I really enjoyed how interactive and engaging your project was. What better way to discuss WebMD than guiding the reader through the website, giving the reader a sense of what it is like to navigate it for themselves. It was a creative and illustrative way to communicate your ideas.
I agree with many of your ideas as well. It is concerning when medical professionals and patients both rely on the same tool. It makes questions about the reliability and credibility of the platform very relevant. WebMD demonstrates that with the internet everyone has access to the information that could make them an expert in any field, but not everyone has the knowledge to make sense of this information. The internet gives people a false feeling of expertise in almost an unlimited amount of subjects from medicine to foreign policy. There must be further efforts to educate the public on how to use online stores of knowledge.
I was also particularly interested in your discussion of how the WebMD online forums run by non-medical moderators can be unhelpful when they simply refer people to go visit their doctors. At first I would think that could be the best course of action instead of giving false information, but I do agree that it is a missed opportunity for the moderators to give support and clarifications.
This was definitely not your average presentation, as you made it highly interactive through the usage of hyperlinks and clicking through pictures; I have never seen a presentation, nor know how to create one, that has such uses. I especially like how one was able to view the process in describing symptoms to view possible results and diagnosis.
I feel as though this topic has become much more relevant due to the pandemic, because patients were unable to go to doctor’s offices either due to lockdown or fear of catching coronavirus. Due to the pandemic, many people turned to the internet to view what their symptoms could possibly mean. However, as described through your example of Debbie it leads down a rabbit hole. The example of Debbie was my favorite part of the presentation, because I relate to searching a symptom and feeling anxiety over the deadly results that pop up on Google. Again, relating it to coronavirus, many people would search symptoms of a headache or cough and be immediately fearful that they had coronavirus due to Google searches, while in fact it could have been allergies. As you said, medical websites could be compromising patient care as patients become more likely to turn to their own computer instead of a doctor first.
One of the things that stood out to me was the interactive portion of your presentation. I thought it was really cool that you embedded hyperlinks as images to help guide us through your presentation and also allow us to experience a simulation of what visiting WebMD is like to many. I also enjoyed the blocks of quotes that you added to emphasize the point you were going to make on the slide.
I think your topic was very relatable as I myself have fallen into these “rabbit holes.” However, I certainly disagree about the way doctors and patients are using it as a diagnostic tool. The example you provided in regards to the patient diagnosing themselves from what they see online and then visiting the doctor who complied to the “needed” medication perfectly embodies the concerning relationship between these online platforms and doctor and patient interaction. But, WebMD would serve as a good tool if you already know the illness you’re diagnosed with and you’d like to read more about it.
I also found it fascinating when you mention how WedMD acts as a corporation as it poses itself like a “friend” to concerned patients looking for some source of comfort. In a way, WebMD is your online doctor. Furthermore, to add onto their revenue, WebMD has strategically placed ads across their page and taken advantage of patient nervousness which I find scary. You did a great job in analyzing these small details that would’ve otherwise went over my head, and it all seems to make sense especially when I think of the times I’ve been pulled into the site.
I really like how you incorporated an interactive aspect with your presentation. I enjoyed clicking along and reading real life comments on webMD. A similar issue arose while doing my research. I stumbled upon an interview with Dr Mike, a famous social media doctor. He explained that it is frustrating and dangerous for patients to search for medical diagnosis’s online. This is because the internet always gives the worst possible diagnosis. He explained that almost every illness has the same symptoms: headache, fatigue, etc. When patients go into their medical appointments with a predetermined illness, it is harder to correctly treat that patient. Physicians would have to conduct their own physical examination and explain to the patient why or why not a specific test is warranted or not. In addition, having a predetermined self diagnosis can harm the reputations of doctors. If the doctor refuses to provide a certain examination (due to expenses and does not seem necessary), a patient can write a bad review about the doctor.
I also like how you mentioned the strategic placement of ads. These ads take advantage of vulnerable people who believe they have crohn’s disease because they have stomach pain. It is sad that medical sites can take advantage of people for profit.
It was so cool getting to see your ideas discussed in our peer review group come to life! The format of your project successfully engages viewers and reinforces your message about the detrimental effects WebMD and similar sites can have on people’s mental and physical health. I think it was a smart choice to include stories of people who experienced harm due to misdiagnoses through WebMD. Providing these alongside the interactive component of your project helped to give your audience a glimpse of what their medical search could turn into, which furthered the influence of your argument on the viewer. The scariest part about your topic overall is that even if you go to your primary care physician, you’re still vulnerable to misinformation and misdiagnoses, as Anson Au was. Your project reinforced the idea that this manipulation by WebMD can happen to anyone.
