Snowflake Chloe Wilkinson / DissociaDID and Nanette Zuniga / Nan / TeamPinata

nincompoop said:
But there is a streak of genuine nature from these kinds of autists. Imo method actors don't belong in the same boat as furries but whatever. It would be different if the furries or the soulbonders or the D&D nerds were putting on a facade - that they pretended to like furry porn or soulboding or D&D because it was edgy and misunderstood and got them sympathy - but no, they are just autists with autists hobbies. Faking DID and being a munchie on the internet to garner sympathy and money isn't a hobby in the same sense.
Click to expand...

Exempt of Chloe specifically, a lot of DID malingerers online are very genuine in nature and completely delve into the culture of DID just as a furry ect. Method actors belong in this only in the sense that they can become very irrationally dedicated to becoming a person, such as Daniel Day-Lewis who notoriously loses himself in his parts and will go so far as to have fired anyone who doesn't treat him like his character or call him by the character's name. This isn't a normal bid for sympathy that I think is more characterized by other munchies, this is a community that reinforces and builds it's world such as inviting the idea that someone could have Spongebob as an alter. The sympathy is just another angle to feel unique and most of the sympathy comes from within the community as normal healthy skepticism outside of a fervent SJW causes people to roll their eyes at the ideas they present.
 
  • Like
  • Dumb
  • Agree
Reactions: Skulliton, Allakazam223, 6thRanger and 5 others
As there isn't much else to discuss whilst Chloe stays silent, this is where I stand on the 'is she actually mentally ill' debate. I think Chloe is a munchie in the making - she dips her toes in the water by occasionally pretending to have CFS but she hasn't evolved into her final form yet. She's still testing the water and mental illness is far easier to fake than physical illness. Ultimately, this girl is too much of a coward to start causing physical harm to herself- yet. We already know she's too scared to seriously self harm - she doesn't have any visible scars in revealing outfits.

I believe that over time when the satisfaction of feigning DID wears thin she will lean further into her CFS. And when she does, I've got no doubt she'll start claiming to suffer from other disorders. People like Chloe need a constant source of validation and attention - the DID train will run out of steam eventually. When it does, I think she'll escalate, over time.
Can we expect to see her ingesting thyroxine or whatever party trick is in season with the munchie brigade soon? Probably not - this is going to be a slow burn if you ask me.

As for PDs? I think she is fairly narcissistic but whether that is clinical, I'm not to say. Personally, after some reflection, I would lean towards no. I think out of all the personality disorders, she fits into HPD the best. Here is the diagnostic criteria. I've bolded those which I feel apply to Chloe based on her behaviour.
  1. Uncomfortable when not the centre of attention
  2. Seductive or provocative behaviour
  3. Shifting and shallow emotions
  4. Uses appearance to draw attention
  5. Impressionistic and vague speech
  6. Dramatic or exaggerated emotions
  7. Suggestible
  8. Considers relationships more intimate than they are
Do I actually think she has HPD? No idea. I don't really care either way - a cow is a cow regardless as to the cause.

For the record, abuse is not a requirement for NPD and HPD to develop. There is evidence to suggest NPD and HPD can be genetic as can BPD. NPD can also be caused by extremely overindulgent parenting and excessive praise for example. Sure, it can be caused by abuse and neglect too. To some extent, spanking your child could be considered abusive and we know Chloe claims to have been spanked. But based on how her Mother panders to her, I'd be willing to be she was indulged.

I wouldn't claim that her parents are perfect. But they provided for her financially and they've support her emotionally. Whether some of their parenting was less than optimal we can't say - but we can say that their parenting was not, based on the evidence, so abusive or neglectful that Chloe would go on to develop DID, which if it exists, would be the result of serious sustained abuse.

Of course, none of us can diagnose her and this is purely speculation. Virgo's assessment of BBD is as accurate a diagnosis as we'll get in this thread and I thoroughly agree.
 
