(Seriously though, pretty amazing story...I find it pretty unbelievable that not just one but three of her FB friends knew about a rare immune disorder.)
sounds like not that rare. Or is it rare just because doctor couldn't diagnose it?
Just an experiment - googled "Face swelling" and the first page of the first organic result has
"If you experience facial swelling accompanied by difficulty breathing, hives, intense distress, fever, redness, or warmth, seek immediate medical care (call 911)."
I see how the following logic also may be applied - they went to ER on the 3rd something day as a result of FB suggestions, while the search on Google directs to 911 immediately. So did the FB help? Or may be wasting time on FB diverted the time and attention from the more effective information search activities?
The parents noticed the rash and swelling on the Sunday and so were in the paediatricians office that same day. If the [emergency] paediatrician gives a clear diagnosis in person would you really say "hang on a minute Google's SERPs say I should call 911". You're standing there with the doctor, you don't need to call for one.
The next day [Monday] it seems the mother sent images to her family doctor. The test to confirm the diagnosis came back false and one of the images sent to the doctor was incidentally posted on Facebook. A friend, mother of a Kawasaki disease sufferer, and a relative who specialised in cardiology both offered the diagnosis that pushed the mother to go to seek emergency medical aid for the second time.
She doesn't say what her family doctor's reaction to the second diagnosis was nor interestingly does it appear that the paediatrician she sought counsel from offer an alternate diagnosis when tests came back negative (though this info could just be missing).
Bringing up such seemingly applicable to your case search results while talking with doctor is necessary even if only to make sure that the professional would rule the results out as not really applicable to your situation.
Anyway, if you replace "Google SERP's" with "FB social search", then your gave a pretty accurate description of what happened in the article. It is just that "FB social search" took days, though it happened to bring more specific results.
The highest incidence of Kawasaki Disease is in Japan, at 0.175% (175 cases per 100,000 children younger than five). In the UK, it's around 0.008%, though may be on the rise. In the USA, it's between 0.009% and 0.019%, according to the CDC. That's certainly fairly rare, and it doesn't surprise me that it wasn't the first thing the doctor thought - if you read the article to the end, you'll notice that he said that "[he] was actually just thinking it could be Kawasaki disease," after she called him from the hospital. As another person mentioned, he was maybe a a few hours behind the social network in his diagnosis.
I'm no longer a bored, stay-at-home mom and I really don't do Facebook, but I still have connections to the types of communities (including some health lists) with high-ish numbers of full time moms and I do read HN. So, in theory, I could start posting links like this around and get such people here...
;-)