One thing I would suggest to improve your project would be to cut down the text in the slides. Since it’s a presentation, the large blocks of text that aren’t broken up with bullets or bolded characters was a little overwhelming. If you don’t want to cut any information, I think that putting some of the info on separate slides may be helpful. Nevertheless, this is a very powerful project!
Absolutely loved seeing the final version of your project after so much discussion. It turned out amazing! I loved the setup. Using the webMD header really made me feel like I was on their website clicking through my symptoms. I think you explained the process that many go through very thoroughly. I especially liked how you utilized visual impact through slides like when you were emphasizing how this process is repeated over and over again contrasting with the empty reality of the rabbit hole in the next slide.
One suggestion I wanted to recommend was neutralizing the background colors or just finding a way to make the hyperlinks stand out more. Especially given how webMD incorporates blue into their logo, it made it difficult sometimes to figure out how I was to interact with the material. Additionally, using white text against a bright blue background made it visually a little harsh for me.
Overall, your project was a joy to explore and I hope you had as much fun making it as I did when going through!
I love how interactive your project is. Your mini simulation of a patient going down the rabbit hole of WebMD was such a cool way of driving your point home. Your project highlights the fact that rhetorical choices aren’t just important in standard online articles; even the way that we receive medical information is affected by the way online webpages are formatted. I couldn’t agree with you more when you argued that endless scrolling and hyperlinks create a rabbit hole for many viewers. I have fallen into this trap before on the web. At first, you are just wondering why you have a slight pain in your arm. Next thing you know, you think you are having a heart attack. I know it sounds like a drastic turn of events, but this is how fast it can really happen on the internet. I also think it’s interesting to compare the algorithm of WebMD to the algorithms of social media platforms. When you really think about it, are these algorithms all that different? Ultimately, they are designed to get the viewer to keep clicking. Your project makes me question the ethics of websites like WebMD. We aren’t just dealing with cat videos in this case; we are dealing with medical diagnoses. I enjoyed the ethical questions that your presentation raised as I explored your work.
Hi Marlene,
I loved going through your project, especially since you made it almost interactive and included actual WebMD pages that correlated to the symptoms. As I was going through and seeing the diagnoses that were presented, it actually surprised me that such serious diagnoses were given for common symptoms that may lend themselves to any condition. This also allowed me to relate to the story that you presented about Debbie and how she was anxious after looking at the WebMD pages as I could personally relate to her as I have gone through the same experience where I have searched for something as simple as a cough and serious conditions have come up along with warnings to call the ER if I am going through any of the other symptoms.
Oh man… the amount of times I’ve been on WebMD and self-diagnosed myself is incredible. I saw this and got super excited to see what was in store. The way you formatted the slides to look like the website is super creative and fun! I also liked the way you made it seem like I was actually navigating the site as if I were looking for my symptoms. The example you gave of Anson Au was pretty interesting yet scary. This site really does make people think the worst of their symptoms. At my job in the clinic, a lot of people would say they saw something online and it made them super scared. Yet, it was nothing like they read in actuality.
I was a bit confused on the forums section. Can anyone respond to these questions on the medical forum? If so, I would think it wouldn’t be a safe place for someone to get advice. I have seen medical forums (not WebMD) that have real doctors responding to questions, yet still giving a warning saying that they should take what they say with a grain of salt. Just something interesting to think about. I think as the digital age progresses, online medicine is becoming more and more legit. Telehealth visits became very popular and prevalent during the pandemic… and I would think it is here to stay.
I appreciate your dedication in using almost all of the features Google slides has to offer. The instructions you gave us to how to navigate your presentation were definitely super useful and the interactive features you created made for an overall immersive experience. I absolutely love how creative you made it and it’s imitation of WebMD and your incredible attention to detail to very small aspects of the website such as your inclusion of “Stony Brook” in the search bar. Just out of curiosity, how did you come about this idea for the project? i’d love to know just because I really enjoyed it. it felt like when I use the “K Health” app (which I like to think is more reliable than WebMD lol but I might be wrong).
