Web/Tech

COVID-19 censorship

Censorship-1315071_300

This HND piece takes a hard look at how the information mandarin class is actively censoring anything on COVID-19 they don't agree with. And, they don't care about the credentials of those they censor. But then, they also don't care that so-called "Nation's top infectious disease expert" Anthony Fauci has no specialized educational background whatsoever in infectious diseases. While on-the-job training can be important, in the field of medicine, you would generally need to have done a fellowship in infectious disease to ethically proclaim yourself as an expert.

That's why it is so egregious that real doctors who treat real COVID-19 patients, and posted a video of their press conference that got 17 million views on Facebook in eight hours, found it removed—as was the same video on YouTube.

Americans hate censorship, and sooner or later will realize that Big Tech is not on their side. It's one thing to steal your personal information and profit from it. But, it's entirely a different matter to limit your access to outside information, for whatever nefarious purpose they think they are serving.

Read the complete article.


Health insurers and healthcare providers

Us_versus_them

This HND piece examines the inherent conflict between health insurers and healthcare providers. A number of examples are given, then we segue into the matter of free premium content. Since website publishers are constantly looking for more material, what could be better than high-quality pre-written content—free of charge?

The thing is, though, whoever uses the material has to give attribution, but sometimes this is very subtle. As a result, fairly biased stuff can be proffered, all under the guise of a "neutral" website. And, with millions of people searching for health information on the Web, what could possibly go wrong?

Read the complete article.


You've got the power

Youve_got_the_power

This HND piece starts off by reminding you that you DO have the power...to discover all sorts of health information on the Internet. The challenge is to separate the good stuff from the nonsense. One way to do this is—and maybe the best way—is to consult multiple sources.

We do note that the information mandarin class still enjoys putting on its airs about what "real" news sources are, compared to that sketchy info you might pick up from alternative sources on the Web. Only, there was that little matter of the outrageously fraudulent 1998 Wakefield paper, that appeared in The Lancet, supposedly the most prestigious medical journal in the English language. Despite the huge outcry against the paper, it was not officially withdrawn until...2010.

Then, we get into mHealth, and the world of portable power banks—including an exciting new product with some great features.

Read the complete article.


Notable trends in healthcare information technology

This HND piece takes a look at a few new directions in healthcare IT. At the heart of this is a pretty serious role reversal: Healthcare is now dictating to IT. Healthcare is demanding better products, and no, one size definitely does not fit all.

Four trends are covered, including increased use of the Cloud; invoking some of gaming culture; getting more in artificial intelligence; and putting lots more customer service into the mix. Most patients are interested in becoming their own best healthcare advocates, and they will leverage technology to achieve these ends.

Read the complete article.


Good info on a gas detection equipment website

Our friends at Interscan continue to build out their already very comprehensive website.  The latest addition is the completion of the "More on the gases we detect" section.  Culled from a host of sources, these little summaries address..

  • How they’re used
  • Where they might be encountered
  • Occupational health and regulatory information
  • Links to the Interscan product pages, for the particular gas

Check it out!

 

 


Bad healthcare IT and cardiovascular risk: What could possibly go wrong?

This HND piece covers another disturbing healthcare story, that is creating far too little outrage.

"All" that's wrong here is that maybe 300,000 British patients received incorrect assessment of their cardiovascular risk. This means that many people were either under- or over-treated as a result.

This mishap occurred because QRISK2, a prediction algorithm for cardiovascular disease, when incorporated into a popular healthcare IT system, somehow didn't work quite right. Oh yeah, this error goes back to 2009.

I'm not sure what's worse: The fact that QRISK on its own works just fine, and only gets messed up when Incorporated into the IT package; or the fact that those in charge are attempting to minimize the damage that has been done. Or, perhaps it's that no one bothered to even test QRISK inside the system, and compare its results to the standalone version.

Yep, Healthcare IT really is that bad.

Read the complete article.


Do no cyber harm: A Hippocratic oath for healthcare websites

This HND piece was inspired by the uneven experience most of us get when surfing through various health-related websites. It is ironic, of course, that in this era of endless communications media, too many of us have forgotten how to communicate effectively. Perhaps it has something to do with the rise of social media, and the old adage that the opposite of communication is ego.

We touch on the big topic of customer-centric website design, as championed these days by our friends at LCN.com. Of course, this is hardly revolutionary, as this very same idea was being stressed at the dawn of Web 2.0. Back to the basics, right?

Also included are five best practices, that should be followed in everyone's web design.

Read the complete article.


Loren Feldman on comments

  

 

Based on recent experience on some big websites for which I write, I am inclined to agree (around 90 percent, anyway).  In one particular case relating to a health care matter, a commenter seemed to delight in—paraphrasing a certain Jesus of Nazareth—ignoring the "plank" in his argument, while scrutinizing the speck in mine.

I have encountered this often, among what I tend to call "stat freaks," those who would endlessly and misguidedly analyze the quality of data while missing the obvious point of the research.  Ironically, stat freaks tend to criticize the few good studies out there, while ignoring the junk science.

On political websites, you might see the "regulars" gang up on a newbie, just for being a newbie. 

This sort of "engagement" probably scares off more visitors than it attracts.