  • Agree
  • Like
  • Winner
Reactions: Skulliton, thermocline, Enoby Way and 17 others
So, I’ve looked through every citation I could find currently on the DissociaDID channel, and made a full timeline. To be quite honest, her research was even worse than I expected it would be. She has no consistent format, she rarely uses complete citations, she repeats sources, she mixes up names and dates, and - most significantly - most of her sources seem to be lifted whole cloth from the citations sections of other (often very questionable) websites and papers. It’s a mess. As far as I can tell, there is ample evidence to suggest that she may not have read most of these publications. For someone who spends so much energy emphasizing that her channel is ‘research based’, few of her videos (14/100) include any research at all, and when she does include research, it’s extremely dubious.
To prove this, I’ll be dissecting her sources with the same kind of rigor I would expect from anyone claiming to be a science-backed spokesperson for a mental illness.
Of the 100 videos (counting live streams) currently left* on the DissociaDID channel, only 14 of them have any sources available in the description.

On the channel, there is a “Debunking DID” playlist that seems to contain every video she’s made that has citations**, plus four other videos that have no sources listed anywhere: Fictional Characters as Alters?, Terminology and Lingo, Symptoms of Dissociative Identity Disorder, and The Basics of DID.

*I’m not examining her recently deleted videos here, for the sake of brevity.
**Except for Making Our Alters on the SIMS 4, which has a smattering of sources for some reason
I’ve made a timeline (from oldest to newest) going over what I’ve found out about the citations in each of these videos. I have focused the majority of my effort toward identifying where the research comes from, how much actual research there is, and how often she’s recycling sources. I am choosing not to comment on the quality or relevance of said research - presenting a thoughtful, educated analysis of this would require a complete watch-through of every video, and a complete read-through of every cited paper. I do not have the time or emotional capacity for that challenge.

Also, just for the record, I will be drastically shortening the names of the publications that I reference from here on out.* I will try to make sure to link as much as I can for the sake of transparency. It is my hope that if I give ample resources, more people will be able to look into these sources for themselves and come to their own conclusions about the overall quality of the research.

*I have also truncated the names of the videos because they are almost all extremely long
The citations in this video have already been discussed, but to put it briefly: She references (as she often does) a couple of generic mental health charities, the entire US National Library of Medicine/NIH as a standalone source, a linked article by Ruth A. Lanius (2015), and a number of unlinked papers/books referenced only by name of author and date [Putnam (1996) - Schore (2009)].
It is worth noting that said papers/books appear to be perfect replicas of those in the body of the aforementioned Lanius (2015) article. You can find every last one of them in the first paragraph.
‘Evil Alters?!’ has four resources: a linked publication [Barlow & Chu (2014)],
two unlinked publications [Elzinga et. al (2003) & Dalenberg et. al (2012)] referenced only by name and date, and a link to http://traumadissociation.com/alters.
Not unlike her last video, those unlinked sources are used in the one paper that she actually did link (this time they’re in the 3rd paragraph, though, not the first.) Also, as before, the formatting of her citations is identical to the formatting of the citations in the body of the text.

(Put a pin in that Barlow & Chu (2014) paper, you’ll be seeing it again.)
Making Our Alters on the SIMS 4 is not listed as a “Debunking DID” video, though it does have references in the description. These references comprise three publications (one linked and two unlinked), and a link to traumadissociation.com/alters.* The linked publication is Barlow & Chu (2014)*. And, incidentally, both of the unlinked citations [Elzinga et al. (2012) & Dalenberg et al. (2012)] are identical to citations used in the 2nd body paragraph of Barlow & Chu (2014); (both appear in the same sentence).

*also cited in the ‘Evil Alters?!’ video
Switching on Camera & Non-Human Alters has five citations attached to it: the ISSTD Guidelines (2011), and four unlinked citations to books and papers. All of said unlinked citations are present (with the exact same formatting) on the page traumadissociation.com/alters (which she previously linked to in her ‘Evil Alters?!’ and SIMS 4 videos.) If you want to find them there, I will give you their placement in the bibliography:
Lovelace & McGrady, etc (1980)* is #23
Howell (2011) is #16
Hendrickson et al. (1990) is #18**
Miller (2014) is #9***

*This citation is actually nested, and it appears to be referencing two books that are briefly mentioned in one paper [Herman (1992)] . Those books are Linda Lovelace’s Ordeal (1980) and Jacobo Timerman’s Prisoner Without a Name (2002), which is about the author’s experience being kidnapped and tortured by the Argentinian government.
**The abstract on this paper really freaked me out
***This book is entitled Becoming Yourself: Overcoming Mind Control and Ritual Abuse
Is Dissociative Identity Disorder Real?! Contains three new linked publications [Staniloiu et al. (2012) - Chalavi (2014)] as well as a link to Barlow & Chu (2014), which was also cited in the ‘Evil Alters?!’ and SIMS 4 videos. In addition to these, she cites eight publications using only names and dates (again) [Reinders et al. (2012) - Saxe et al. (1992)]. It is worth noting that all of these sources* can be found (in the exact same format as they appear in the description) on page 20 of the first publication she provides an actual link to [Staniloiu et al. (2012)**].

