First, I congratulate Dr. Parikh on his exposure of the charlatans who claim an autism/thimerosol link. I do hope that Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and his staff of eco-extremists are reading Salon. (Why wouldn't they?) And that they see this. Kennedy has become one of the leaders of this silly, anti-scientific craze. That is, ever since he got off probation for his heroin bust. And they complain about the Republican war on science?!?

Second, I don't know too many doctors who wouldn't welcome into their practice a patient demographic of smart, educated web users. Naturally, one might also expect that doctors might not want to argue with their patients about bogus medical studies that turned up in the flotsam and jetsam of a patient's Google search. Especially when those doctors aren't paid for web debating.

Five hundred years ago there was a group of people who considered themselves the experts (and with good reason) and gained control over vital information people needed. Then a new information technology came along that enabled people to get the information directly from the source and the result was a movement that limited their power severely. The experts were the Catholic Church, the technology was printing and the movement was the Protestant Reformation.

I will spare you the half dozen personal stories. But what I've found is that most doctors are full of themselves, and full of misguided information supplied by pharma and medical industries. They don't know WHY any given symptom might appear. And they don't care. They treat symptoms.

For patients of chronic disease these doctors are DANGEROUS. B/c much of the treatments they offer turn out to be worse than the current condition.

This doctor's proposal sounds good at first. But it's actually bad. It would funnel people into "AMA Approved" information areas. That information comes from profit-driven industries. It withholds information on side effects. It denigrates other medical approaches.

The result is that the USA has the WORST health care of all industrialized nations. This is b/c of the influence of trade unions like the AMA and pharmaceutical industries.

In short, stop seeing an MD and go see a naturopath, an ND. Start learning the real causes underlying your condition. And stop believing that everything "government approved" is good for you.

I was just diagnosed with a degenerative, untreatable eye disease. The diagnosis has taken some time, and further tests are necessary for a reliable prognosis.

The ophthalmologist who gave me the diagnosis said, "I gather you've done some research online," and I said that I had. He gave a visible sigh of relief, since Emedicine.com and Blindness.org had relieved him of the burden of having to explain the diagnosis -- and had given me some time to get used to the idea.

We were both grateful that I'd done the online research ahead of time.

It's been my own experience (and that of others that I've talked to) that when trying to attempt a "self-diagnosis" on medical websites that results tend to invariably point to some terminal illness or another. Even reasonably rational folks not inclined to be hypochondriacs can be lured into believing they have a terrible illness. I know of one person who was convinced that they had lip cancer and then M.S. after extensive online "research." Neither was true. I don't doubt that more information that is readily available can be helpful but we also need to be wary when taking medical advice from a "virtual" doctor.

My wife was diagnosed with Brain Cancer last year, and sometime after her first surgery I found the Cancer Compass website, and it was very very helpful and sometimes we got excellent advice to take back to her doctors. I don't believe that doctors are mostly arrogant jerks, I have met one or two, mostly they are doing all they can almost all the time. I have noticed the younger ones are more adept at communicating with patients, making themselves available through email and cell phones, and often directing us to on-line information.

My wife's cancer was so rare, that sifting through white-papers online was the best way we knew to get information outside the doctors office. Much of what we have learned has helped us take a balanced approach to beating the cancer and making well rounded decisions. HOWEVER... this is not about self-diagnosis, and no medical decision was ever made with out a doctor directing treatment. I agree that self-diagnosis on-line is fraught with half information and lawyer speak that can cause a panic attack faster than you can say world-wide-web.

I totally agree with this article in that doctors need to be online. I can see how, as a doctor, it would be frustrating to have patients coming in who were all convinced they had some terminal disease based on their 'internet research', or who refuse life-savings vaccines because some forum told them to.

On the other hand, the internet can be useful in helping people recognise their own symptoms. It can also be incredibly helpful in keeping patients up-to-date on potential treatments and ongoing studies.

Many poor doctors do not keep their own knowledge up-to-date on treatment options (even though this information is now more readily available than ever), or they let pharma sales reps do all their thinking and 'research' for them. The internet can and has exposed these undesireable elements. How many doctors know inside and out about all the drugs they perscribe?

My mother is a type 2 diabetic, and recently discovered some newly reported side-effects of her meds. Her doctor didn't call her up and say 'hey you should probably switch to soemthing else'... she had to call him, after getting the information on her own, online.

And then theres alt medicine... when persrcibing birth control, how many doctors ask a woman if she is taking St. John's Wort? Many women use this herb as a way to prevent depression, but as it is non-perscription, most doctors wont even bother asking about it. It interferes with birth control, and the internet can give a patient that information.

Doctors need to get off their collective high-horse and realise the potential the internet has to help answer patient questions and go over drug information that they may not have time (or remember) to cover in the standard 15-minute appointment.