<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: This One&#8217;s For Dani</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.mtpolitics.net/wp/2006/11/14/this-ones-for-dani/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.mtpolitics.net/wp/2006/11/14/this-ones-for-dani/</link>
	<description>Montana is a Small Town with Long Streets</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 07 Nov 2009 01:34:35 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dani</title>
		<link>http://www.mtpolitics.net/wp/2006/11/14/this-ones-for-dani/comment-page-1/#comment-32989</link>
		<dc:creator>Dani</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 15 Nov 2006 15:50:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mtpolitics.net/archives/2646#comment-32989</guid>
		<description>P.S.
Thanks for thinking of me, Craig! Kind of shocking to open the blog and see my name in lights.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>P.S.<br />
Thanks for thinking of me, Craig! Kind of shocking to open the blog and see my name in lights.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dani</title>
		<link>http://www.mtpolitics.net/wp/2006/11/14/this-ones-for-dani/comment-page-1/#comment-32988</link>
		<dc:creator>Dani</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 15 Nov 2006 15:45:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mtpolitics.net/archives/2646#comment-32988</guid>
		<description>Ha! A diagnostic test with only 58% sensitivity would get laughed right out of the lab! Although, Google is a heckuva lot better than getting advice from the guys at the barbershop. Plus, doctors do this all the time, then Google up guidelines or switch over to Medline to find the best treatments.

And it does leave the other, more challenging 42% to diagnose, so doctors can spend their time actually using their training. Unfortunately, as they say in med school, &quot;You never want to be an &lt;i&gt;interesting&lt;/i&gt; case.&quot; 

The essential problem with Googling up illnesses is that you don&#039;t know if you are in the 58% or the 42%. Again, poor sensitivity.  My own experience is that the internet increases visits to the doctor, because any time there is a list of diagnoses, there&#039;s a list of possible rule-outs, some of which are fairly frightening.  Google might get people to the most likely diagnosis, but then there&#039;s possibility #2,3 and 4.... If something nasty-looking is in second or third place, it is only logical for people to see a doc, because folks &lt;i&gt;don&#039;t know&lt;/i&gt; if  their Google diagnosis is correct.  And, even if it is, many of those people will need treatment. 

Unless you can get colchicine on the street, Craig, which I kind of doubt. Not much money in that.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Ha! A diagnostic test with only 58% sensitivity would get laughed right out of the lab! Although, Google is a heckuva lot better than getting advice from the guys at the barbershop. Plus, doctors do this all the time, then Google up guidelines or switch over to Medline to find the best treatments.</p>
<p>And it does leave the other, more challenging 42% to diagnose, so doctors can spend their time actually using their training. Unfortunately, as they say in med school, &#8220;You never want to be an <i>interesting</i> case.&#8221; </p>
<p>The essential problem with Googling up illnesses is that you don&#8217;t know if you are in the 58% or the 42%. Again, poor sensitivity.  My own experience is that the internet increases visits to the doctor, because any time there is a list of diagnoses, there&#8217;s a list of possible rule-outs, some of which are fairly frightening.  Google might get people to the most likely diagnosis, but then there&#8217;s possibility #2,3 and 4&#8230;. If something nasty-looking is in second or third place, it is only logical for people to see a doc, because folks <i>don&#8217;t know</i> if  their Google diagnosis is correct.  And, even if it is, many of those people will need treatment. </p>
<p>Unless you can get colchicine on the street, Craig, which I kind of doubt. Not much money in that.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Kim</title>
		<link>http://www.mtpolitics.net/wp/2006/11/14/this-ones-for-dani/comment-page-1/#comment-32942</link>
		<dc:creator>Kim</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 15 Nov 2006 06:44:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mtpolitics.net/archives/2646#comment-32942</guid>
		<description>When/if I get a diagnosis, I&#039;ll let you know if Google was right.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>When/if I get a diagnosis, I&#8217;ll let you know if Google was right.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Shane Mason</title>
		<link>http://www.mtpolitics.net/wp/2006/11/14/this-ones-for-dani/comment-page-1/#comment-32940</link>
		<dc:creator>Shane Mason</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 15 Nov 2006 06:09:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mtpolitics.net/archives/2646#comment-32940</guid>
		<description>Gout? What&#039;s next? Rickets?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Gout? What&#8217;s next? Rickets?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