*save for Putnam (1997) and Reinders et al. (2012), which can both be found (identical to their counterparts) in the 2nd body paragraph of Barlow & Chu (2014) (remember them?)
**For reference, this was the very first paper that came up when I Googled “Dissociative Identity Disorder fMRI.”
The Inner Worlds video appears to have three citations, but in reality has only two. The Haunted Self [van der Hart et al. (2006)] is cited twice, albeit with different formatting each time. The first van der Hart citation, as well as the Dell & O’Neil (2009) book can be found (exactly as they appear in the description) on the did-research.com page about Inner worlds.
There are nine total resources provided for Schizophrenia & DID: Two links to generic mental health charities that no longer work, a link to a page with basic information about schizophrenia, a linked article from the NHS about the heritability of schizophrenia, a study* [Hilker et al., (2017)] that is both formally cited and linked to (a first! - though for some reason the citation and the link are on separate lines and therefore might appear to some as two different sources), and four unlinked studies [Nordentoft et al. (2013) - Van Os et al. (2010)].

It is worth noting that the linked NHS article only cites one source, and it is Hilker et al., 2017 (the only linked study in the description). All of the unlinked studies that are cited for this video can be found in the references section of Hilker et al., 2017, as well.** These citations, however, are clearly not direct copies of those found in the description***, though they are fairly similar.

*behind an institutional paywall
**Van Os et al. (2010) = #1, Sullivan et al. (2012) = #2, Nordentoft et al. (2013) = #12, Scheike (2014) = #14
***The citations for this video have omitted some of the author names in favor of the ‘et al.’, and also do not contain the journal information that appears in the references on the page for Hilker et al., 2017.
The Eternal Child has nine references: seven unlinked publications, a link to a page from did-research.org, and a non-working link to traumadissociation.com. The first three citations [Miller (2014) - Howell (2011)] are all also used in Switching on Camera & Non-Human Alters, and all are identical to sources used on the page traumadissociation.com/alters*. The next two citations [Haddock (2001) & Oksana (2001)**] are new to this video, but can also be found (with identical formatting) on that page.***

The final two papers [Watkins & Watkins (1998) & Spiegel & Rosenfeld (1984)] appear cited*^ with the exact same formatting in the body (hover over the annotation) of a paper entitled Dissociative Identity Disorder: A Controversial Diagnosis [Gillig (2009)], which, incidentally, is what you find on the first page of Google when you look up “Dissociative identity disorder child alters.”

*This marks the 3rd video that uses traumadissociation.com/alters either as a source itself, or as a mine for sources (the other two being ‘Evil Alters?!’ and Switching on Camera & Non-Human Alters).
**This is a book entitled Safe Passage for Healing: A Guide for Survivors of Ritual Abuse
***Haddock (2001) = #7, Oksana (2001)= #11
*^Spiegel & Rosenfeld (1984) = #19, Watkins & Watkins (1998) = #23
The Science of PTSD has already been discussed, but I’m going to cover its contents again in order that the timeline may be consistent.

So, this one is very convoluted. Please let me know if my description is too confusing, and I’ll give it another shot.
The Science of PTSD, contains references to eight websites* (six linked), and fifteen publications (all unlinked). Eight of these publications actually exist as she cites them [Yehuda (2002) - Shin et al. (2006)], and seven do not [Bremner et. al (2008) - NY Academy of Sciences (?)] .
The first eight citations are identical [Yehuda (2002) - Shin et al. (2006)] to those on this page from ptsduk.org.** My hypothesis about the next seven sources is that they were copied from another ptsuk.org page, but because those citations are one giant block of text, Chloe became confused and started copying studies as though the titles come first as opposed to the author names, as is standard procedure***. Thus she ended up assigning the wrong names and dates to all of these papers - including a final “source” that cites no authors or date, and is just attributed to the NY Academy of Sciences.
Perhaps if she hadn’t had this issue, she might have noticed that the last seven papers are the exact same papers as the seven properly copied citations above them [Bremner (2006) - Shin et al. (2006)].
(Put a pin in all these sources, you’ll be seeing them again.)

