea

[JackieBrown]

Cool - so that solves one problem while creating how many more?

Kind of like how Obama care solved the pre-existing issue while creating entire new sets of problem

Re:better idea

[jellomizer]

You can try to see a different doctor. or go to a local urgent care center. The real trick is to allow RN, NP, and PA a little more freedom in the health care institution and allow them to treat many of the simple problems. Without having to go to an expensive dr for every little issue.

Re:better idea

[Bruinwar]

You think this is a new problem?

Re:better idea

[Bruinwar]

Thanks for your suggestions. Yes, now days if I need an appointment fast, NPs and PAs are what I get. However, you still have to have that primary doctor first & that is what I required, a new doctor. Nurse Practitioner, Physician's Assistant... sounds like the same solution from the guy from the UK. Mine just costs more, much more.

Re:better idea

[JackieBrown]

Not sure why you think I consider this a new "problem."

It's only a problem in that some providers don't want to reduce their pricing so that they can be part of a larger network (like UHC.) Why would they suddenly want to do this just because their is now one payor?

Re:better idea

[stabiesoft]

Umm, probably because if there is only one game in town, you either play that game or hope that there are enough people willing to shell out of their own pocket for service. Good luck with that. I too have no primary physician like grandparent. Mine dropped out. And there are not that many that take my plan in the area.

Re:better idea

[Bruinwar]

This is where I got the idea you saw that is a "new problem":

Kind of like how Obama care solved the pre-existing issue while creating entire new sets of problem

Personally my coverage has a huge network of providers & I do not need a referral to a specialist. I can go nearly anywhere. But I'll still wait 2-3 months.

IMO single payer is really about getting rid of health insurance companies. Fucking parasites. Everyone needs healthcare, if not you this year, your mom or your child.

Re:better idea

[minstrelmike]

How about telling users to get off their asses and go see a doctor rather than self-medicating...

You mean get an appointment and let the doctor google the symptoms for you?

Re: better idea

[Anonymous Coward]

Kaiser in California gets me a Drs. appointment the next day, if not my doctor then another.

Re:better idea

[nbauman]

by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 21, 2016 @06:48AM (#52358049)

trying to see a Doctor in the UK is an exercise in frustration in trying to navigate the labyrinthine system set up to manage their 48 hour waiting targets.... you have to be really dedicated to push yourself forward to get a same day appointment... if lucky, you'll get a telephone appointment or else be seen by the practice nurse

They release appointments for the next day at 12:30pm and they go very fast...

Isn't single-payer medicine GREAT!!!

I assume you are an American anonymous coward. I wonder when the last time was that you needed to get health care in the American free market system.

http://archderm.jamanetwork.co...

The Accuracy of Dermatology Network Physician Directories Posted by Medicare Advantage Health Plans in an Era of Narrow Networks

Jack S. Resneck Jr, Aaron Quiggle, Michael Liu, BS3; David W. Brewster
JAMA Dermatol. Published online October 29, 2014. doi:10.1001/jamadermatol.2014.3902

48.9% of physicians were reachable, accepted the listed plan, and offered an appointment for our fictitious patient. Many of the dermatologists listed had incorrect contact information, were deceased, retired, or had moved, were not accepting new patients, did not accept the insurance plan, or were subspecialized.

Ask the US veterans who died waiting for care from the US Department of Veteran's Affairs!

I know some veterans who go to the VA health care system. I would trade my health plan for theirs tomorrow, and they would never trade their plan for mine.

Bernie Sanders is on the Senate committee that covers VA health care, and he said that people complain about access, but once they're in the system, their care is excellent.

The problem was that the Republicans wanted to have wars but they don't want to pay for health care for the soldiers who fought that war. Their solution is, "cut the budget and privatize." Adopt the methods of our MBAs and private corporations. Give them impossible goals to meet, and if they can't meet them, fire them and hire somebody else. That worked so well for BP and Enron.

I'm not going to defend the indefensible. There were reports of veterans who had for example bladder cancer, who didn't get treated in time, and whose bladder cancer went from treatable to untreatable. But that happens (all the time) in the free market health care system, when people can't afford to go to a doctor at all. And it happened because the Republican budget-cutters cut the VA budget, under the Republican "Bricks without Straw" policy.

I do a lot of medical literature searches. The outcomes of the VA system are among the best. If you need, say, coronary bypass surgery, your chances of surviving are as good in the VA system as anywhere in the world. Including Sweden.

They've done a lot of the major studies in treating heart disease, cancer, diabetes, COPD, and all the conditions that affect veterans. If you go to a medical conference, and they're trying to decide what the best treatment is, they're always talking about the "VA study," which is often the definitive study.

Oh yeah -- the other benefit of the VA system is that when a VA doctor recommends surgery, it's because he (and his colleagues) think you'll really be better off, not because he gets a $3,000 surgical fee, like a doctor in the private sector. And they have the evidence to prove it.)

Re:better idea

[JackieBrown]

This is where I got the idea you saw that is a "new problem":

Kind of like how Obama care solved the pre-existing issue while creating entire new sets of problem

Personally my coverage has a huge network of providers & I do not need a referral to a specialist. I can go nearly anywhere. But I'll still wait 2-3 months.

IMO single payer is really about getting rid of health insurance companies. Fucking parasites. Everyone needs healthcare, if not you this year, your mom or your child.

My insurance isn't that great but I never have to wait 2-3 months to get in to see a specialist and that is with needing a referral from my PCP.

I don't see government as any less parasitical than insurance companies (or more caring).

In fact, when I worked at a DME company, Medicare was the hardest to work with unless you were a company with a lot of capital to be able to wait months before getting paid. A lot of our smaller competitors were destroyed simply by not having enough assets to wait months (most employees won't wait for Medicare to start paying bills and most companies won't sell parts based on the hope that Medicare will pay it's claims.) Since we were a larger company, the red tape benefited us simply because it destroyed our competitors better than we could have.