I thought it was interesting that you mentioned how many expensive test were ordered that fueled Anson’s paranoia about his health and his wrong assumption about his diagnosis. I recently read a very interesting paper about how much money is spent just to cater to patients’ expectations regarding the actions (tests/prescriptions) of their physicians, regardless of whether or not it is needed. it seems that is the case with Anson.
I love how you critique the use of MD as something that makes medical information globally available to all the need it, despite the fact that it is still a corporation and is still influenced by those that can fund them. it’s also insane to think that the people running their online forums have no actual degrees.
this project serves as a critique of many things: of patient-doctor miscommunication, of online misinformation, and of the manipulation of the average worried individual.
This presentation is so cool! The interactive nature of it makes for engaging content and doesn’t just tell, but shows and guides the reader through the process of getting lost in the WebMD rabbit hole. In doing so you reveal the problems with the website and the ethics of the corporation itself. I really enjoyed that you made the point to include and point out the advertisements. I know, personally, I just skip right over ads–I see too many to pay attention to those presented on sites that are meant to be informational.
I found your topic so interesting! In terms of format, I really liked your use of powerpoint. It wasn’t just clicking through slides with plain information. You had links to various sites that I explored, and also a story as you went through. I really enjoyed each of the examples of people trying to diagnose themselves online and the implications it has on their health. It was very interactive.
I have warned many people over the years about WebMD, which is why I found your project so interesting. I know that it can be used as a great tool or first step, but it should never be the deciding factor in medical decisions. I really liked your section on the benefits for people that may not be able to afford seeing a doctor for a check-up, or someone who is afraid. I never really considered this before. I think that posting on this site and getting an accurate response can really go a long way. This is probably the best feature of WebMD.
Overall, I really enjoyed going through your presentation.
I really like the way you had an interactive aspect of your presentation. It was really engaging and fun to click through the hyperlinks and see what I’m reading. Doing this felt like a real simulation of what someone would do when visiting WebMD. Your topic is very relatable. Sometimes I don’t know when to stop when I’m looking up symptoms for myself and I end up in a “rabbit hole” as you said. I do like how patients and doctors use this website as a diagnostic tool, but there should be a certain limit to that. People should not rely on what they find on the internet and actually seek a doctor in person. But WebMD serves as a good tool for people to use to see what they are sick from or what they could be diagnosed with.
I feel like at some point, most people have visited WebMD at some point in their lives. There are some people that will still go to their doctor when it’s important and listen to their advice. However, as you stated, “the relationship between the patient and WebMD sidelines the involvement of primary care physicians”. I like that your powerpoint is interactive and walks the audience through the actual website. Also, showing examples of real people that have used WebMD shows the seriousness of how dangerous the symptom checker on WebMD can be. After going through your project, my opinion is that the symptom checker should be removed from WebMD or at least the order of the possible things someone could have should be listed from least to most serious. Also, the information on WebMD is valid and I think that won’t do harm to anyone. I really enjoyed going through your presentation, it was well done.
I found this project to be a major issue––not your work, but the ethical concern for having a self diagnosis on section on WebMd. I actually talked to my girlfriend about this after you presented because she’s a nurse over at Stony Brook and we were both super concerned and thought that that part should be taken down immediately. As far as your project goes, I thought it was awesome and had a lot of work put into it. Also you did a great job highlighting how easy it is for someone to get lost in the hyperlink rabbit hole.
I found your presentation to be so interesting because my experience with WebMD is been more indirect. Others have always told me about how the site loves to settle on the most severe diagnoses rather than what is most likely happening, so I’ve never used it. I never did view it as a credible site, so the majority of the information you presented was new to me. I feel like the simulation you presented is a lot like many tools on the internet: great in moderation, but so easily abused. Your project made me intrigued enough to check out the simulation in my own time. I mentally prepared myself and told myself that I wouldn’t fall down the rabbit hole of paranoia – but I fell for it anyway (that only enhances my concern for those who use these sites and place tremendous value and faith in the information that it presents). I also liked how you discussed the impact of ads on what information is presented, especially in light of the fact that America is one of two countries that allows for medical advertisement. I always have ad block on at all times, and it’s concerning that the ads have a way of permeating through that protective mechanism to impact what information is being presented. I think that if more people knew that the ads impact what diagnoses you are first forced to consider, they would be less inclined to trust the simulation.