*PODS online, ptsduk.org, the US Department of Veterans affairs homepage, The NHS page for dissociative disorders, a page from anxietycare.org, and two unlinked mentions of “Brain Blogger” and “Heal My PTSD”
**Which also, interestingly, provides links entitled “Brain Blogger” and “Heal My PTSD”
***something any regular researcher would know
I Can’t Move?! has also been discussed previously, but - again - for the sake of consistency, here is the information I have:
There are 17 sources broken up into sections (which is new): BOOKS, PERIODICALS, ORGANIZATIONS and WEBSITES.

*Which is the DSM IV
**This is the DSM V - I’m really not sure of the reasoning behind citing both
***Carroll (2001), Pfuhlmann & Stober (2001), and Sarkstein et al. (1995)
The sources for The Traumatic Response seem to be directly copied (mistakes, repetition of studies, and all) from the The Science of PTSD video. The only difference that I can find is the addition of one website: https://mindbodybreakthrough.net/.*

*She also re-arranged the websites a bit and got rid of the weird mentions of “Brain Blogger” and “Heal My PTSD.”
Are You Traumatized? also appears to have the exact same (very problematic) set of citations as previously seen in The Traumatic Response and The Science of PTSD. There have been two new citations added at the end of this particular video, however: a Van der Kolk paper from 1995, and Holocaust Testimonies: The Ruins of Memory, 1991, though she cited the title as being The Ruins of Memories.*

*I actually found one other page on the internet that has the exact same (incorrect) citation for this book. It’s a slideshow from mindbodybreakthrough.net (the homepage of which is listed as a source for this video). The citation is on slide 5.
This slideshow also appears to be the source of her other new citation [Van der Kolk et al. (1995)] (slide 7).
The remake of All About Alters pt. 1 contains two linked* and eight unlinked** publications, as well as yet another link to traumadissociation.com.*** Save for the ISSTD Guidelines, absolutely all of these publications are used (with exactly the same formatting) in Is Dissociative Identity Disorder Real?! (albeit in a different order).

*Barlow & Chu (2014)*^ & Staniloiu et al. (2012)
**Elzinga et. al (2007) - ISSTD (2011)
***This marks the 5th video to contain reference to either traumadissociation.com or traumadissociation.com/alters (The others being ‘Evil Alters?!’, Making Our Alters on the SIMS 4, Switching on Camera & Non-Human Alters, and The Eternal Child)
*^As seen in ‘Evil Alters?!’, Making Our Alters on the SIMS 4, and Is Dissociative Identity Disorder Real?!
*It may also be worth noting that the SaniTEA podcast does not volunteer any sources on any of their videos, as far as I can tell.

Please let me know if there’s anything I’ve missed.
 
  • Winner
  • Informative
  • Like
Reactions: Skulliton, thermocline, Allakazam223 and 45 others
AmbiTron said:
That's not really the TL;DR of his post but it is largely accurate based on what we've gleaned from all this.
Click to expand...

I was meaning in reference to the "research" not so much the commentary of his, I halfassed my post. It seems that one or two papers by a small number of researchers keeps getting recycled for other works to pad the citation count, which considering how the DID research community at large loves to pat itself on the back for tackling such a controversial diagnosis in the most haphazard methodology it's not entirely surprising but that Chloe didn't even bother to do more than google search and post links is funny.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Skulliton and Punkinsplice
Since there's not much going on, this might be worth looking into. If Chloe did that, especially if there's more people with similar stories, her credibility as a mental health advocate and her sweet and caring persona would take a hit even between her most fervent stans.

20200426_082324.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Thunk-Provoking
  • Like
  • Informative
Reactions: Skulliton, thermocline, Allakazam223 and 13 others
EntitleDID said:
Since there's not much going on, this might be worth looking into. If Chloe did that, especially if there's more people with similar stories, her credibility as a mental health advocate and her sweet and caring persona would take a hit even between her most fervent stans.