Re:better idea

[dougTheRug]

I got a same day appointment today, and then the medicine for my daughter was £0 as well. Because she's under 16. Otherwise the day would have cost us £6 in cash.

Re:better idea

[GuB-42]

As much as self-medicating can be bad, seeing a doctor for a common cold is a waste of time for everyone, unless you are trying to get a sick day.

It's like my family doctor. We live near the beach, and every summer, there are endless queues of people with sunburns and minor heat illnesses. Come on, do you really need a doctor to tell you that you have to hydrate, protect yourself from the sun and maybe get you some Biafine?

Re:better idea

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't see government as any less parasitical than insurance companies (or more caring).

It's not about "caring". Nobody cares about you except you and (hopefully) your family. The government does not "care", your insurance company does not "care", and your health care providers do not "care". The question isn't about "who cares", the question is "how many middlemen do we have marking up the cost of delivery?". Insurance companies add 9-17% to the cost of delivery and add no value; their one purported value -- to minimize risk and maximize amortization of cost across the largest group of people -- can easily be supplied by any organization with the financial resources to do so (i.e. the government).

Medicare was the hardest to work with unless you were a company with a lot of capital to be able to wait months before getting paid.

Huh. Methinks your smaller competitors went out of business because they were stupid. For instance, nobody in their Finance department had ever heard of A/R factoring, in which you convert your accounts receivable into cash.

I hope it can help Slashdot users

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope Google will program in some advice for Slashdot users. Their most common search is "can I get an STD from masturbating?" followed closely by "dildo stuck in anus". Surely Google can offer some help to Slashdot users, too.

Re:I hope it can help Slashdot users

[Anonymous Coward]

If it helps APK realize she needs medication, it would be awesome.

Re:I hope it can help Slashdot users

[queBurro]

Wrong TLA? That should be: "can I get RSI from masturbating?"

Re: I hope it can help Slashdot users

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes you can, especially if you jerk off for hours while high. Only after I came did I realize how bad I had hurt my hand and the pain lasted for months. I remember the pain and how uncomfortable it is to switch hands when you are used to masturbating in a certain way with one hand. Medical annals of the damned.

It's cancer

[Anonymous Coward]

and you are going to die.

Re:It's cancer

[Shortguy881]

And how long before someone "misdiagnosed" sues google. I give it 5 months.

filter out pseudoscience

[sg_oneill]

If they can filter out all the pseudoscience waffle (Anti-vax , quantum-foo, etc) it might actually do wonders for peoples scientific literacy, especially at a time when good science can mean life or death.

Re: filter out pseudoscience

[Anonymous Coward]

There aren't many people out there who are truly opposed to vaccinations. Please don't misrepresent our beliefs. We simply understand that vaccines have side effects. In adults, vaccines can cause soreness, fever, and nausea. Occasionally there are more serious side effects of vaccines, though these generally are rare in adults. One side effect that can be far more serious is that a person could have an allergic reaction to the vaccine. That can happen with any vaccine, though it's not especially common. Generally speaking, the side effects are either so rare or benign relative to actually getting the illness that the vaccine is worth it. In children, however, sometimes the side effects are different. In particular, some vaccines are strongly linked with causing autism. The mechanisms for this aren't fully understood, but there is a strong link with some vaccines. I don't think most people truly oppose vaccinations, but rather are genuinely concerned about the side effects. And that's also true with medicines, which can sometimes have some very serious side effects. Please don't misrepresent our views as pseudoscience.

Re: filter out pseudoscience

[EmeraldBot]

There aren't many people out there who are truly opposed to vaccinations. Please don't misrepresent our beliefs. We simply understand that vaccines have side effects. In adults, vaccines can cause soreness, fever, and nausea. Occasionally there are more serious side effects of vaccines, though these generally are rare in adults. One side effect that can be far more serious is that a person could have an allergic reaction to the vaccine. That can happen with any vaccine, though it's not especially common. Generally speaking, the side effects are either so rare or benign relative to actually getting the illness that the vaccine is worth it. In children, however, sometimes the side effects are different. In particular, some vaccines are strongly linked with causing autism. The mechanisms for this aren't fully understood, but there is a strong link with some vaccines. I don't think most people truly oppose vaccinations, but rather are genuinely concerned about the side effects. And that's also true with medicines, which can sometimes have some very serious side effects. Please don't misrepresent our views as pseudoscience.

You seem to be surprisingly rational for someone holding that view, unusually even, so I'll make an attempt. Skepticism is always warranted a little bit, but it only works properly if you have actual concrete research to back it up. Can you even name the specific vaccine you're talking about? "Strongly linked" implies their was a research study done on it, at least to me. Can you please present that study? If there is one, I certainly don't know of it.

Second off, please remember that your doctors are professionally trained, have years of experience, and from what I understand, it's not that uncommon to have written an actual thesis as one. You are, almost certainly, not even trained at all, much less anywhere near that level, so you should be very skeptical of your own opinion because you are going to have a much narrower base of knowledge. Vaccines do have a chance of allergic reactions and such - but do you know the potential consequences of not getting them? Take the chickenpox one, for example. I'm not aware of allergic reactions to it, since I never needed the vaccine, but if you ignore the vaccine and your kids don't get it when they're young, they're at risk for getting chickenpox later on in life. Chickenpox as a kid is about as dangerous as a cold, but in an adult, it can be lethal if not properly treated, and even when it is it's much harder on your body. You have a 1-in-a-million chance or so with most vaccines of getting a reaction, but your odds of getting chickenpox are not that low at all, especially if you work anywhere near children.

Ultimately, please, ask your doctor. It's fine to be skeptical of something, so ask them why - they will have fully explored this issue, and will be capable of answering any questions you might have. That's, after all, they're job - they're here to help treat you, and they'll be able to explain to you the risks. Feel free to deliberate after them, but given that there is no correlation between vaccines and autism, allergic reactions are extremely rare, and the trace amounts of some chemicals is so small as to be medically insignificant, the very small risks of a vaccine far outweigh the potential risks of catching something like chickenpox or meningitis, for which both death is a possible outcome. Please, for your children's sake, ask your doctor.