Hi Marlene,
I really enjoyed how interactive and engaging your project was. What better way to discuss WebMD than guiding the reader through the website, giving the reader a sense of what it is like to navigate it for themselves. It was a creative and illustrative way to communicate your ideas.
I agree with many of your ideas as well. It is concerning when medical professionals and patients both rely on the same tool. It makes questions about the reliability and credibility of the platform very relevant. WebMD demonstrates that with the internet everyone has access to the information that could make them an expert in any field, but not everyone has the knowledge to make sense of this information. The internet gives people a false feeling of expertise in almost an unlimited amount of subjects from medicine to foreign policy. There must be further efforts to educate the public on how to use online stores of knowledge.
I was also particularly interested in your discussion of how the WebMD online forums run by non-medical moderators can be unhelpful when they simply refer people to go visit their doctors. At first I would think that could be the best course of action instead of giving false information, but I do agree that it is a missed opportunity for the moderators to give support and clarifications.
Great project!
This was definitely not your average presentation, as you made it highly interactive through the usage of hyperlinks and clicking through pictures; I have never seen a presentation, nor know how to create one, that has such uses. I especially like how one was able to view the process in describing symptoms to view possible results and diagnosis.
I feel as though this topic has become much more relevant due to the pandemic, because patients were unable to go to doctor’s offices either due to lockdown or fear of catching coronavirus. Due to the pandemic, many people turned to the internet to view what their symptoms could possibly mean. However, as described through your example of Debbie it leads down a rabbit hole. The example of Debbie was my favorite part of the presentation, because I relate to searching a symptom and feeling anxiety over the deadly results that pop up on Google. Again, relating it to coronavirus, many people would search symptoms of a headache or cough and be immediately fearful that they had coronavirus due to Google searches, while in fact it could have been allergies. As you said, medical websites could be compromising patient care as patients become more likely to turn to their own computer instead of a doctor first.
Hi Marlene,
One of the things that stood out to me was the interactive portion of your presentation. I thought it was really cool that you embedded hyperlinks as images to help guide us through your presentation and also allow us to experience a simulation of what visiting WebMD is like to many. I also enjoyed the blocks of quotes that you added to emphasize the point you were going to make on the slide.
I think your topic was very relatable as I myself have fallen into these “rabbit holes.” However, I certainly disagree about the way doctors and patients are using it as a diagnostic tool. The example you provided in regards to the patient diagnosing themselves from what they see online and then visiting the doctor who complied to the “needed” medication perfectly embodies the concerning relationship between these online platforms and doctor and patient interaction. But, WebMD would serve as a good tool if you already know the illness you’re diagnosed with and you’d like to read more about it.
I also found it fascinating when you mention how WedMD acts as a corporation as it poses itself like a “friend” to concerned patients looking for some source of comfort. In a way, WebMD is your online doctor. Furthermore, to add onto their revenue, WebMD has strategically placed ads across their page and taken advantage of patient nervousness which I find scary. You did a great job in analyzing these small details that would’ve otherwise went over my head, and it all seems to make sense especially when I think of the times I’ve been pulled into the site.
I really like how you incorporated an interactive aspect with your presentation. I enjoyed clicking along and reading real life comments on webMD. A similar issue arose while doing my research. I stumbled upon an interview with Dr Mike, a famous social media doctor. He explained that it is frustrating and dangerous for patients to search for medical diagnosis’s online. This is because the internet always gives the worst possible diagnosis. He explained that almost every illness has the same symptoms: headache, fatigue, etc. When patients go into their medical appointments with a predetermined illness, it is harder to correctly treat that patient. Physicians would have to conduct their own physical examination and explain to the patient why or why not a specific test is warranted or not. In addition, having a predetermined self diagnosis can harm the reputations of doctors. If the doctor refuses to provide a certain examination (due to expenses and does not seem necessary), a patient can write a bad review about the doctor.
I also like how you mentioned the strategic placement of ads. These ads take advantage of vulnerable people who believe they have crohn’s disease because they have stomach pain. It is sad that medical sites can take advantage of people for profit.
Hey Marlene,
It was so cool getting to see your ideas discussed in our peer review group come to life! The format of your project successfully engages viewers and reinforces your message about the detrimental effects WebMD and similar sites can have on people’s mental and physical health. I think it was a smart choice to include stories of people who experienced harm due to misdiagnoses through WebMD. Providing these alongside the interactive component of your project helped to give your audience a glimpse of what their medical search could turn into, which furthered the influence of your argument on the viewer. The scariest part about your topic overall is that even if you go to your primary care physician, you’re still vulnerable to misinformation and misdiagnoses, as Anson Au was. Your project reinforced the idea that this manipulation by WebMD can happen to anyone.