View attachment 1254966
Click to expand...

I mean, even with evidence her fans will still call bullshit or try to hand wave it away. Look at how they first reacted to Nan’s CP. But, having proof in this case would be ideal. I also find it funny that this person is saying they can’t believe the claim without proof but totally 100% believe everything Chloe says despite her not having any proof to back it up. Well, except for her diagnosis by the totally legitimate Aquafresh.
 
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: Skulliton, Hellion, Star Child and 9 others
PGOAT said:
So, I’ve looked through every citation I could find currently on the DissociaDID channel, and made a full timeline. To be quite honest, her research was even worse than I expected it would be. She has no consistent format, she rarely uses complete citations, she repeats sources, she mixes up names and dates, and - most significantly - most of her sources seem to be lifted whole cloth from the citations sections of other (often very questionable) websites and papers. It’s a mess. As far as I can tell, there is ample evidence to suggest that she may not have read most of these publications. For someone who spends so much energy emphasizing that her channel is ‘research based’, few of her videos (14/100) include any research at all, and when she does include research, it’s extremely dubious.
To prove this, I’ll be dissecting her sources with the same kind of rigor I would expect from anyone claiming to be a science-backed spokesperson for a mental illness.
Of the 100 videos (counting live streams) currently left* on the DissociaDID channel, only 14 of them have any sources available in the description.

On the channel, there is a “Debunking DID” playlist that seems to contain every video she’s made that has citations**, plus four other videos that have no sources listed anywhere: Fictional Characters as Alters?, Terminology and Lingo, Symptoms of Dissociative Identity Disorder, and The Basics of DID.

*I’m not examining her recently deleted videos here, for the sake of brevity.
**Except for Making Our Alters on the SIMS 4, which has a smattering of sources for some reason
I’ve made a timeline (from oldest to newest) going over what I’ve found out about the citations in each of these videos. I have focused the majority of my effort toward identifying where the research comes from, how much actual research there is, and how often she’s recycling sources. I am choosing not to comment on the quality or relevance of said research - presenting a thoughtful, educated analysis of this would require a complete watch-through of every video, and a complete read-through of every cited paper. I do not have the time or emotional capacity for that challenge.

Also, just for the record, I will be drastically shortening the names of the publications that I reference from here on out.* I will try to make sure to link as much as I can for the sake of transparency. It is my hope that if I give ample resources, more people will be able to look into these sources for themselves and come to their own conclusions about the overall quality of the research.

*I have also truncated the names of the videos because they are almost all extremely long
The citations in this video have already been discussed, but to put it briefly: She references (as she often does) a couple of generic mental health charities, the entire US National Library of Medicine/NIH as a standalone source, a linked article by Ruth A. Lanius (2015), and a number of unlinked papers/books referenced only by name of author and date [Putnam (1996) - Schore (2009)].
It is worth noting that said papers/books appear to be perfect replicas of those in the body of the aforementioned Lanius (2015) article. You can find every last one of them in the first paragraph.
‘Evil Alters?!’ has four resources: a linked publication [Barlow & Chu (2014)],
two unlinked publications [Elzinga et. al (2003) & Dalenberg et. al (2012)] referenced only by name and date, and a link to http://traumadissociation.com/alters.
Not unlike her last video, those unlinked sources are used in the one paper that she actually did link (this time they’re in the 3rd paragraph, though, not the first.) Also, as before, the formatting of her citations is identical to the formatting of the citations in the body of the text.

(Put a pin in that Barlow & Chu (2014) paper, you’ll be seeing it again.)
Making Our Alters on the SIMS 4 is not listed as a “Debunking DID” video, though it does have references in the description. These references comprise three publications (one linked and two unlinked), and a link to traumadissociation.com/alters.* The linked publication is Barlow & Chu (2014)*. And, incidentally, both of the unlinked citations [Elzinga et al. (2012) & Dalenberg et al. (2012)] are identical to citations used in the 2nd body paragraph of Barlow & Chu (2014); (both appear in the same sentence).

