The Internet Cure

When one of those morning "news" shows recently featured a story about people using the internet to get medical information on the same day that the "New York Times" dealt with that subject, I knew that this medical surfing had become an epidemic.

I've never used the internet to self-diagnose an ailment or second-guess my doctor. This is because it would only make me feel worse. I'm the kind of person who asks my doctor to refrain from telling me the possible side effects of medications, knowing that this information will make me imagine that I'm suffering from these side effects. So I don't think it's a good idea for folks to use the internet for medical purposes if they are among those people who, whenever they're asked for their occupation, should truthfully answer, "hypochondriac."

Don't get me wrong. The internet can be a marvelous resource. If I had a serious ailment or had something that several doctors were unable to diagnose, I would probably turn to the internet. I'm sure that the internet has saved lives and armed many patients with important information.

There are so many medical sites on the Web that some experts suggest that you only go to those whose names end in .gov. The theory is that if it is a government-approved site, we can trust it. Nice theory, but remember it's the same government that gave us the Great Economic Disease of 2008. I say, shop around and use whatever sites make sense to you. But use them wisely.

Those who think they know as much as doctors just because they have surfed the Web, are probably wrong. Those who give their friends medical advice based on what they read on the internet last year are probably making a mistake. And those who learn things from the internet but keep them a secret from their doctor are really being silly. Share what you learned with him or her. If your doctor is insulted that you went on the internet, get another doctor.

I still maintain that the internet isn't the place to go every time you have a pain, a scratch, or a cough. I decided to put this to the test. I have some pain in my arm that I assume is from playing tennis. But how can I be sure? I'm not a doctor. So, I went online to see what the Web had to say about my pain.

The first site I went to listed 123 possible causes of arm pain. That seemed a bit overwhelming, so I left. The next site – honestly -- had 61 causes of arm pain. It's interesting that this site had almost exactly ½ the causes of the other site. I wondered if it only dealt with one arm instead of two.

There is a kind of site that is the worst kind for anxious patients – and is there any other kind of patient? This site allows you to take the symptom --- like arm pain – and then look at various causes which you can accept or reject, and then add a second symptom, etc. In other words, let's say you have arm pain, but sometimes you have an itchy left eye. That could mean that you have an entirely different problem from the person who has arm pain and is allergic to sour cream.

Among the first ten causes prominently listed on a site dealing with arm pain were angina, arteriosclerosis, and a chronic peptic ulcer. I couldn't even find tennis or any kind of exercise on the list. Was I wrong about my pain? I had to admit that I often have an upset stomach. Could the pain in my arm mean that I had an ulcer?

The longer I looked at possible symptoms, I felt I'd be lucky if it was "only" an ulcer. The more I read, the more I felt a need to read even more. "Just one more site," I promised myself – over and over again. After a while, the pain in my arm grew worse and worse. Was this psychological?

But before I checked out "psychological for pain," I realized what was causing the increased pain. My arm was hurting me more and more because of all the typing I was doing. I had been typing so much to try to find out why my arm was hurting, and it hurt me more because of the typing! That was it. That was the correct diagnosis.

At least I'm happy to say I resisted doing a search for "pain and stupid repetitive behavior."

Just Give Me A "Dumb Phone"

I know this column is a bit late. I suspended my column-writing for a day while I concentrated on the country's finances. So, here it is:

Someone in my family who shall remain anonymous to protect her identity -- and our marriage – owns an iPhone. And she loves it. My limited research tells me that everyone who owns an iPhone, a Blackberry, or any other "smart phone" loves their phone. How can you love a phone? To me, it's like loving a paper clip. Anyway, now Google's getting in the smart phone business with its version -- the G1. So there's going to be more love going around when it comes to these devices.

I understand that one of the reasons that their iPhone is the last thing that some people look at every night and the first thing they smile at every morning is because of the wonderful design. I guess the same goes for the other smarty phones. The other reason people adore them, of course, is that these phones can do so many things. They're actually powerful computers that are also phones.

You can use them to send email. If you're really brave, you can use them to check your stocks. Some of them have navigation systems. The G1 system has "Street View" which will show you actual street-level photos of the street. I guess this is better than taking your eyes off your beloved electronic device and just looking at the street you're standing on.

Okay, okay. Obviously, my sarcasm doesn't mask my true feelings about these things: who needs them? If you're saying they're just fun toys, okay. But don't try convincing me that you "need" them.

The G1 won't just have a camera. It will have a camcorder. I guess that is something people might need. I mean, look how often you'll be in front of a bank, you'll see it being robbed, you'll see a pregnant woman trip the robber, then the bank guard will deliver the baby, the pregnant woman's estranged husband just happens to walk by and is so touched by the sight of the innocent baby that he's thrilled that they are a family again, and all you're thinking is, "I can't believe I wasn't able to record this on my phone." That kind of thing happens to all of us all the time, right?

They call these things "smart phones." My question is, if they're so smart, why don't these phones work better -- as phones? That's something you never hearin the commercials. Nobody's saying, "Not only do you get all these features, but you always get a strong signal, a perfect connection, and an easy to understand conversation."

Doesn't it seem that the more expensive the phone, the worse it works as a phone? I've actually suggested to my wife -- I mean to the anonymous family member -- that she buy the cheapest phone available to use as a phone, and keep her iPhone for all the fun things. That's not going to happen. I think she feels that she would be cheating on the phone she loves.

I can remember when phones actually worked each and every time. Now, people dangle out of windows to get better reception just so they can say they're going to be late for dinner. It seems to me that first you should fix the phone aspect of the phone, and then you come up with all these fun features. I don't need a phone that can tie my shoes. Well, actually, that would be a pretty cool feature, but barring that, I prefer a phone that works.

From a business standpoint, I must be wrong. People are buying these things and falling in love with them, and they don't seem to care that the most common thing they say over their phone is, "I can't hear you. I'll call you back from my real phone."

They are fun things to own. I just think they should stop calling them phones. Maybe more appropriate names would be the Gee1 or the iFun. When the founders of Google, Larry Page and Sergey Brin introduced their new product, they projected an air of fun. They weren't wearing suits and those fancy shoes with the little holes in them. They wore casual clothes and rollerblades. I guess that shows they're not button-downed CEOs of some stuffy phone company. Also, if the product bombs, the rollerblades will help them make a quick escape from their stockholders.