If you think this would help this people (I really can not judge that) then it should be done...

I think it can be dangerous to compare patients. For example, a patient may post that they do really well on a certain supplement or medication. Another patient may want to take it, and not realize that it will conflict with an existing medication or health problem, like high blood sugar.

While I think this idea has a lot of potential - there are a lot of illnesses that require heavy self-management - you have to be very careful about offering what may appear to be 'medical advice' from a non-doctor

I'd be very sure to invest in a lawyer to write up your disclaimers and terms of service.

I think this could really easily be expanded to other illnesses as well, if you can get a working model that passes the legal and privacy issues.

Perhaps this could work if access to that data is limited to only certified doctors. They can perhaps interpret the data better within context.

I love the idea of building a system to help an individual manage a disease.

I hate the idea of comparing individuals to help an individual manage a disease. Each person is different, and self diagnosis/medication/treatment is about the dumbest thing in the world. I know health care in the USA is bad, and people are having to self diagnose, but it is seriously bad news. Doctors are professionals, trust them.

I think building a tool that lets the individual track what is happening with their body, while they are doing a treatment program, is awesome. If it is getting you to keep a record and pay attention to what your body is telling you, that is a very VERY good thing.

To point you to some sites in the same space:
http://www.sugarstats.com/ is a tool for diabetics to track their meds, exercise and blood sugar levels. They've got a good privacy model, and a focus on self management. Comparisons are dangerous, but I think tracking symptoms, meds, etcetera is valuable.

"...self diagnosis/medication/treatment is about the dumbest thing in the world. "

Well, if it were only down on Yasger's farm, and everyone accepted their own risk, and no-one hurt anyone else... I guess it would be each their own business.

I done condone recreational drugs, but the culture does shed light on putting doctors and government on a "God" level to condescend and dictatate what someone puts in their own bloodstream. When heathcare is provided (in the US) for the public and pharmacy profit is fairly regulated, then we can worry about what's good policy for individual participation in their own health management.

"I done condone..." dont condone

Summertime, I'm not a doctor, just like I'm not a lawyer or an electrician. I turn to professionals who know what they are doing to inform me in areas I lack knowledge.

I certainly don't go out to the peanut gallery online and say 'Hey, is it legal for me to sell stocks in my company online?' or 'Hey, is this lump on the side of my face malignant or benign?'

I go ask a professional. My concern with this idea is that the peanut gallery is only as good as it's training, and the people without medical knowledge of thyroid diseases and treatments and side effects VASTLY outnumber those who know what they are talking about. Peoples lives are potentially at risk, there is a huge liability concern, and I personally think it's a bad move to try and crowdsource medical information. I've seen some absolutely terrible and ignorant advice on webmd.com, and I'd hate to think that people are actively going out and following that advice. Same holds true for this idea.

Aren't Google, IBM, and Microsoft (amongst others) working on this already?

This is a great idea, and that's why HealthVault and Google Health were launched. I'm just not sure what you're planning to do with it and how you'll make money with it.

Good, but why limit to one disease?

landsky: What you need to track for each disease can be highly specific, and personally think it's better to be an expert at a specific space, than to try to generally cover every disease. As health tracking sites become more popular, competition is going to increase, I think that people will gravitate to the site that is best suited for their particular disease. A generalist, multi-disease site is going to have more difficulty providing the ideal feature set for each of a variety of patients and illnesses.

Laura: I agree, you can always iterate out into other diseases once you are established.

This will be good start for Patients to get a collective data of their health and monitor their recovery.

However, the website needs to be based on a privacy and security models that needs clinical regulations such as HIPAA.

Secondly, the idea of recommendations or solutions derived based on comparison of once health with another patient and medication will be detrimental.

Allowing users to retrieve their entire medical history and data will be more useful then just a single disease, as a complete view of once medical condition is necessary and has influence on overall data set.

how is this different than googles health record system? it is aimed at thyroid patients, but why not just have one general purpose system? otherwise there could be a system for every icd code there is

Medical records have confidentiality laws that go with them.

Kevin, I'm not up on the intricacies of the HIPAA rules and other privacy regulations, but it seems like this idea is focused on patients keeping records for themselves so it wouldn't really be covered by those rules. HIPAA governs (I think...) how service providers like doctors, hospitals, and insurance companies handle personal data. It does not govern how you as an individual handle data about yourself. There are probably some legal hairs to be split regarding whether this service would be seen as a provider covered by HIPAA or just a record-keeping tool used by an individual.