*also cited in the ‘Evil Alters?!’ video
Switching on Camera & Non-Human Alters has five citations attached to it: the ISSTD Guidelines (2011), and four unlinked citations to books and papers. All of said unlinked citations are present (with the exact same formatting) on the page traumadissociation.com/alters (which she previously linked to in her ‘Evil Alters?!’ and SIMS 4 videos.) If you want to find them there, I will give you their placement in the bibliography:
Lovelace & McGrady, etc (1980)* is #23
Howell (2011) is #16
Hendrickson et al. (1990) is #18**
Miller (2014) is #9***

*This citation is actually nested, and it appears to be referencing two books that are briefly mentioned in one paper [Herman (1992)] . Those books are Linda Lovelace’s Ordeal (1980) and Jacobo Timerman’s Prisoner Without a Name (2002), which is about the author’s experience being kidnapped and tortured by the Argentinian government.
**The abstract on this paper really freaked me out
***This book is entitled Becoming Yourself: Overcoming Mind Control and Ritual Abuse
Is Dissociative Identity Disorder Real?! Contains three new linked publications [Staniloiu et al. (2012) - Chalavi (2014)] as well as a link to Barlow & Chu (2014), which was also cited in the ‘Evil Alters?!’ and SIMS 4 videos. In addition to these, she cites eight publications using only names and dates (again) [Reinders et al. (2012) - Saxe et al. (1992)]. It is worth noting that all of these sources* can be found (in the exact same format as they appear in the description) on page 20 of the first publication she provides an actual link to [Staniloiu et al. (2012)**].

*save for Putnam (1997) and Reinders et al. (2012), which can both be found (identical to their counterparts) in the 2nd body paragraph of Barlow & Chu (2014) (remember them?)
**For reference, this was the very first paper that came up when I Googled “Dissociative Identity Disorder fMRI.”
The Inner Worlds video appears to have three citations, but in reality has only two. The Haunted Self [van der Hart et al. (2006)] is cited twice, albeit with different formatting each time. The first van der Hart citation, as well as the Dell & O’Neil (2009) book can be found (exactly as they appear in the description) on the did-research.com page about Inner worlds.
There are nine total resources provided for Schizophrenia & DID: Two links to generic mental health charities that no longer work, a link to a page with basic information about schizophrenia, a linked article from the NHS about the heritability of schizophrenia, a study* [Hilker et al., (2017)] that is both formally cited and linked to (a first! - though for some reason the citation and the link are on separate lines and therefore might appear to some as two different sources), and four unlinked studies [Nordentoft et al. (2013) - Van Os et al. (2010)].

It is worth noting that the linked NHS article only cites one source, and it is Hilker et al., 2017 (the only linked study in the description). All of the unlinked studies that are cited for this video can be found in the references section of Hilker et al., 2017, as well.** These citations, however, are clearly not direct copies of those found in the description***, though they are fairly similar.

*behind an institutional paywall
**Van Os et al. (2010) = #1, Sullivan et al. (2012) = #2, Nordentoft et al. (2013) = #12, Scheike (2014) = #14
***The citations for this video have omitted some of the author names in favor of the ‘et al.’, and also do not contain the journal information that appears in the references on the page for Hilker et al., 2017.
The Eternal Child has nine references: seven unlinked publications, a link to a page from did-research.org, and a non-working link to traumadissociation.com. The first three citations [Miller (2014) - Howell (2011)] are all also used in Switching on Camera & Non-Human Alters, and all are identical to sources used on the page traumadissociation.com/alters*. The next two citations [Haddock (2001) & Oksana (2001)**] are new to this video, but can also be found (with identical formatting) on that page.***

The final two papers [Watkins & Watkins (1998) & Spiegel & Rosenfeld (1984)] appear cited*^ with the exact same formatting in the body (hover over the annotation) of a paper entitled Dissociative Identity Disorder: A Controversial Diagnosis [Gillig (2009)], which, incidentally, is what you find on the first page of Google when you look up “Dissociative identity disorder child alters.”

*This marks the 3rd video that uses traumadissociation.com/alters either as a source itself, or as a mine for sources (the other two being ‘Evil Alters?!’ and Switching on Camera & Non-Human Alters).
**This is a book entitled Safe Passage for Healing: A Guide for Survivors of Ritual Abuse
***Haddock (2001) = #7, Oksana (2001)= #11
*^Spiegel & Rosenfeld (1984) = #19, Watkins & Watkins (1998) = #23
The Science of PTSD has already been discussed, but I’m going to cover its contents again in order that the timeline may be consistent.

