Is Googling Health Symptoms a Reliability Risk?

Google provides an invaluable service in the world of information but, when it comes to diving into health symptoms, the line between helpful and harmful can be very thin. Despite the presence of reputable sites with accurate information, the individual's ability to discern reliable sources from questionable ones is crucial.

The Dangers of Googling Symptoms

While Googling health symptoms can sometimes be beneficial, it often leads to unnecessary fear and anxiety. Search results can be misleading, with articles designed to capture clicks and ad revenue prioritizing dramatic scenarios over accurate information. This often results in a high incidence of individuals who might not have sought medical help otherwise ending up over-worried after reading online.

It’s not inherently bad to Google symptoms, but it’s crucial to navigate this space with caution. For instance, frequent googling can trigger panic attacks and unnecessary stress. The problem lies in the quality and reliability of the information one stumbles upon. Scouring the internet can lead to believing everything is fine when it’s not, or thinking you’re terminally ill when you’re not experiencing anything serious at all.

Why Online Health Information Can Be Unreliable

Many online sources present themselves as credible but often lack genuine medical expertise or up-to-date data. Leading sources are frequently driven by clicks, likes, and ads, rather than providing a balanced and non-biased view of health conditions. This can result in a false sense of security or dangerous over-worrying. As an example, recently, we Googled why our puppy was drinking excessive amounts of water. Hundreds of articles unified in their consensus: she was going to die before the age of two due to kidney disease. This might seem alarming, but a visit to the vet revealed a much simpler and less concerning explanation: it was probably the food. Upon switching the food, the excessive water intake stopped, illustrating the critical need to consider alternative explanations beyond the most dramatic ones.

Comparing Public vs. Private Health Information

When comparing health information from public and private sources, the difference can be stark. For instance, governmental health websites like the Danish website on chronic kidney failure are more likely to provide an accurate and non-dramatic overview, emphasizing the seriousness of the condition while also highlighting the possibility of treatment and a fair outlook. On the other hand, private for-profit websites like the Mayo Clinic may present the information in a more alarming and less comforting manner, often downplaying the availability of treatment and the rarity of the condition.

The Danish government website states: ‘Chronic kidney failure is a fairly rare condition developed in some people with chronic kidney disease. There are many reasons for chronic kidney disease. Commonly, as a late effect of Diabetes. When the kidney fails, its function is permanently reduced to a very low level, resulting in nausea, poor appetite, skin irritation, and exhaustion. It can be necessary to treat with cleaning of the blood [dialysis], and some people can be treated with a kidney transplant.’

In contrast, the Mayo Clinic’s article paints a much more dire picture while often downplaying the chances of having the condition, thus creating more fear and anxiety. This discrepancy underscores the importance of being discerning when seeking health information online.

Conclusion: While it’s important to be informed about one's health, relying solely on the internet for diagnosis is not advisable. Always consult a healthcare professional for accurate diagnosis and treatment. The internet can be a valuable tool for gathering information and understanding symptoms, but users must approach this information with a critical and balanced perspective.