Tags and medicine

We usually don’t waste our precious doctors’ bons mots on rants. There is, however, one particular issue we would like to pick and throw at the medical world.
Here is the scoop. Anyone working with the internet these days will know about the proliferation of web tags. They are the buzz, and they are the way to organize the entropy of the internet. flickr and del.icio.us are based on it. Technorati has introduced tags, indexing them from flickr and del.icio.us as well as from weblog categories (total of 4.5+ million weblogs indexed)(1). Tags show the level of public interest in a particular topic. As described in Corante article, “[t]hanks to del.icio.us and then flickr in particular, hundreds of thousands of people have been introduced to bottom-up tagging: Just slap a tag on something and now its value becomes social, not individual.”
So let us test some of the most common tags pertaining to our most beloved science, the medicine. It is safe to assume that the frequency of tagging should reflect the general level of interest in a particular topic.
Diabetes pulls down 33 posts from 13 blogs (some of it — probably one third– tagged by our very own Enoch Choi, M.D).
Carcinoma does not pull in anything at all: zero, zip, zilch. Neither does adenocarcinoma. Sarcoma returns Friday cat blogging, and zero posts. We can talk about coronary artery disease (6 posts from 1 blog!), peripheral vascular disease (zero), or radiology (essentially, Medgadget’s posts) — but you get the point by now.
What’s going on? Where is the interest? Why in the world of universal tagging, the topic of medicine is so thoroughly ignored? Commentaries, answers, and suggestions are welcomed in the comment section below.