It's fantastic how much information is now available to everyone on the net, and surprising how many people do know about sites such as PubMed. Of course there's a lot of rubbish out there as well.

But what academics and universities could do, if they cared to, is very much increase the amount of quality info available on the net: that info which they publish exclusively in very expensive journals.

From my experience collecting patient testimony, diagnosis for many remains frustratingly elusive.

Patients tire of symptoms that progress or don't abate, and they tire from treating symptoms alone with no end in sight... which can then lead to depression.

Not all, but many are desperate to know what is causing their health issues so they can do something positive about it rather than passively taking drugs to suppress symptoms. This unmet need is one of the reasons patients turn to the net.

Another is when patients experience adverse health events from their treatment... medication side effects, hip replacements that fail, laser eye surgery that results in long term scratchiness, etc.

With little transparency in health system outcomes (the market is encouraged to monitor itself), patients are often left to believe their adverse event is rare and there is no-one else who has experienced what they have experienced. This isolates patients in their time of great need and they turn to the net.

An effective federal govt ehealth data system that encourages patients to self-report their health outcomes in a structured way would be a first step resolution.

Instead, the government is likely to follow the advice of private health insurance lobbyists, conveniently forgetting that all commercial enterprises, regardless of how much they say they 'care', are profit-driven entities. 'Cost' will therefore always be a weighting factor in treatment guidance (where no commercial interest is held in the treatment).

Back to google searches... another reason people turn to the net is find out how others are improving their health, such as those whose frustration led them to **low dose naltrexone (LDN) as a treatment option.

Unfortunately, this leaves people open to a lot of misinterpretation, and misinformation from those who seek to sell them products and services... some of those products may work, many of them may not.

Having had a lot of experience with this, I can confidently relate that the degree of infiltration by commercial health marketers into social internet spheres is extensive and unregulated (there is zero transparency in these marketing practices which span from large corporations to individual players).

An effective federal govt ehealth data system that encourages patients to self-report their health outcomes in a structured way would go a long way to delivering transparency where none presently exists.

**On the plus side, and no doubt due in no small part to Google health searches... UK MPs this week led a House of Commons debate on extending the approved use of low-dose Naltrexone (LDN):

Ref: Adjournment debate - Labour MP for Llanelli Nia Griffith led a debate on extending the approved use of low-dose Naltrexone, on 8 December 2011.

Low Dose Naltrexone or LDN is a drug which can help regulate a dysfunctional immune system in autoimmune diseases including cancers, HIV/Aids, Multiple Sclerosis, Crohn's disease.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/hi/house_of_commons/newsid_9653000/9653869.stm

I have been sharing information on this treatment (patient stories and case studies, scientific research, clinical trials, conferences, etc) with Australian media, MPs, key research bodies, disease societies, doctors, scientists, researchers, etc, etc for many years now.

I am at once delighted for UK patients who will benefit, but saddened that Australians and others throughout the world will not.

Do UK MPs value their consitutuents more than Australian MPs?

One of the reasons that people access the internet for diagnosis, and information, is that actually seeing a doctor or health professional, in many areas, is almost impossible.

I live in a rural town and in order to see a doctor, you must first be already on the patient list, all doctors in my town are refusing to take any new patients. To have an appointment with a doctor, the average waiting period is 3 weeks, if you are lucky enough to be on the patient list. If you cannot get an appointment you are advised to present at the emergency dept at the local hospital, where after a few hours wait, (if you are lucky), you may be seen by a doctor.

Many people, with non-emergency problems, feel bad about taking up space and time in an emergency department, when all they need is to get some professional advice. This is why many turn to the internet. Its far cheaper than seeing an actual doctor, and you do not need to wait 3 weeks for advice.

I would love to see an online medical service in Australia. We have the technology available to be able to have patients diagnosed over the internet, using video links, to make this a viable option to visiting a doctors surgery or the hospital, for health issues that are not emergencies, or immediately life threatening. There could even be centres in existing hospitals where this could occur, with patient assistance from nursing staff. This would take a lot of pressure off emergency departments, and people with non-emergency issues would be able to be seen in a timely manner.

An online system would be particularly useful for people wanting ongoing prescriptions, that currently necessitate a visit to a doctor.

Until something is done about the shortage of doctors, particularly in rural areas, people will turn to the internet for help with health issues. This is not an ideal situation, but neither is waiting 3 weeks for a doctors appointment.