Re: filter out pseudoscience

[110010001000]

You put way too much faith in doctors. Just because someone is "professionally trained" or has "years of experience" doesn't mean anything at all. I am very pro-vaccine but I am always amazed at how people think doctors know something special about vaccines just because they went to medical school. They aren't pharmacologists. They just prescribe the stuff.

Re: filter out pseudoscience

[Plus1Entropy]

You sound pretty reasonable right up until...

In children, however, sometimes the side effects are different. In particular, some vaccines are strongly linked with causing autism.

If you have kids get them vaccinated. Otherwise you are putting their health and the health of anyone they may come into contact with at serious risk. Your views are not pseudoscience, because pseudoscience is, by definition, claims about things which cannot be tested. Your views are unscientific; they have been tested, and there is absolutely no evidence to support them.

Re: filter out pseudoscience

[EmeraldBot]

You put way too much faith in doctors. Just because someone is "professionally trained" or has "years of experience" doesn't mean anything at all. I am very pro-vaccine but I am always amazed at how people think doctors know something special about vaccines just because they went to medical school. They aren't pharmacologists. They just prescribe the stuff.

"They just prescribe stuff" is far more than you or I know. Why the hell isn't everyone a programmer? There can't be much more to it than just logical thinking, after all. Same with architecture - what the hell can there be to designing buildings? I can build one out of legos pretty well, it's just on a bigger scale.

If you're on Slashdot, you're more likely than most to have at least a little technical experience, so I'd like to point you out the person that we all hate, the technically illiterate manager. You know, the one who can't understand why you can't debug a program in 3 hours, why delays can possibly happen, and why the hell they pay you what they do to type on a keyboard all day. What do you do that an outsourced programmer in India can't? That probably offends you, of course you do valuable work, and someone who is on average poorer trained than you is going to output poorer work. After all, not everyone's fit to be a programmer, right?

Then why the hell is it different for doctors?

Re: filter out pseudoscience

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't feed the trolls, especially the subtle ones.

Re: filter out pseudoscience

[arth1]

I've been misdiagnosed by doctors multiple times. And been scheduled to take expensive tests that were contraindicated, or medication that also was contraindicated. I expect many if not most people just go along.

Internet and libraries have provided help where doctors haven't. And internet and libraries don't have a several months wait to get an appointment, and are never consistently late when you do have one.

For me, the only value doctors have is the ability to prescribe medication and lab tests I can't order myself, and do surgeries I can't do myself.

And they're arrogant, so the trick is to steer and nudge them in the right direction and make them think that they came up with the plans and diagnoses. Much like with mid-level management in general, which I suppose they are.

Otherwise, taking your body to a physician is like taking your short stroke server to a Best Buy "Geek Squad" for service. They know just enough to cause damage to anything out of the ordinary.

Re: filter out pseudoscience

[K. S. Kyosuke]

In particular, some vaccines are strongly linked with causing autism. The mechanisms for this aren't fully understood, but there is a strong link with some vaccines.

That's a weird way of saying "I am delusional and can't be bothered with doing actual research on that matter".

Re: filter out pseudoscience

[Anonymous Coward]

So, basically what you're saying is, you think it is okay to risk bringing back Measles as a common childhood killer because you don't want your little snowflake to have an owwie in her arm for a couple of days, or to suffer some other minor, temporary inconvenience...

Fuck you. Fuck you and your anti-vaxxer moron cohorts.

Re: filter out pseudoscience

[arth1]

If you have kids get them vaccinated. Otherwise you are putting their health and the health of anyone they may come into contact with at serious risk.

You're saying that as if it were a bad thing.
Risk is good - it's a prime driver of evolution. Too many people survive to reproduce for evolution to be effective.

Vaccines are bad for humanity in the long run because they're effective and safe. "Survival of everybody" (but especially mine) doesn't select for those best able to adapt and resist diseases. So when vaccine resistant strains come along a few generations down the line, a much larger portion of the population are unable to resist them.

If we want humans in general (and not just our own) to improve in the long run, pay bonuses to those who survive diseases.

Re: filter out pseudoscience

[Anonymous Coward]

Your very rational post lost me at "they're"...

Re: filter out pseudoscience

[houghi]

I have been misdiagnosed twice and it has been corrected twice as well. I know that doctors do not know everything.

The fact that many or most go along says nothing about the doctors.

I get an apointment withing a working day, unless it is flue season, then I light not be able to go to my reglar doctor.

To me doctors are the ones that diagnose me correctly most of the time. Sometimes they are wrong. I do not mind them being wrong sometimes. They are human and are unable to know and foresee everything.
One wrong diagnose was because I was giving him the wrong information. He later corrected me by telling what I was telling him was not related to what I had.

The reason they are arrogant is because people just go along with them. I know several doctors and surgeons personally. They are a bit like IT people living in an ivory tower within their profession. And a surgeon is in no way middle management.

And we always hear about the people who were wrongfully diagnosed and that the Internet saved them, because that is news. Almost never about the people who did a wrong diagnose on themselves or took the wrong medicine. You know why? Because they ded! (Insert Steve Jobs reference)

Re: filter out pseudoscience

[swillden]

You put way too much faith in doctors. Just because someone is "professionally trained" or has "years of experience" doesn't mean anything at all.

Well, it means they know some things that someone without training or experience does. If I'm hiring someone to write a program for me, I'm going to pick the guy with a reputable CS degree and a few years of successful experience over a guy who says he's really smart and "knows computers" but has never written a line of code or has any idea what a binary tree or a hash map are, or why he might care. Likewise, if I have a medical issue I'm going to hire someone who spent a few years studying the body and how to take care of it.

In both cases, I'm also going to look for the guy who stays current with the literature, reading books and journals in the relevant field, and the one who is able to communicate clearly with me about the issues involved and the rationales behind the decisions. So, yeah, there's are a lot of attributes required other than training and years of experience... but why in the world would you put any trust in someone who doesn't have them?