One thing I would suggest to improve your project would be to cut down the text in the slides. Since it’s a presentation, the large blocks of text that aren’t broken up with bullets or bolded characters was a little overwhelming. If you don’t want to cut any information, I think that putting some of the info on separate slides may be helpful. Nevertheless, this is a very powerful project!
Marlene,
Absolutely loved seeing the final version of your project after so much discussion. It turned out amazing! I loved the setup. Using the webMD header really made me feel like I was on their website clicking through my symptoms. I think you explained the process that many go through very thoroughly. I especially liked how you utilized visual impact through slides like when you were emphasizing how this process is repeated over and over again contrasting with the empty reality of the rabbit hole in the next slide.
One suggestion I wanted to recommend was neutralizing the background colors or just finding a way to make the hyperlinks stand out more. Especially given how webMD incorporates blue into their logo, it made it difficult sometimes to figure out how I was to interact with the material. Additionally, using white text against a bright blue background made it visually a little harsh for me.
Overall, your project was a joy to explore and I hope you had as much fun making it as I did when going through!
I love how interactive your project is. Your mini simulation of a patient going down the rabbit hole of WebMD was such a cool way of driving your point home. Your project highlights the fact that rhetorical choices aren’t just important in standard online articles; even the way that we receive medical information is affected by the way online webpages are formatted. I couldn’t agree with you more when you argued that endless scrolling and hyperlinks create a rabbit hole for many viewers. I have fallen into this trap before on the web. At first, you are just wondering why you have a slight pain in your arm. Next thing you know, you think you are having a heart attack. I know it sounds like a drastic turn of events, but this is how fast it can really happen on the internet. I also think it’s interesting to compare the algorithm of WebMD to the algorithms of social media platforms. When you really think about it, are these algorithms all that different? Ultimately, they are designed to get the viewer to keep clicking. Your project makes me question the ethics of websites like WebMD. We aren’t just dealing with cat videos in this case; we are dealing with medical diagnoses. I enjoyed the ethical questions that your presentation raised as I explored your work.
Hi Marlene,
I loved going through your project, especially since you made it almost interactive and included actual WebMD pages that correlated to the symptoms. As I was going through and seeing the diagnoses that were presented, it actually surprised me that such serious diagnoses were given for common symptoms that may lend themselves to any condition. This also allowed me to relate to the story that you presented about Debbie and how she was anxious after looking at the WebMD pages as I could personally relate to her as I have gone through the same experience where I have searched for something as simple as a cough and serious conditions have come up along with warnings to call the ER if I am going through any of the other symptoms.
Oh man… the amount of times I’ve been on WebMD and self-diagnosed myself is incredible. I saw this and got super excited to see what was in store. The way you formatted the slides to look like the website is super creative and fun! I also liked the way you made it seem like I was actually navigating the site as if I were looking for my symptoms. The example you gave of Anson Au was pretty interesting yet scary. This site really does make people think the worst of their symptoms. At my job in the clinic, a lot of people would say they saw something online and it made them super scared. Yet, it was nothing like they read in actuality.
I was a bit confused on the forums section. Can anyone respond to these questions on the medical forum? If so, I would think it wouldn’t be a safe place for someone to get advice. I have seen medical forums (not WebMD) that have real doctors responding to questions, yet still giving a warning saying that they should take what they say with a grain of salt. Just something interesting to think about. I think as the digital age progresses, online medicine is becoming more and more legit. Telehealth visits became very popular and prevalent during the pandemic… and I would think it is here to stay.
Hey Marlene!
I appreciate your dedication in using almost all of the features Google slides has to offer. The instructions you gave us to how to navigate your presentation were definitely super useful and the interactive features you created made for an overall immersive experience. I absolutely love how creative you made it and it’s imitation of WebMD and your incredible attention to detail to very small aspects of the website such as your inclusion of “Stony Brook” in the search bar. Just out of curiosity, how did you come about this idea for the project? i’d love to know just because I really enjoyed it. it felt like when I use the “K Health” app (which I like to think is more reliable than WebMD lol but I might be wrong).
