Community Munchausen's by Internet (Malingerers, Munchies, Spoonies, etc) - Feigning Illnesses for Attention

  • 🐕 I am attempting to get the site runnning as fast as possible. If you are experiencing slow page load times, please report it.
Velcheetah said:
Ticsandroses put out a fake outpatient diagnostic report that was obviously written in Google Docs.
View attachment 2182694
View attachment 2182574
No address, phone number, or other hospital contact information in the header. No list of medications she's on. Tourette's syndrome improperly listed as "Tourette's." No seizure disorder listed for the cause of her absence (petit mal) seizures. Vasovagal syncope misspelled as "Vasovagal syndrome." Double PTSD. OCD improperly listed as "OCD with anxiety disorder" when OCD is an anxiety disorder and any other anxiety disorder would be both specified and listed separately. Depressive disorder improperly listed as "Depression." Autism spectrum disorder improperly listed as "Autism Spectrum". Nothing about the psychotic disorder she mentioned on Tumblr. Lists her handedness for no reason. Calls her "lady" instead of female or patient.

Even if this was somehow real it would at most be her self-reported medical history given at intake which means fuck all for proving anything.
Click to expand...
don’t they have their pronouns listed as they/them? did they revert to being a girl bc they were trying to be enby for #quirkypoints or is this purposeful misgendering to make it seem more real? cause if so, that’s fucked.

also, this reads like a summer camp packing list imho i’m so done lol
 
  • Dumb
  • Late
  • Autistic
Reactions: peach tea, Cytotoxic Positivity, Muff Cabbage and 9 others
VikkisNotAVillian said:
don’t they have their pronouns listed as they/them? did they revert to being a girl bc they were trying to be enby for #quirkypoints or is this purposeful misgendering to make it seem more real? cause if so, that’s fucked.

also, this reads like a summer camp packing list imho i’m so done lol
Click to expand...

Why are you referencing a post from May 2021?
I'm lost
 
  • Like
Reactions: peach tea, Cringey Edgelord, Aunt Carol and 3 others
medicaidmunch said:
Some more stuff on mysteryelles. I think it’s interesting she got a power wheelchair so quickly. She went from a basic chair to a fully customized (?) wheelchair in a few months. She doesn’t mention why she needs it.

View attachment 922287


She also was a gymnast. This follows the pattern of a lot of the other muchies
View attachment 922288


She bites herself and pulls out her hair during “meltdowns”
View attachment 922290

View attachment 922291


Apparently this is how she walks
View attachment 922303
Click to expand...
this shit disgusts me so much ! no one, i mean, NO ONE ! ; who has legit meltdowns wants it posted, filmed or otherwise shown to the public. it is a very, for lack of better words; a very vulnerable and personal moment and its also some of the worst moments in a persons life, it is embarrassing, exhausting and frustrating in and of itself, its not something to advertise, and yet the spoonie-munchies do it all the time. they also hide behind the cop-out / guise of : ''oh im educating and spreading awareness'' at most it might be shared with Drs. therapists, someone very close to you, at absolute most it might be shared on closed medical type forums and boards, but not in public on mass social media. honestly the more fakers i see exposed online, te more im convinced that, if a person is on a major public forum / format, youtube, tumblr, instgram, flickr, twitter, etc. showing off their '' disabilities and such, i am thinking about 90 percent of them are doing it for attention and that they are either milking or playing up a relatively mild condition, or are faking ir all together. smh . oh and if they identify as some alternate neo gender. its 100 percent fake.
 
  • Late
  • Like
  • Feels
Reactions: medicaidmunch, anliteralidiot, Sneaky khajiit and 17 others
Grim Snark said:
really digging the cancer ribbon (can anyone tell what type she's 'supporting') washi tape to hold the nose hose.
Click to expand...
She went on an ME/CFS hype on Tumblr a few months ago and iirc dark blue is the ribbon of choice for that one, like a subtle blast from the past.
I'm on mobile though and can't quite tell what colour ribbon is on the tape
 
  • Like
  • Informative
  • Agree
Reactions: peach tea, Cytotoxic Positivity, Sparkling Yuzu and 2 others
Helpful tip for new farmers: if you want to reply to a post, but it's more than ten pages or two weeks old, just don't reply. Do you have a super important thing to say that is totally the exception? Cool, nobody cares other than you.
The exception is if you have information about someone/something that nobody else knows yet. "Munchies are liars!" is not secret information. It does not count.
 