Re: filter out pseudoscience

[ranton]

If we want humans in general (and not just our own) to improve in the long run, pay bonuses to those who survive diseases.

Humanity has long since passed the stage of evolution where natural selection weeds out people with poor eye sight, asthma, or susceptibility to treatable diseases. None of these traits harm a person's ability to contribute at the highest levels of society.

It is a very good thing nature no longer weeds out people for physical problems, because all of the important attributes now are mental in nature. Intelligence, creativity, willpower, etc. are our most important traits now and we want as many people with these traits to live as possible.

Re: filter out pseudoscience

[Anonymous Coward]

Please stay lost.

Re: filter out pseudoscience

[tompatman]

Interesting that you make the comparison of doctors to programmers. How many programmers do know that aren't that good at their job? What percentage of your graduating class was highly skilled? What percentage was mediocre or just barely getting through? Do you really think that distribution is much different in medical school? One thing that I have noticed is that many doctors will blindly believe anything they are told in medical school without questioning it. Because of that, they fall behind in skill and depth of knowledge. This seems to be particularly true in the U.S., where they are all too happy to recommend unnecessary surgery for infants and 90 yr. olds, and oversubscribe antibiotics, opioids and other medications. This often results in causing more harm than good.

Re: filter out pseudoscience

[DarkOx]

The reason they are arrogant is because people just go along with them. I know several doctors and surgeons personally. They are a bit like IT people living in an ivory tower within their profession. And a surgeon is in no way middle management.

Are you quite sure they don't just seem arrogant because of the way they are being forced to respond to your attitude. I do IT consulting. Usually middle management brings us in to help solve a problem they don't feel their support team can handle, but after the introductions are over that is usually who we are working with. Sometimes I encounter really sharp guys who really deserve the confidence of management and should been listened to / allowed to run with solving the problems on their own. Sometimes I meat guys like that that are glad we are their because even though they have the right plan or at least on one I can agree with in mind, they want us available to be blamed if something does go wrong. Sometimes they are really out of the depth, know it and are glad for the help. I can work with any those types; I am genuinely interesting in their ideas and insights they know the organization better than i do and may have an equal and occasional better grasp of the technology.

Sometimes though you get the know it all network admin or developer who thinks all their own ideas are like the most amazing ever and that nobody has ever tried them before. Their ideas are divinely inspired so no matter how much you try and explain how that model has not worked, currently isnt working, can't be sustained, is to risky for upper management to accept, only actually saves money while 'you Mr. Rockstar are willing to work 80 weeks', etc makes no impression on them. At that point you are kinda forced to simply go with 'listen I have been there done that got the t-shirt, its not a good plan and we not doing it that way. Please don't make me have to tell ${YOUR BOSS} you are not cooperating.' I am sure that comes off as extremely arrogant, but what choice do you have at that point?

You might be putting your doctors in the same position. Look at it from their perspective. They have profession ethics that don't allow them to just 'write scrips' they come in under the assumption that you have hired them for their expert opinion and skills, and are quite reasonably surprised to find you hostile to their advice.

Re: filter out pseudoscience

[Anonymous Coward]

Let me correct you here, US doctors are trained like European doctors before WWI. They would not be able to pass even a bachelor level anatomy exam. At least, that is my experience with getting advice from doctors in the US. Maybe the 9 out of 10 doctors that did not even perform a visual symptom check when they checked me out do not represent the majority.. Maybe Atlanta just has really-really bad doctors

Re: filter out pseudoscience

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll see you anecdotal evidence and raise you my own. I was given the wrong treatment by one doctor, then treated correctly by my current doctor. Doctor's are humans, they make mistakes. The broad brushes you use to dismiss their training are ridiculous - and most people do NOT have the expertise to weigh in on their own medical situation. Just because you are a rugged individualist, doesn't mean "don't trust doctors" is in any way a safe or valid approach to health.

Re: filter out pseudoscience

[Anonymous Coward]

"Do you really think that distribution is much different in medical school?"

Yes -- the barrier to entry for medical school is much higher than that in the I.T. profession.

"One thing that I have noticed is that many doctors will blindly believe anything they are told in medical school without questioning it."

That's interesting. Is it the result of direct observation? It sounds like nonsense to me.

Re: filter out pseudoscience

[arth1]

It is a very good thing nature no longer weeds out people for physical problems, because all of the important attributes now are mental in nature. Intelligence, creativity, willpower, etc. are our most important traits now and we want as many people with these traits to live as possible.

Yet we ensure that they all grow up to reproduce, even those who would have died through their own lack of "intelligence, creativity, willpower etc." if we didn't actively intervene. That doesn't seem like a good recipe for improvement.

Take away risk, and you also take away reward. Evolution requires unequal rewards. Without that, you have stagnation at best, and degeneration at worst.

Re:filter out pseudoscience

[minstrelmike]

Google can probably filter out the pseudoscience as well as a human doctor can. Apparently human doctors will prescribe expensive drugs simply for the price of a sandwich.

Re: filter out pseudoscience

[Anonymous Coward]

Good comment. Your goals are not the doctor's goals. You are seeking health and even a longer life. The doctor is seeking a paycheck. For the patient the visit may be life or death, for the doctor just another interesting spleen. Misdiagnosis and medical blunders happen often. It behooves you to cross check EVERY diagnosis, treatment and prescription. Your life and health are at risk.

Re: filter out pseudoscience

[Mike Van Pelt]

Autism? What link? The study by ex-doctor and convicted fraud perpetrator Andrew Wakefield? That study?

Re: filter out pseudoscience

[Anonymous Coward]

I think "doctors" is a bit of a misdirect. There are a lot of terrible doctors, and most non-specialists (family doctors) are virtually useless compared to anyone with decent research skills.