So, this one is very convoluted. Please let me know if my description is too confusing, and I’ll give it another shot.
The Science of PTSD, contains references to eight websites* (six linked), and fifteen publications (all unlinked). Eight of these publications actually exist as she cites them [Yehuda (2002) - Shin et al. (2006)], and seven do not [Bremner et. al (2008) - NY Academy of Sciences (?)] .
The first eight citations are identical [Yehuda (2002) - Shin et al. (2006)] to those on this page from ptsduk.org.** My hypothesis about the next seven sources is that they were copied from another ptsuk.org page, but because those citations are one giant block of text, Chloe became confused and started copying studies as though the titles come first as opposed to the author names, as is standard procedure***. Thus she ended up assigning the wrong names and dates to all of these papers - including a final “source” that cites no authors or date, and is just attributed to the NY Academy of Sciences.
Perhaps if she hadn’t had this issue, she might have noticed that the last seven papers are the exact same papers as the seven properly copied citations above them [Bremner (2006) - Shin et al. (2006)].
(Put a pin in all these sources, you’ll be seeing them again.)

*PODS online, ptsduk.org, the US Department of Veterans affairs homepage, The NHS page for dissociative disorders, a page from anxietycare.org, and two unlinked mentions of “Brain Blogger” and “Heal My PTSD”
**Which also, interestingly, provides links entitled “Brain Blogger” and “Heal My PTSD”
***something any regular researcher would know
I Can’t Move?! has also been discussed previously, but - again - for the sake of consistency, here is the information I have:
There are 17 sources broken up into sections (which is new): BOOKS, PERIODICALS, ORGANIZATIONS and WEBSITES.

*Which is the DSM IV
**This is the DSM V - I’m really not sure of the reasoning behind citing both
***Carroll (2001), Pfuhlmann & Stober (2001), and Sarkstein et al. (1995)
The sources for The Traumatic Response seem to be directly copied (mistakes, repetition of studies, and all) from the The Science of PTSD video. The only difference that I can find is the addition of one website: https://mindbodybreakthrough.net/.*

*She also re-arranged the websites a bit and got rid of the weird mentions of “Brain Blogger” and “Heal My PTSD.”
Are You Traumatized? also appears to have the exact same (very problematic) set of citations as previously seen in The Traumatic Response and The Science of PTSD. There have been two new citations added at the end of this particular video, however: a Van der Kolk paper from 1995, and Holocaust Testimonies: The Ruins of Memory, 1991, though she cited the title as being The Ruins of Memories.*

*I actually found one other page on the internet that has the exact same (incorrect) citation for this book. It’s a slideshow from mindbodybreakthrough.net (the homepage of which is listed as a source for this video). The citation is on slide 5.
This slideshow also appears to be the source of her other new citation [Van der Kolk et al. (1995)] (slide 7).
The remake of All About Alters pt. 1 contains two linked* and eight unlinked** publications, as well as yet another link to traumadissociation.com.*** Save for the ISSTD Guidelines, absolutely all of these publications are used (with exactly the same formatting) in Is Dissociative Identity Disorder Real?! (albeit in a different order).

*Barlow & Chu (2014)*^ & Staniloiu et al. (2012)
**Elzinga et. al (2007) - ISSTD (2011)
***This marks the 5th video to contain reference to either traumadissociation.com or traumadissociation.com/alters (The others being ‘Evil Alters?!’, Making Our Alters on the SIMS 4, Switching on Camera & Non-Human Alters, and The Eternal Child)
*^As seen in ‘Evil Alters?!’, Making Our Alters on the SIMS 4, and Is Dissociative Identity Disorder Real?!
*It may also be worth noting that the SaniTEA podcast does not volunteer any sources on any of their videos, as far as I can tell.