  • Like
  • Winner
  • Agree
Reactions: Crepidodera fulvicornis, gish., Notyourtruth and 39 others
”Legal Issues Surrounding the Exposure of ‘Munchausen by Internet’” (2007)
Listed Authors: Marc D. Feldman, M.E. Peychers



Internet health support groups face immense struggles when targeted by individuals with factitious-disorder such as Munchausen syndrome. In the most common manifestation of this “Munchausen by Internet,” an individual seeks attention and succor by playing out a series of highly dramatized near-fatal illnesses alternating with recoveries that increasingly strain credulity. Many support groups have been destroyed by infighting in the wake of the deceptive postings.

Writing of the harm that factitious-disorder patients sometimes wreak, Feldman has speculated that “lawsuits would be one way to turn the tables on factitious-disorder patients . . . The odds are good that someday a precedent-setting civil case against a factitious-disorder patient will be waged and won . . . (p 200).”

Although no such lawsuit has, to our knowledge, been reported, we would like to draw attention to a novel legal case from late-2005 that is relevant to the stance a civil court might well take toward a factitious-disorder patient.

A group of online self-help websites that dealt with a particular health problem, and having a worldwide membership of over 7,000, was in turmoil after a prominent member, “Mr. A,” claimed to have undergone many potentially fatal operations, multiple massive heart attacks, and other life-threatening crises. The explanations became increasingly contradictory and were often accompanied by abusive and threatening posts in response to questions or doubts. A team of members set up a dedicated website to publicize their objections; even so, it took more than 6 months of fighting across the whole group of sites before Mr. A was removed and issued lifetime bans from each of the boards. At this point, Mr. A took his accusers to a court in the United States and asked the judge to close down their dedicated website as defamatory. The defendants argued that they were acting in the public interest and that the truth of their statements was a complete bar to liability. In court, the plaintiff’s priority was to have his medical records sealed, but, because many of the most damaging claims involved purported health crises that the plaintiff had himself discussed on the Internet, the judge ruled that the medical records lay at the heart of the accusations and that cross-examination relating to their contents would be allowed. The plaintiff immediately withdrew, and the judge dismissed his case with prejudice, eliminating his right to sue the defendants again on the same charges.

This legal outcome has effectively ceded to the group the ability to expose the individual’s previous deceptions with minimal fear of being sued. That would seem to offer an escape route for any future critics the plaintiff might threaten with legal action; they would presumably need only to claim to be unnamed administrators from the group that had previously emerged to be able to be sheltered under the same legal immunity. This unpublished case offers the implication that the presentation of inconsistent medical details against a person with factitious disorder—or even the prospect thereof—will someday result in a precedent-setting judgment against such an individual.

This case report is Thunk-Provoking. In what ways could this precedent be applied to situations with current MBI suspects in this thread? I’m interested in reading situations where the MBI perpetrator(s) are in the court as the defendant.
 
  • Like
  • Informative
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: ConSluttant, peach tea, Vecr and 19 others
Drain Bamaged said:
”Legal Issues Surrounding the Exposure of ‘Munchausen by Internet’” (2007)
Listed Authors: Marc D. Feldman, M.E. Peychers



Internet health support groups face immense struggles when targeted by individuals with factitious-disorder such as Munchausen syndrome. In the most common manifestation of this “Munchausen by Internet,” an individual seeks attention and succor by playing out a series of highly dramatized near-fatal illnesses alternating with recoveries that increasingly strain credulity. Many support groups have been destroyed by infighting in the wake of the deceptive postings.

Writing of the harm that factitious-disorder patients sometimes wreak, Feldman has speculated that “lawsuits would be one way to turn the tables on factitious-disorder patients . . . The odds are good that someday a precedent-setting civil case against a factitious-disorder patient will be waged and won . . . (p 200).”