Think more along the lines of research scientists. They know what they're doing. The vaccines they test and make are safe. Are there sometimes side effects? Yes. Is it possible you can die from a vaccine? In rare cases where there are other things going on with the patient, yes. But every single vaccine out there right now (with the possible exception of a flu vaccine here and there that was predicted incorrectly) is orders of magnitude better than the risk of getting whatever it's preventing.

Should we do more studies on safety? If you want them, push for them and fund them. But in the meantime, vaccinate your kids and quit spreading misinformation.

Re: filter out pseudoscience

[EmeraldBot]

Interesting that you make the comparison of doctors to programmers. How many programmers do know that aren't that good at their job? What percentage of your graduating class was highly skilled? What percentage was mediocre or just barely getting through? Do you really think that distribution is much different in medical school? One thing that I have noticed is that many doctors will blindly believe anything they are told in medical school without questioning it. Because of that, they fall behind in skill and depth of knowledge. This seems to be particularly true in the U.S., where they are all too happy to recommend unnecessary surgery for infants and 90 yr. olds, and oversubscribe antibiotics, opioids and other medications. This often results in causing more harm than good.

Yeah, that's true. But as the AC mentioned here (I'd mod him up if I hadn't already participated in this conversation), medical school has a much higher barrier for graduation, and doctors perform to much higher standards. The medical field actually used to work like the IT industry - look back about two hundred years or so in the US, and you'll see what I mean.

You do mention a valid point - doctors these days tend to overprescribe medicine. However, that's not specific to the US. Furthermore, I am advocating that you understand what and why you're being treated, not that you sit there and nod your head and wait for them to write your prescription. Opioids are commonly given for people suspected to be in severe pain - obviously, you can refuse them if it's not too bad. Likewise, with antibiotics, if you know it's a virus, then put up some resistance. But think of why they're recommending it to you, and ask them - for example, there are certain viruses (HIV is on the extreme end of this scale, but you get the idea) that weaken the immune system, and the antibiotics don't really service to kill the virus, but to potentially kill a bacteria strain that comes with the virus. Some diseases become really hard to treat after they've taken hold. That example probably sucks, because I don't have any special medical training, but you get the idea - don't automatically discount their ideas. If they really are presenting you with bullshit, a few curious questions should definitely put them on the spot.

Re: filter out pseudoscience

[EmeraldBot]

It is a very good thing nature no longer weeds out people for physical problems, because all of the important attributes now are mental in nature. Intelligence, creativity, willpower, etc. are our most important traits now and we want as many people with these traits to live as possible.

Yet we ensure that they all grow up to reproduce, even those who would have died through their own lack of "intelligence, creativity, willpower etc." if we didn't actively intervene. That doesn't seem like a good recipe for improvement.

Take away risk, and you also take away reward. Evolution requires unequal rewards. Without that, you have stagnation at best, and degeneration at worst.

Yeah man, the US and Europe are totally stagnant and degenerate societies. Let's go to one where only the fittest survive, only the most intelligent, strongest, smartest people can. Let's go to Somolia! Why, they must practically be super human, enduring everything from a desert climate to a drug trade to a civil war to extreme poverty.

You forgot that evolution only applies to immediate risks - traits that are physically likely to kill you right here and now. Humans don't have natural selection anymore, not the kind that would make us any better, because we don't die. If we did go back to Africa, sure, quite a few people would die if they had to live out in the wild without any luxuries like medical care and clean water, but that goes against natural selection - the whole point is not to have people die in the first place. Second off, creativity and intelligence have nothing to do with your survival on a savannah. It doesn't matter how nice the pictures you draw are, if you're not capable of surviving malaria, you're dead. Likewise, intelligence only helps up to a very basic point in your example - whether one person can count to 10 and the other can do calculus, it doesn't matter, the physically buffer survives. Oh, but you might say, the calculus guy might be smart enough to build a strong, sturdy house. He might figure out a way to pipe water. He might even figure out a way to communicate with the world, by a telephone. That would be natural selection, wouldn't it? Ah, but that we enter a degenerate and stagnate society, don't we, because we're not all dying anymore. But we're only here in the first place because of natural selection, so wouldn't letting only the physically strongest survive, itself, be regressive? You'd be turning back the clock on natural selection. Some food for thought.

Re: filter out pseudoscience

[ranton]

Yet we ensure that they all grow up to reproduce, even those who would have died through their own lack of "intelligence, creativity, willpower etc." if we didn't actively intervene. That doesn't seem like a good recipe for improvement.

Take away risk, and you also take away reward. Evolution requires unequal rewards. Without that, you have stagnation at best, and degeneration at worst.

The human species is basically done evolving by natural means. Some time in the next 100 years we will start genetic engineering on humans, and guided evolution will begin. This period of genetic stagnation will not last long.

Re: filter out pseudoscience

[Anonymous Coward]

Commenting ac because I've moderated this op.

Interesting that you make the comparison of doctors to programmers. How many programmers do know that aren't that good at their job?

I've met LOTS of programmers who are terrible programmers. But every single one of them knew FAR more about programming than the smartest non-programmers I know.

Hypochonders and Google, M.D.

[bickerdyke]

For example, if you type "headache on one side," Google will offer up a list of associated conditions like "migraine," "common cold" or "tension headache."

But people will still be picking the "brain tumor" of that list of possible conditions.

Re:Hypochonders and Google, M.D.

[Ihlosi]

But people will still be picking the "brain tumor" of that list of possible conditions.

Yes, oblivious to the fact that the brain lacks pain receptors.

Now, I wonder what happens when I type in the symptoms of an actual CNS tumor.

headache

[110010001000]

Wow, will offer things like migraine, common cold and tension headache? The AI singularity is near! Is that was AI nutters call "Deep Learning"? What a joke.

Re:headache

[Anonymous Coward]

What is it with you and tossing the term "nutter" around, anyway?

Does it diagnose gay-ism

[Anonymous Coward]

or does google support gay-ism to invade the life of societies world-wide and considers it an ok thing to be gay?