Please let me know if there’s anything I’ve missed.
Click to expand...
Ooooffft! This forum is great. I bet Chloe didnt count on the amount of weaponised autism coming from the farms lol (i mean that affectionately) such a detailed deep dive into everything from everyone. *applause*
 
  • Like
Reactions: Skulliton, Deckyleaf, Hellion and 5 others
I'm late to this but here are my two cents on Chloe:

She's not stupid. I get the impression that she is either munching for attention or because she wants to live confortably without having to do much of anything. She looked into becoming a sugarbaby and that didn't work out, she went to university and realized that holy shit, you can't party 5 times a week if you want that degree. So now she has chronic fatigue syndrome and a debilitating mental disorder. Definitely too sick to study or get a "normal" job, but she's living pretty well off of monetizing and sensationalizing her supposed mental illness. Again, she's smart. If you want a physical ailment there have to be symptoms. You might have to injure yourself somewhere down the line to make it believable. With mental illness all you have to do is lie. Who is going to be able to tell if you really hear voices?

I don't think she has any other mental illnesses. Like someone else here said, she'd be way more unstable if she really did. She randomly attempts s*u*i*c*i*d*e sometimes but she always announces her attempts in a very matter of fact way and is fine again 2 days later. You can't even begin to imagine the distress and dispair a person is feeling when they believe taking their own life is better than carrying on. If you're that deep in the shit, the mask would crack from time to time, but with Chloe it never does. She's never even too fatigued to do her makeup and clown hair for her videos.

I think you have to be at least a little vain and attention-seeking in order to lipsync to Fergie on TikTok while eyefucking yourself, but nothing that couldn't be explained by girl on the internet syndrome.
 
  • Like
  • Agree
  • Winner
Reactions: Skulliton, thermocline, Allakazam223 and 14 others
Does anyone have a thread of archived drawings, videos or other things of note for Nan and Chloe, when I attempt to look through their respective timelines it looks as though the fuckers have deleted most things.


12:40 - listen, I don't believe Trisha for one single second but have always found Chloe's gatekeeping to be very irritating. She gives off the impression that she is the lord and saviour of all things DID and that her word on the matter is ultimately infallible after ironically being "kicked" out of Psychology course at University. That is what she reminds me of, someone who took one Psychology class and thinks they now have a doctorate. At 12:40 she mentions how it is not ANYONEs business to try and determine whether or not a person might be faking DID, she clearly forgot about that when she jumped on the Trisha hating bandwagon lol

I am getting used to the farms pls excuse my mongoloid behaviour x
 
Last edited:
  • Dumb
  • Autistic
  • Like
Reactions: Skulliton, Allakazam223, quarantinehoe and 7 others
MissKeisha said:
Does anyone have a thread of archived drawings, videos or other things of note for Nan and Chloe, when I attempt to look through their respective timelines it looks as though the fuckers have deleted most things.
Click to expand...

Timelines are the very first thing listed in the OP. Archived links are in those timelines. Video archives are throughout this thread. Stop being a lazy little cunt and read.
 
  • Like
  • DRINK!
  • Feels
Reactions: Skulliton, Allakazam223, Enoby Way and 12 others
MissKeisha said:
At 12:40 she mentions how it is not ANYONEs business to try and determine whether or not a person might be faking DID, she clearly forgot about that when she jumped on the Trisha hating bandwagon lol
Click to expand...
If you actually paid attention to anything she’s said, Chloe never once claimed that Trisha is faking or that Trisha couldn’t possibly have DID. She did say that Trisha was giving out incorrect information and fundamentally misunderstanding DID (worse than Chloe does). The Trisha problem is that Chloe never asked her fans to stop hating on Trisha. She didn’t promote it, but she didn’t try to stop it either.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Skulliton, 70 is the New 89, Enoby Way and 5 others
pd2jzutg2 said:
If you actually paid attention to anything she’s said, Chloe never once claimed that Trisha is faking or that Trisha couldn’t possibly have DID. She did say that Trisha was giving out incorrect information and fundamentally misunderstanding DID (worse than Chloe does). The Trisha problem is that Chloe never asked her fans to stop hating on Trisha. She didn’t promote it, but she didn’t try to stop it either.
Click to expand...
She put in the thumbnail “she called me crazy” (Trisha didn’t even do that) and created a new alter from the “trauma”. She encouraged the behavior without saying she was.
 
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: Skulliton, thermocline, everybody in Portugal and 8 others
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back