Quack Alert: Avoiding Internet Health Scams

It is an absolute necessity for everyone to use the Internet to empower themselves with information about health and other medical issues providing that the information is not a scam.

Quality doctors are hard to find these days that I drive over an hour to see doctors for my family.

Doctors are trained in medical school to treat diseases and thus, generally view the body through a disease framework. Often times they do not provide adequate information and they give us the impression that we are supposed to believe anything they say which could not be in the best interest of our health.

The proliferation of resourceful web sites such as OrganizedWisdom has made it possible for people to take more control over their health and make informed decisions in the direction of their health.

Another example of how the Internet is contributing to a knowledge-based society.

Is that most of what is now called "alternative" were originally the "traditional" medicines. I get a chuckle whenever I read some article saying doctors are astounded at the efficacy of some "new" "alternative" medicine, that is really some herb or technique that has been in use for thousands of years. Granted, modern medicine has come up with some great advances, but people were so quick to "modernize," starting with the use of sulfa drugs in the 1930s, that they threw the baby (of valid herbal and holistic medicines) out with the bathwater of old superstitions and patent-medicine quackery. What we got was a whole slew of new superstitions, and pharmaceutical patent-medicine quackery.

The web does make it easier for individuals to take control of their health, and find their own information, but as always, caveat emptor - and someone is always trying to sell you a new brand of snake oil, whether it's some grapefruit cure, or new-fangled back surgery. Unfortunately, when the profit motive becomes the prime directive, whether the quack is pushing unneeded surgery or dangerous herbs, the patient suffers.

I have a friend who argues with me about this - she insisted that her friend had been cured by bloodroot - after one discussion, I Googled bloodroot and came across Dr. Barrett's report on the patient who lost her nose. I forwarded this to her, with a note saying, that while it may have worked for her friend, it seems it could be dangerous - and this was after I'd already passed on the good word on bloodroot to a co-worker, based on my friend's testimonial!

She replied with an angry letter, about how the medical establishment was suppressing this knowledge, and Dr. Barrett was most likely on the take. She's a big proponent of Dr. Mercola, whose website, and comments by contributors on the site, contains much material of this opinion. Barret has been a vocal critic of Mercola for his health claims attributed to the products he sells on his website.

Mercola has a financial motive. Barrett is not selling anything, but he could be carrying out the agenda of the medical establishment, as some claim, if not merely heavily invested in the philosophy of modern medicine.

While there certainly has been a pattern of suppression of natural, unpatentable, cures, in favor of expensive, industrially produced patentable drugs, and novel surgeries - also patentable; and the greed of pharmaceutical executives apparently knows no bounds, or shame, it still remains that most doctors get into the practice to help people, and most regulators start out with a genuine desire to promote a civilized society.

It's when one adds on a mortage, a family, a car or two, and throw in several decades of backing, and investing time into, a certain philosophy, that ideals get clouded. You just won't see someone coming out and saying "you know, all those years I was selling my special all-natural vitamin herbal cream, and well who'd 'athunkit, the stuff really doesn't do anything after all!" And the medical doctor who's been soapboxing against all those alternative cures and herbs, isn't going to stand up and say "Well, I've spent many years telling you the dangers of these unlicensed quacks. But today I want to share with you my recent discovery - some of these things really do help people!" And the university scientist who's been doing medical research in Pfizer Hall, teaching grad students on an Eli Lily scholarship, isn't going to write a paper recognizing the danger, expense, and often plain unnecessariness, of synthetic pharmaceuticals, and valuing the real benefits of good nutrition and reasonable use of natural curatives.

When it all comes down to it, you can't really trust any one person, other than yourself, as to what is best for you. And just keep in mind to keep it simple, and you'll do alright.

I have an elderly friend who used to work medicine shows in the 30s. I don't think the Internet is bringing us anything new wrt snake oil salesmen. 

But at the same time, I would NEVER ask my doctor where to find good information online. That's such a magazine suggestion--like "ask your doctor before starting an exercise program." Yeah, sure.

Mainstream internet health sites (and I've intentionally not looked at yours, so you can't take this personally), like doctors, are so obviously obsessed with liability, that they often prove less than insightful.

At the same time, our doctors are famously busy and unthorough. They misdiagnose or fail to diagnose at all much of the time. And admit it, sometimes the medical community's best research turns out wrong after all. So, we turn to the Internet for more perspective. 

We also want to see if we can get out of going to the doctor at all, because it's way expensive. 

I think how to use the Internet medical advice wisely is more complex than you make it out to be. We consumers are on our own when it comes to health, and we know it.

Hello, Steve!

I think a part of responsibility for wrong medical activity is still on the patients.people know the way the information is downloaded in the Internet, people should really be extremelly carefull about the things  they read about the treatment(especially, what they read about the things that can influence their health condition). and  before research the things they are interested in about their health condition, it would be reasonable to research the trustworthiness of websites,that give that information

Hi Steven

Transparent advise is the key. People question the healthcare provider and there are inadequate support systems when help is needed.  

Some health providers are more concerned about getting 'patients' than providing any tangible care or wellness systems. Quacks then take advantage of these situations. 

People who are in the industry may know the HON Code etc , but one doubts if people who need to know are aware of this. The challenge is to initiate an initiative that encourages all health providers , across the world , to highlight these valid sources of information on the web.

Syamant 

Hi Steven,  Peer support via online forums and Email discussion groups are important facets of health information online, as are the websites of major voluntary health organizations like the National Kidney Foundation.  These are hidden or not mentioned at all in Organized Wisdom.

There are important questions of the type discussed here on Internet Evolution with regard to forums and Email groups.  The most satisfying ones for patients and patients' families are the ones where personal information is openly shared.  There are other forums where the patients are anonymous and therefore cannot get to know one another.  They offer more privacy protection but provide a less satisfying experience in the end for chronic diseases.  There is a strong movement away from the idea of health care providers saying "We'll tell you what is good for you" as the only way to proceed, and so most patients and patient's families are seeking some element of peer support as well as direct contact with physicians.  The resources of the NKF cyberNephrology program which I direct offers both of these facets.  Health scams and fraud are common subjects on our Email discussion groups.

The kidney is important enough to deserve it's own section in your listings, and the National Kidney Foundation should be listed as a resource for native kidney diseases as well as for transplantation.

All the best. - Kim