It almost goes without saying that technology — specifically, the Internet, has revolutionized medicine. But I’m saying it anyway. On a personal level, it has made my life so much easier because instead of spending hours rifling through stacks of journals to find the latest New England Journal of Medicine, I can simply search them from the comfort of my own home on the Web. Coincidentally, as Apple continues to contain our lives in the increasing capacity — yet decreasing size — of its iProducts, the company has expanded its reach into the realm of health apps. So basically, I don’t even have to get out of bed or move more than a few fingers.
In the grander sense, the Internet has revolutionized patients’ and families’ access to medical information. It is reassuring to know that after being diagnosed, patients themselves can browse various Web sites to further learn about their ailments and their potential treatments and cures. And most, if not all, physicians agree that an educated and informed patient is better equipped to make important decisions about his or her health and medical care. Patients also can access these resources repeatedly to thoroughly understand afflictions without needing to call their physicians each time they have a question.
The Internet has also been a boon to social and support networks for patients and families dealing with chronic diseases. Example: Facebook for Diabetes/HIV/Cystic Fibrosis/Cancer — and the list goes on. These groups are wonderful for providing emotional support and tips for long-term sufferers and the newly diagnosed. They connect people and allow them to express on a daily basis what they are experiencing to others who truly understand what they are going through. This function is where doctors, alas, come up short. As a group of medical professionals, we are great at understanding the organic nuts and bolts of a disease and a disease’s process, but because we don’t deal with most of them on a personal level, we lack the ability to fully comprehend what it’s like to live with these illnesses outside of the hospital.
But as Bret Michaels would say, every rose has its thorns. While the Internet has been great for medicine in the aforementioned ways, it has an evil underside. It masquerades in many forms, including false information, junk science, not Food and Drug Administration-approved, and the elusive “Experimental Therapy.” I lump it all under the generic name of “Oh, crap” because that’s what I say when I get an e-mail about how I’m going to get cancer from my water bottle. I know that other people reading that e-mail believe its falsities because these things always come with the disclaimer that they are from a reputable source like Johns Hopkins or the Mayo Clinic. It creates paranoia (try finding a water bottle WITH Bisphenol A in it these days).
What’s worse is when people with an illness search the Internet and find information about some mysterious new treatment involving water with magical powers or Suzanne Somers’ new diet that “cured” her cancer. Usually, these “treatments” are not particularly detrimental to one’s health — and are, in fact, a great adjunct — until they become a substitute for scientifically proven, FDA-approved medical therapies.
Additionally, this wealth of information can make it difficult for health professionals to practice medicine. I realize it may seem that I’m contradicting my earlier points, but read me out on this. The trouble with Google is that it doesn’t filter good medical information from bad medical information, so when a patient searches a symptom they are experiencing, they get a huge list of online sites at which they can learn more about symptoms and the potential disease of which they might be a carrier. Thus, patients search and read and search and read, and by the time they see their doctor in a few days, some are already prepared with a diagnosis. Their self doctoring might be totally off the mark in terms of what they actually have, but it takes great skill and patience to inform them otherwise, and what they really have is something else (hopefully what they actually have is less doom and gloomy than what they thought they had).
None of this, of course, is to discourage folks from searching out information — I encourage it — but it is to caution that not all information is good information, and it’s always better to use the information from reputable sites (Mayo Clinic, National Institutes of Health and Medline Web sites are great examples), and to consult your physician with any questions. Also, it’s a good idea to keep an open mind when you visit the doc and be willing to accept his explanation for your symptoms. Remember, just because there’s an app doesn’t mean “iDiagnosis” is always right.
Katie McBeth is a University Medical student. She can be reached at k.mcbeth@cavalierdaily.com.
What Katie fails to mention is that the medical establishment fought for decades against the “quackery” of such things as chiropractic and vitamin supplements. Eventually, they were forced to come around. Even the AMA lobbied against the disaster that would be Medicare – until they lost.
Unfortunately, medical organizations tend to be heavily influenced by politics and money. The FDA, for example. Sad fact of life.