Just because it doesn't kill you doesn't mean its no serious illness. Gay-ism is highly contageous, and will befall most of the world if we don't act now. It might not kill anybody but it stops the natural generation of children which as of now only happens in hetero relationships.

If we don't start curing gay-ism now there won't be any children anymore, just gayists and lesbians.

Re:Does it diagnose gay-ism

[Anonymous Coward]

It has been an official illness registered by the American Psychiatric Association. But the environmentalists and already befallen gay-ists have exerted pressure to un-mark it. The gays because they are gay and the environmentalists because they want to destroy any human life on earth to "preserve" it.

Re:Does it diagnose gay-ism

[EmeraldBot]

It has been an official illness registered by the American Psychiatric Association. But the environmentalists and already befallen gay-ists have exerted pressure to un-mark it. The gays because they are gay and the environmentalists because they want to destroy any human life on earth to "preserve" it.

An irrational and intense fixation on a group that has no impact on your life, along with unsubstantiated statements that are soundly incorrect, is far more of a sign of mental distress than "gayism."

Re:Does it diagnose gay-ism

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's hope Trump will get president so that he makes people like you shut up. You harm our national integrity. Look how it has ended in orlando, here gay-ism has turned a peaceful young man with a family into a brutal killer who has killed fellow gay-ists. Most of the gays end up being peaceful, but it may also escalate like in this case. Its a matter of national security.

They need help why do you deny them that help.

Re:Does it diagnose gay-ism

[Anonymous Coward]

GOD hates fags thats a matter of fact.

Re:Does it diagnose gay-ism

[EmeraldBot]

Let's hope Trump will get president so that he makes people like you shut up. You harm our national integrity. Look how it has ended in orlando, here gay-ism has turned a peaceful young man with a family into a brutal killer who has killed fellow gay-ists. Most of the gays end up being peaceful, but it may also escalate like in this case. Its a matter of national security.

They need help why do you deny them that help.

Posting multiple posts pretending to be different people - multi personality disorder. Claims events happened that can be demonstrably proven not to have - hallucinations. Refuses to read another's viewpoint - narcissistic disorder. Belief that gay people are out to get you - severe paranoria. Buddy, if you have pills, please go and take them, your doctor prescribes medicine for a reason.

You have an interesting viewpoint though (stupid, but curious). Those gay people were Americans, and the guy who killed them immigrated from Afghanistan and dreamed of repeating 9/11. The kind of nonsense your spouting usually comes from are those who are super nationalists - that all foreigners are evil. You view a terrorist from Afghanistan as more justified than a gay American?

Re:Does it diagnose gay-ism

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't get me wrong. Islam has greatly advanced his illness. After all, mohammad was a pedophile. Also, Islam was the source for his phantasies as you correctly said. But in this particular case, him being gay-ist played a greater role than him being a muslim.

It was a radical islamic terrorist attack executed by a mentally ill gay person.

Re:Does it diagnose gay-ism

[Anonymous Coward]

And you invent illnesses out of thin air you stupid overweight fag.

Re:Does it diagnose gay-ism

[XxtraLarGe]

Posting multiple posts pretending to be different people - multi personality disorder.

Applying Occam's Razor, the more likely explanation is that you're being trolled...

Re:Does it diagnose gay-ism

[EmeraldBot]

Posting multiple posts pretending to be different people - multi personality disorder.

Applying Occam's Razor, the more likely explanation is that you're being trolled...

Of course it's a troll, I guess the sarcasm was a little subtle. But c'mon, you don't find an anti-gay troll who defends an Afghani over an American fascinating? Usually it's just the conservative points magnified. As crappy and obvious as it is, at least it's something new, most just repeat what's already been said a 1000 times. I have a policy of not feeding trolls, but every once in a while it's pretty entertaining to poke them.

Re:Does it diagnose gay-ism

[EmeraldBot]

Don't get me wrong. Islam has greatly advanced his illness. After all, mohammad was a pedophile. Also, Islam was the source for his phantasies as you correctly said. But in this particular case, him being gay-ist played a greater role than him being a muslim.

It was a radical islamic terrorist attack executed by a mentally ill gay person.

Ah, so him being gay was more dangerous then him being muslim? Then humor me, why would he attack other gay people? If gays were self-exterminating, then wouldn't they all be dead by now? Your delusions are fascinating. Tell me, how do the Chinese factor into this? Since they manufactured most of the products he likely touched, did their inherent chinese-ish also hijack his brain too? How about me? We were both American citizens. Since I am a "stupid overweight fag", as you so eloquently put it, did my evidently clearly inherent obesity travel across the IRS database and infect his mind? How do Obama and Trump figure into all of this? Please, tell me more.

halp

[Anonymous Coward]

halp halp! I NEED HALP can teh google halp me!

my farts smell of google

[Anonymous Coward]

oh, has google ass raped one of its customers again??

does nig.ger sex give you cancer

[Anonymous Coward]

do you get cancer if you have hot buttsex with nig.gers? God doesn't want gay buttsex so is cancer the punishment?

Re:does nig.ger sex give you cancer

[Anonymous Coward]

nig.ger fag sex gives you cancer yes.

vast improvement

[Gravis Zero]

as a beta tester, i can tell you that this is a vast improvement to the old system.

my list of symptoms symptoms: "partially numb to pain, shortness of breath, cannot raise left hand to keyboard"

Before it scared the crap out of me with this line: "you have having heart-attack or stroke. CALL FOR MEDICAL ASSISTANCE IMMEDIATELY"
However, the new system gave me a proper reply: "you have Attention Deficit Disorder, need to exercise more and please stop masterbating before using Google Health" :)

Re:vast improvement

[nbauman]

One afternoon I was feeling kind of dizzy and lethargic, probably from a lack of excercise and staring at the keyboard all day.

Out of an abundance of paranoia, I called the 800 number of my insurance company's help line, and spoke to a nurse.