I thought it was interesting that you mentioned how many expensive test were ordered that fueled Anson’s paranoia about his health and his wrong assumption about his diagnosis. I recently read a very interesting paper about how much money is spent just to cater to patients’ expectations regarding the actions (tests/prescriptions) of their physicians, regardless of whether or not it is needed. it seems that is the case with Anson.
I love how you critique the use of MD as something that makes medical information globally available to all the need it, despite the fact that it is still a corporation and is still influenced by those that can fund them. it’s also insane to think that the people running their online forums have no actual degrees.
this project serves as a critique of many things: of patient-doctor miscommunication, of online misinformation, and of the manipulation of the average worried individual.
This presentation is so cool! The interactive nature of it makes for engaging content and doesn’t just tell, but shows and guides the reader through the process of getting lost in the WebMD rabbit hole. In doing so you reveal the problems with the website and the ethics of the corporation itself. I really enjoyed that you made the point to include and point out the advertisements. I know, personally, I just skip right over ads–I see too many to pay attention to those presented on sites that are meant to be informational.
Hi Marlene,
I found your topic so interesting! In terms of format, I really liked your use of powerpoint. It wasn’t just clicking through slides with plain information. You had links to various sites that I explored, and also a story as you went through. I really enjoyed each of the examples of people trying to diagnose themselves online and the implications it has on their health. It was very interactive.
I have warned many people over the years about WebMD, which is why I found your project so interesting. I know that it can be used as a great tool or first step, but it should never be the deciding factor in medical decisions. I really liked your section on the benefits for people that may not be able to afford seeing a doctor for a check-up, or someone who is afraid. I never really considered this before. I think that posting on this site and getting an accurate response can really go a long way. This is probably the best feature of WebMD.
Overall, I really enjoyed going through your presentation.
I really like the way you had an interactive aspect of your presentation. It was really engaging and fun to click through the hyperlinks and see what I’m reading. Doing this felt like a real simulation of what someone would do when visiting WebMD. Your topic is very relatable. Sometimes I don’t know when to stop when I’m looking up symptoms for myself and I end up in a “rabbit hole” as you said. I do like how patients and doctors use this website as a diagnostic tool, but there should be a certain limit to that. People should not rely on what they find on the internet and actually seek a doctor in person. But WebMD serves as a good tool for people to use to see what they are sick from or what they could be diagnosed with.
I feel like at some point, most people have visited WebMD at some point in their lives. There are some people that will still go to their doctor when it’s important and listen to their advice. However, as you stated, “the relationship between the patient and WebMD sidelines the involvement of primary care physicians”. I like that your powerpoint is interactive and walks the audience through the actual website. Also, showing examples of real people that have used WebMD shows the seriousness of how dangerous the symptom checker on WebMD can be. After going through your project, my opinion is that the symptom checker should be removed from WebMD or at least the order of the possible things someone could have should be listed from least to most serious. Also, the information on WebMD is valid and I think that won’t do harm to anyone. I really enjoyed going through your presentation, it was well done.
Hey Marlene,
I found this project to be a major issue––not your work, but the ethical concern for having a self diagnosis on section on WebMd. I actually talked to my girlfriend about this after you presented because she’s a nurse over at Stony Brook and we were both super concerned and thought that that part should be taken down immediately. As far as your project goes, I thought it was awesome and had a lot of work put into it. Also you did a great job highlighting how easy it is for someone to get lost in the hyperlink rabbit hole.
Marlene,
I found your presentation to be so interesting because my experience with WebMD is been more indirect. Others have always told me about how the site loves to settle on the most severe diagnoses rather than what is most likely happening, so I’ve never used it. I never did view it as a credible site, so the majority of the information you presented was new to me. I feel like the simulation you presented is a lot like many tools on the internet: great in moderation, but so easily abused. Your project made me intrigued enough to check out the simulation in my own time. I mentally prepared myself and told myself that I wouldn’t fall down the rabbit hole of paranoia – but I fell for it anyway (that only enhances my concern for those who use these sites and place tremendous value and faith in the information that it presents). I also liked how you discussed the impact of ads on what information is presented, especially in light of the fact that America is one of two countries that allows for medical advertisement. I always have ad block on at all times, and it’s concerning that the ads have a way of permeating through that protective mechanism to impact what information is being presented. I think that if more people knew that the ads impact what diagnoses you are first forced to consider, they would be less inclined to trust the simulation.