Although no such lawsuit has, to our knowledge, been reported, we would like to draw attention to a novel legal case from late-2005 that is relevant to the stance a civil court might well take toward a factitious-disorder patient.

A group of online self-help websites that dealt with a particular health problem, and having a worldwide membership of over 7,000, was in turmoil after a prominent member, “Mr. A,” claimed to have undergone many potentially fatal operations, multiple massive heart attacks, and other life-threatening crises. The explanations became increasingly contradictory and were often accompanied by abusive and threatening posts in response to questions or doubts. A team of members set up a dedicated website to publicize their objections; even so, it took more than 6 months of fighting across the whole group of sites before Mr. A was removed and issued lifetime bans from each of the boards. At this point, Mr. A took his accusers to a court in the United States and asked the judge to close down their dedicated website as defamatory. The defendants argued that they were acting in the public interest and that the truth of their statements was a complete bar to liability. In court, the plaintiff’s priority was to have his medical records sealed, but, because many of the most damaging claims involved purported health crises that the plaintiff had himself discussed on the Internet, the judge ruled that the medical records lay at the heart of the accusations and that cross-examination relating to their contents would be allowed. The plaintiff immediately withdrew, and the judge dismissed his case with prejudice, eliminating his right to sue the defendants again on the same charges.

This legal outcome has effectively ceded to the group the ability to expose the individual’s previous deceptions with minimal fear of being sued. That would seem to offer an escape route for any future critics the plaintiff might threaten with legal action; they would presumably need only to claim to be unnamed administrators from the group that had previously emerged to be able to be sheltered under the same legal immunity. This unpublished case offers the implication that the presentation of inconsistent medical details against a person with factitious disorder—or even the prospect thereof—will someday result in a precedent-setting judgment against such an individual.

This case report is Thunk-Provoking. In what ways could this precedent be applied to situations with current MBI suspects in this thread? I’m interested in reading situations where the MBI perpetrator(s) are in the court as the defendant.
Click to expand...
Huh that’s really interesting. Could an online support group bring a civil suit against munchies for causing harm to their members?
 
  • Like
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: Say What Now?, ConSluttant, peach tea and 5 others
Drain Bamaged said:
”Legal Issues Surrounding the Exposure of ‘Munchausen by Internet’” (2007)
Listed Authors: Marc D. Feldman, M.E. Peychers



Internet health support groups face immense struggles when targeted by individuals with factitious-disorder such as Munchausen syndrome. In the most common manifestation of this “Munchausen by Internet,” an individual seeks attention and succor by playing out a series of highly dramatized near-fatal illnesses alternating with recoveries that increasingly strain credulity. Many support groups have been destroyed by infighting in the wake of the deceptive postings.

Writing of the harm that factitious-disorder patients sometimes wreak, Feldman has speculated that “lawsuits would be one way to turn the tables on factitious-disorder patients . . . The odds are good that someday a precedent-setting civil case against a factitious-disorder patient will be waged and won . . . (p 200).”

Although no such lawsuit has, to our knowledge, been reported, we would like to draw attention to a novel legal case from late-2005 that is relevant to the stance a civil court might well take toward a factitious-disorder patient.

A group of online self-help websites that dealt with a particular health problem, and having a worldwide membership of over 7,000, was in turmoil after a prominent member, “Mr. A,” claimed to have undergone many potentially fatal operations, multiple massive heart attacks, and other life-threatening crises. The explanations became increasingly contradictory and were often accompanied by abusive and threatening posts in response to questions or doubts. A team of members set up a dedicated website to publicize their objections; even so, it took more than 6 months of fighting across the whole group of sites before Mr. A was removed and issued lifetime bans from each of the boards. At this point, Mr. A took his accusers to a court in the United States and asked the judge to close down their dedicated website as defamatory. The defendants argued that they were acting in the public interest and that the truth of their statements was a complete bar to liability. In court, the plaintiff’s priority was to have his medical records sealed, but, because many of the most damaging claims involved purported health crises that the plaintiff had himself discussed on the Internet, the judge ruled that the medical records lay at the heart of the accusations and that cross-examination relating to their contents would be allowed. The plaintiff immediately withdrew, and the judge dismissed his case with prejudice, eliminating his right to sue the defendants again on the same charges.