But as the Cavalier Daily’s premier proponent of medical information screened and filtered to only include the politically correct stuff, Katie won’t herself dare make the pharmaceutical companies or her brethren at the UVA Health System angry with her by telling you about grave threats to your health. She likes the Mayo Clinic, but only when they speak about things she wants you to know about. Not that “other stuff.”
http://uvalies.org/breastcancer.html
Report this comment
Agree/Disagree:
0 
0
Katie, your articles speak for themselves. You can’t change them, nor any of their glaring, consistent omissions now. Thanks for your response, but I’m going to pass over the issue of who is paying who what. In the end it is only the facts that matter, and your motivations – be they financial and/or political – are known only to you. I can only see the results.
You wrote an article about cervical cancer, but didn’t dare mention THREE major causes of that disease that are rather popular on Grounds these days (early sexual activity, multiple partners, “birth control” steroids). You wrote about breast cancer, but somehow avoided any mention that the pills 60 plus percent of your female classmates take cause breast cancer. Meanwhile, you openly promoted the Komen Foundation – who in turn gives money directly to Planned Parenthood – who in turn causes more breast cancer whilst raking in tens of millions of dollars in profits (as a no profit organization). Since when, and on behalf of who, do we take one or more causes of a devastating disease that has skyrocketed in incidence – and simply not mention it?
I can only presume that your idea of a “reputable journal” is based on Katie McBeth’s politics, not unbiased review of studies. Doctors as well as organizations they organize themselves into do not always agree with one another, and the disparity gets larger if we include other countries and cultures. But it’s very obvious by now that you will bend over backwards to keep both plausible and proven medical facts and risks to their health from students on behalf of your political agenda. Indeed, you have already done it. And why else would they be so consistently missing? Alas, many of your colleagues do the same – as the health system’s website clearly shows us. I don’t agree that every medical professional is kind, or in it to help people. Some are in it for the money, and we all know that. And some are beheading and ripping apart healthy infants in utero right in your hospital.
Facts are facts.
And death is death.
If all the careful omissions, as well as the University’s, are not due to political or financial reasons – then what are they due to? Indeed, a few of your colleagues have helped us with our website but do not show themselves in public as supporting us due to the effect that would likely have on their grades/promotions/jobs. Not everyone inside the health system is happy with medical ethics having been thrown into the trash along with all those little heads, hands, and feet. Nor with the revolting misinformation – often almost no information – given out with all the pills the Teen Center and Elson peddle.
Your “health” system’s online page dealing with “birth control options” makes no mention whatsoever of heart disease, breast cancer, birth defects, cervical cancer, or liver cancer. But it DOES find the time and space to mention ovarian and endometrial cancers, as their risks decreases. Imagine that..
Additionally, UVA’s abortion consent form only mentions “complications with future pregnancies” instead of telling women honestly and completely that a compromised cervix and damaged uterus causes preterm birth later in life – often yielding devastating consequences for future children such as cerebral palsy. How many is it worth, Ms. Katie McBeth ?
If you are suggesting that there is some secret room somewhere where ALL the medical facts are actually being communicated, how is it that these facts don’t make it onto UVA’s online pages, or into your articles?
Show us all here and now what is factually incorrect in any of the medical studies cited on our website.
Go ahead. Make our day.
How come your comment did not include a single challenge to a single fact on our website, but rather just a vague suggestion that you can somehow make medical studies vanish and their numbers go away because you don’t like some of the authors? Do estrogens and progestins really not cause all those cancers, birth defects, plaque after all? Is the Mayo Clinic meta analysis suddenly wrong because Katie McBeth doesn’t want people to know about it? Do Geneva, Nuremberg, Helsinki, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights not matter now? Have medical ethics completely vanished on behalf of the lucrative nature of pharmaceuticals and abortions? Really?
If we’re so wrong, and you’re so right about us being wrong, go ahead and show everyone in this open, public forum.
C’mon, it should be really easy for you, no? Lets show everyone who has the facts, and who suppresses the facts. Who keeps young people in the dark about grave threats to their health, and who does not. Have at us. Have at me. Bring it.
Report this comment
Agree/Disagree:
0 
0