I went through my symptoms, in great detail, because when you're giving a medical history (especially over the phone when they can't see or touch you), any minor detail might make a difference. I could hear her keyboard clicking in the background.

She said, "you should go to a hospital or your doctor's office immediately. You may have heart failure."

I said, "Heart failure? I don't think so. I can walk 10 blocks. I can climb 5 flights of stairs."

She insisted. She said, "You really should go to the hospital. You could die." Health professionals have the ultimate sales pitch. "You have to do this or you could die."

I said, "How do you come to this conclusion?"

She said, "Through a clinical decision-making tool."

I said, "What tool?"

She said, "Oh, it's a computerized tool."

I said, "What is the name of the tool?"

She said, "It's an internet tool."

She wouldn't tell me the name. I had to drag it out of her. I said, "Do you have a name at the top of the screen?"

Finally, she said, "Medscape."

I figured out that it was probably something like one of those Mayo Clinic consumer pages.

But she's a nurse and I'm not. Even though I was pretty sure it was BS, I couldn't take a chance and risk my life.

So I called my doctor's office and asked for an appointment. I hadn't seen him in a while anyway, and I had a few other things to talk about.

I told his secretary that a nurse had told me I should see a doctor immediately, so she booked me in the next appointment, in half an hour.

That was the one good thing I got out of the nurse help line -- an immediate appointment with my doctor.

When I told him about the heart failure, he laughed and said, "If you can climb 5 flights of stairs, you don't have heart failure."

Bottom line: in my experience, these nurse 800-numbers are BS (although sometimes just asking a question can be helpful). When you call them up with a real question, all they do is tell you to see a doctor. The strange thing is that this is a service paid for by the insurance company, which is supposed to save the insurance company money. But by sending people to the ER, she's actually costing them more money. And how much training does it take to sit at a phone and tell everybody, "You could have a serious problem. You should go to the ER immediately"? I could do that myself with a Google search.

Re:vast improvement

[Anonymous Coward]

>But by sending people to the ER, she's actually costing them more money.

As counter-intuitive as it sounds, it is cheaper for the insurance company if you go to ER, than your normal non-ER medical facility.
This is due to ER using a different set of medical billing codes, which gives the insurance company greater opportunities to deny, leaving you stuck with a bigger bill.

Why Not?

[sudon't]

Why not. It's not like anyone thinks search results are simply searches of an index of what's on the web anymore.

Re:Why Not?

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

And that's exactly why you need to offer Google as little information about you as possible, and go see a doctor.

Besides, Google's privacy invasion schemes notwithstanding, real doctors don't like it when you self-diagnose. So, since you can't really tell them Google told you you have a life-threatening ass tumor, you're better off not searching anything and going straight to the doctor.

Re:Why Not?

[Anonymous Coward]

My doctor routinely recommends checking mayo and webmd for more info about things after they have diagnosed me with them.
I didn't have an ass tumor, but I did have stage 3 colon cancer, so I guess that's close enough.

The 'what to expect' sections were VERY comforting each time I had a new test or procedure scheduled.
I could sit back and go, oh okay, this is happening, and next will be this, ah there that is, okay, 3 steps to go.

Trust me, when they are strapping you onto a cold metal table, sticking a needle in your arm that goes up to some sort of lethal injection looking system
and shoving you into some sort of borg cube, it's VERY comforting to have read that 'The Initial IV insertion will be the most painful part'.

Re:Why Not?

[sudon't]

I stopped using Google a long time ago. Aside from privacy issues, I don't want a search engine trying to guess what I want in my results.

... and still added to your profile.

[Anonymous Coward]

Better advice or not, the medical searches you perform will still be added to the profile of information kept about you by Google.

Any medical related searches should be performed anonymously through some sort of proxy.

Re:... and still added to your profile.

[dlingman]

Better advice or not, the medical searches you perform will still be added to the profile of information kept about you by Google.

And then promptly sold to your insurance company.

Re:... and still added to your profile.

[Oxygen99]

That's why I keep Googling protein powders, effective marathon training and where the nearest iron man race is...

Re:... and still added to your profile.

[hcs_$reboot]

Google would not do that. Remember, Google is a no evil company.

So, it'll tell me which kind of cancer it is?

[Anonymous Coward]

The thing I hate about WebMD is that it just doesn't differentiate. It just says I'm dying of cancer. If google can do that and also tell me what KIND of cancer is killing me, that would be a huge leap forward.

How will this work?

[Anonymous Coward]

User: boils on penis luminescent green secretions
Google: do you live in California?
User: yes
Google: Have you been abducted by Aliens recently??
User: Yeah, half the state has been abducted by Aliens.
Google: Ummm... was there sexual intercourse involved?
User: yes
Google: Oh dear.... you need to rub Gundark saliva on the boils, twice daily for a month.
User: Who sells Gundark saliva?
Google: Nobody.
User: Somebody must sell the stuff?!?!
Google: No, you must travel to Gliese 581 d, wrestle a Gundark to the ground and persuade it to ... uhhh... well you can guess the rest.
User: Damn!
Google: You should bring a file, Gundarks have sharp teeth.

This is an aid, not a replacement

[houghi]

When I went to my doctor, he used Google to do some extra research. I was happy with that, To me that means he is most likely looking for confirmation or extra information that can help him to do a better diagnosis.

Even if I would do the same search and gotten the same results, the treatment might have been completely different. And even then he said:
We start with A, take a scan and then we will do B and perhaps C and later D.

In fact I did a search and step A was mentioned on page 3 of the resuls and that while it worked and required no medicine at all

This all because he not only know what to look for but also how to interpret it.

If you do a search for an issue in IT and they all say to do "rm -rf /" you will know if that would be the right thing to do or not. I would not expect my doctor to know that.

Cars: When you go to the doctor and sum up the symtons is like telling a mechanic there is a strange noise and descibe the noise. The better you describe the noise, the more likely it is that the mechanic know what the problem is. It is, however, also his experience that knows if he needs to look at the transmission or sell you some blinker fluid.
This experience Google has not. Also because Google will not ask extra question, like "How many km did you drive?", "What car are you driving" or "Have you already replaced the blinker fluid since you last bought the car?"

my penis is too big

[guarants]

Help me google!