This legal outcome has effectively ceded to the group the ability to expose the individual’s previous deceptions with minimal fear of being sued. That would seem to offer an escape route for any future critics the plaintiff might threaten with legal action; they would presumably need only to claim to be unnamed administrators from the group that had previously emerged to be able to be sheltered under the same legal immunity. This unpublished case offers the implication that the presentation of inconsistent medical details against a person with factitious disorder—or even the prospect thereof—will someday result in a precedent-setting judgment against such an individual.

This case report is Thunk-Provoking. In what ways could this precedent be applied to situations with current MBI suspects in this thread? I’m interested in reading situations where the MBI perpetrator(s) are in the court as the defendant.
Click to expand...
This seems interesting, but I'm not sure an online support group would be the break through case. Now if one of these bacterial colonies went to an irl support group and gave another person their super sepsis... that could gain traction imo
 
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: anliteralidiot, peach tea, Cytotoxic Positivity and 3 others
Paige's Bucket List said:
This seems interesting, but I'm not sure an online support group would be the break through case. Now if one of these bacterial colonies went to an irl support group and gave another person their super sepsis... that could gain traction imo
Click to expand...
I would vote for Dani Marina, with that wretched poop-toob blood running through her veins, but then she would need to leave home for something other than work or hospital.

The first adjacent scenario to come to mind, though not in a support group, would be Ms Carnduff selfishly exposing the infusion clinic to COVID-19 for her opportunity to get another sweet, sweet IV pole selfie (which she later deleted when she tested positive). However I’m not versed in law, so I’m only adding an idea. Realistically I don’t anticipate any (soon) court cases against MBI suspects in this thread.
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
  • Like
  • Feels
Reactions: peach tea, Cytotoxic Positivity, ShadowCass and 6 others
Paige is back after taking a break of... less than 20 days from tiktok due to online bullying. She's sad that instead of celebrating her life, we're betting on her death. :( Conveniently her health also took a massive and definitely real dive during the time she wasn't filming to prove it. Please donate to her bucket list you mean bullies!

Screenshot_20220805-060014_TikTok.jpg
Thank you to everyone who is continuing to support me, I couldn’t ask for a better community to help me through this… but please if you dont have anything nice to say just scroll past or unfollow, tiktok is my outlet for how im feeling and showing that young people go on these types of cares too…#hospicecare #mrsa #heartfailure #chronickidneydisease #intestinalfailure #neurogenicbladder #palliativecare #stillalive #thankyou #antibioticresistance #fyp #hospice
Click to expand...
Archive
 
  • Informative
  • Like
  • Lunacy
Reactions: ConSluttant, peach tea, Cytotoxic Positivity and 15 others
Rodrbob the drab said:
Paige is back after taking a break of... less than 20 days from tiktok due to online bullying. She's sad that instead of celebrating her life, we're betting on her death. :( Conveniently her health also took a massive and definitely real dive during the time she wasn't filming to prove it. Please donate to her bucket list you mean bullies!

View attachment 3564742

Archive
Click to expand...
You beat me to it. Thank you paigey poo for the new content. We all know you missed the attention and got scared gabby was gonna gab.

I personally am rooting for her to keep living so that the milk never dries up, like the wish list full of sheets and pillows and heat pads for that sweet sweet heat pad rash
 
  • Like
Reactions: peach tea, Cytotoxic Positivity, Theophilus Thistler and 4 others
Theophilus Thistler said:
View attachment 3566323

wow such candid moment! Not fake and gay at all!!
Click to expand...
Perfect. At least she's being truthful for once. Anytime anyone has anything good happen, and it has nothing to do with her, she fakes happiness and is secretly seething inside...and then has to make a post about her fake emotions to tiktok.
 
  • Like
Reactions: peach tea, Cytotoxic Positivity, Muff Cabbage and 3 others
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back