Basically just a big banner page that reads "Yep, you probably have cancer."
What would a “good” WebMD look like?
131–140 of 323 posts
Re: What would a “good” WebMD look like?
#132the best site would be a single page that says "talk to your doctor" vertically and horizontally aligned in a large font.
If you want to read about how not using a certain brand of band-aids means your child is destined to become a serial killer then research medical information online. For medical information the Internet is the last place i go.
Re: What would a “good” WebMD look like?
#133If I need information I look for the publications linked from the NIH website.
I think the problems with health information are that the vast majority of the population isn’t sophisticated enough to understand the physiological and biochemical specifics, and that generic info is pretty much worthless.
People should listen to their doctors (who specifically advise against running to google for every symptom)
Re: What would a “good” WebMD look like?
#134Back when I was a kid, my mom had a 1,000 page book that is more or less what this article is asking for. I wonder what ever happened to that book. (Are there newer editions, for example?)
Re: What would a “good” WebMD look like?
#135Like https://www.thennt.com which friends of mine started and tried to monetize – but there's no obvious revenue source for unbiased evidence-based diagnosis and treatment recommendations. Or none that's obvious to investors.
Re: What would a “good” WebMD look like?
#136Basically just a big banner page that reads "Yep, you probably have cancer."
And AIDS
Re: What would a “good” WebMD look like?
#137In the U.S., MedlinePlus [0] seems to be the best repository for vetted medical information. It's government-backed and links to the relevant organizations where appropriate.
Re: What would a “good” WebMD look like?
#138Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is the model for weather in the US. Do you like weather.com and all the derivatives?
Is weather.com the root, or is it noaa.gov?
NOAA.gov is. They are the official source of the data, and the only organization that puts out weather alerts/warnings, etc.
Re: What would a “good” WebMD look like?
#139Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't that what the pharmacist is for? Pharmacies sell some dumb stuff, but if you actually ask for advice from the person with a license they'd like to keep, you should get some straight talk I'd think.
As an experiment, I will try that next time I’m buying an OTC remedy. It sounds like we share an opinion: Given that drugstores unironically place homeopathic nostrums and essential oils right next to actual medicines, I treat them as hostile environments out to scam unwary consumers rather than honest sources of information. But, as I said, I will give that a fair test.
the pharmacist at a chain store has zero control of what's out there on the shelf. Just talk to them and see what they say. I suspect they'll give you an active ingredient suggestion first and then a handful of options of stuff they have on the shelf with that active ingredient.
Re: What would a “good” WebMD look like?
#140WebMD is for the general public (GP) and useless on anything you need in depth - helpful for broad inquiry. UpToDate which practitioners use is amazing but too much information for the general public. It's part of what I mentioned in another comment which is that the internet is to general and vague in its information (and generally low-mid quality) while private information is, sometimes, of higher quality. It leads…
GP is quite a confusing initialism to use here as GP often means "general practitioner", which is like a family doctor/primary care physician in much of the anglosphere outside of the US.