Re:my penis is too big

[Anonymous Coward]

My penis is too big to fail.

Re:my penis is too big

[hcs_$reboot]

Google will automatically understand your real frustration by offering you penis enlargement solutions.

Simple

[Anonymous Coward]

No need to expand spying, just put all muslim males between 15 - 35 on the watchlist. Moderate Islam thinks gays should die, "radical" Islam follows through. I fail to see the the need to differentiate. Europe is off its rocker thinking that bringing all of these refugees in is a good idea, by and large they have no desire to assimilate.

MD training for vaccine

[DrYak]

I am an *MD* (though I mostly work in research).

You put way too much faith in doctors. Just because someone is "professionally trained" or has "years of experience" doesn't mean anything at all. {...} I am always amazed at how people think doctors know something special about vaccines just because they went to medical school. {...} They just prescribe the stuff.

We don't only prescribe, we are also trained how to react in case of of strong reaction (e.g.: allergies).
Though in some jurisdiction, the same could also be handled by paramedics.

(Also, we do get basic training in pharmacology. If some of my peers are too stupid to actually study it correctly, that's an entire different matter, though...)

more arguments

[DrYak]

In additions to all the arguments you've given:

- there's also the problem of herd immunity.
the more people got a vaccine against some disease, the more difficulty this disease has to find the next "free" host to infect. Beyond a certain percentage of vaccinated people, the disease can't spread across the population because it almost never find a nearby infectable host.
Conversely under a certain percentage of vaccinated people, the disease can roam freely among the population.

Refusing to get a vaccine not only change *one*'s own risk of catching the disease, but contributes to lowering the herd immunity and in creases the overall population's risk to catch the disease.
And conversely, deciding to get a vaccine will increase herd immunity and also help protecting the few people who cannot get the vaccine (because of allergies, diminished immune system, etc.)

- speaking about autism and vacines:
Since then, the study has proven to be bunk and has been retracted.
Autism has been proven to have genetic basis, and to start developing already in utero (before exposed to the first ever vaccine).
Autism has no known mecanisms linked to the immune-system.

There's just some time-correlation due to external factor.

For details: it's due to age.
- It happens that most autism are diagnosed in childhood, because that's where it's easiest for parent to observe the abnormal behaviour patterns (e.g.: attention deficit), unlike in newborn or while still in the womb (where some of the autism already starts to develop).
- It also happens that children gets the most vaccine (unlike adults who only need some special shots for exotic diseases or/and only get boosters).
- So autism also happen to get discovered in kids who also got a vaccine.

Re: more arguments

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope, there is a link between autism and vaccines, vaccines are the straw that can break the camels back. Autism is the result of a hyperactive immune response. If one is predisposed to such an immune response, vaccines can trigger the response by ramping up the immune system beyond the genetic/epigenetic threshold.

Re: more arguments

[EmeraldBot]

Nope, there is a link between autism and vaccines, vaccines are the straw that can break the camels back. Autism is the result of a hyperactive immune response. If one is predisposed to such an immune response, vaccines can trigger the response by ramping up the immune system beyond the genetic/epigenetic threshold.

That is pure nonsense. Autism has absolutely NOTHING to do with the immune system at all, or you'd see people with compromised immune systems also exhibit something. Furthermore, your immune system does not even have a "genetic threshold" - your immune system is controlled almost entirely by chemicals, not directly by genetics.

Best News Today

[nult]

Just what my hypochondriac girlfriend needs !

Prediction

[DrYak]

Now, I wonder what happens when I type in the symptoms of an actual CNS tumor.

I predict that once this google subsystem will be in production (well, it's google, so probably just a later "beta" stage, only better debugged and tuned).

- it will correctly list tumors among the probable cause (along with other plausible CNS diseases - e.g.: vascular - depending on symptoms list)

- people will still pick-up the weird case-report where it was due to some environmental poisoning that's mentioned once after 10 pages of search-results. And sue the City for trying to brain-control them with said poisoning.

At what cost?

[Razed By TV]

Does this come at the cost of being able to research rarer ailments? I'm less interested in googling illnesses that are easily identified by your general practitioner.

Plus ça change

[econnor]

Sounds pretty much like what the world and his/her infomatics monkey were trying to sell budget-holding informatics monkeys 15 years ago. I'm sure I'm excited, but would be more excited by a clear account of the whole bidness.

The non-trivial challenge of delivering useful health information in the absence of a useful patient record has burned quite a lot cash and made quite a few careers. Citizens may wish to review Google's interminable chain of cross referenced privacy policies. Give me fluffy results any time. I can make my own mind up and nobody need know too much about what was going on in it. If I go for "I'm feeling yucky" and stop there.... more people than I want to know already get to know. Who else will eventually be authorised to know under "we reserve the right to modify our terms" clauses?

Secondly, medics and programmers have a lot in common. Both are (or should be) scientists, who often fail to do their job properly when they get to imagining they are artists. (Poiticians being, needless to say, artists who believe they are scientists.)

Thirdly, the medical and IT professions [arguably] both deserve everything they get from the self-obsessed consumers of their services.

Truth in information

[jraff2]

The whole of the medical profession has been absolutely shut up about thousands of medical issues that can and should be handled by simple readily available help and cures. No doctor will tell a diabetic that Cinnamon is a helpful adjunct to one's medical regime. The pharmaceutical community wants the unknowing populous to spend hard earned and egregious amounts of money on some patented drug instead of some easy to find and cheap to buy perfectly good condiment. Why?, so the drug houses get filthy rich off the teeming populous. Google will have the same screws put to it's "information" with out any truth in medicine! Where does one go to find real medical treatment and cures with out the Pharmaceutical community shutting them up?

medical apps

[bigyat]

if this happen then wont use medical apps