Munchausen's Syndrome or Foundation for creating all illness?
This document is long please read it - not as a book more an educational understanding.
Working on the known but unrecognised wisdom of us all; surely it is a crime to be recognised by everyone, having received all the awards on Earth and yet not be in possession of the integrity and wisdom to recognise and know - one’s true self.
With due regards to recent comments regarding my lack of desire to write a book for financial rewards; I refuse to be prescribed for just Kudos and Money, the Magic Elixir Scientific Medicine in all of its scientifically proven wisdom appears to have for every disorder of Mind and Body - A Scientifically Proven Medication!
Therefore my response within this document will be as comprehensive as any given subject deserves, to which I would respectfully request readers to - Please remember all of the questions come from reliable medical sources and all of the answers are contained within the source papers.
Therefore - the answers are my interpretations of the source papers and my editing of the questions in order to show up the frailty of Medical Science - in conjunction with all Humans and their lack of desire to bring
The Mind and Body together.
Since the early days of Medical Science there has been a propensity for the Person who found or studied a particular disorder to use their own name to describe the presenting symptoms - thankfully this practice has apparently been abandoned and quite right too; although I suspect the outcome progression - is much the same.
Although we can recognise still today many illnesses have names relating back to their creators of many generations ago and yet with the special phrasing or peculiarity of Modern Medicine, many have not had a name change to reflect later and better knowledge.
Leaving one to wonder why and until then one can only consider - as then and still today; so very little is understood about certain disorders and no one is in real terms attempting to make better understandings.
Perhaps because no one will fund research when so few People have the disorder that cannot be manufactured by Medical Science itself - as so many other diseases are being exposed on worldwide bases - as having been so.
Question. 1: OK put us out of our misery, as I cannot think of such a disorder without clues?
Answer. 2: Munchausen's' Syndrome is a perfect disorder to discuss.
Courtesy of Wikipedia.
Question. 2: How is this described in simple terms?
Answer. 2: As a feigned illness not driven by a psychiatric disorder, often with the tag of “Malingering.”
Question. 3: Is that it?
Answer. 3: No it is not feigned or malingering - It appears in order to ensure nothing is known or no modern research is undertaken as ALL illness MUST BE of Biological Creation - it is labelled as being a Factitious Disorder! “Not driven by a Psychiatric Disorder.” Is IT!
Question. 4: What is a Factitious Disorder?
Answer. 4: A Factitious Disorder is a condition in which a Person acts as if they have an illness by deliberately producing, feigning, or exaggerating symptoms.
Or another meaningless name of a Mind activity that cannot be medicated.
Factitious Disorder imposed on another - is a condition in which a Person deliberately produces, feigns, or exaggerates symptoms - in a Person (Child) in their care.
Question. 5: So is this the case with Munchausen's Syndrome?
Answer. 5: Munchausen's Syndrome is a Psychiatric Factitious Disorder wherein those affected feign disease, illness, or psychological trauma to draw attention, sympathy, or reassurance to themselves.
Only if one is Hypothesising (guessing) at what to do with so many symptoms!
Question. 6: I thought it was said? “Not driven by a psychiatric disorder,“ yet it is also said?
"Psychological trauma to draw attention, sympathy or reassurance to themselves?”
This does not compute or make sense?
Answer. 6: That is Medical Science for you; blind to the obvious - in order to satisfy there is a Biological Cause of everything!
All illness - is this process not having gone as intended by the Qualified Medical Person’s involved.
Question. 7: Does it have one of those cute dismissal names as well?
Answer. 7: It sure does! As it is sometimes known as hospital addiction syndrome, thick chart syndrome, or hospital hopper syndrome.
Question. 8: So let us be serious now and start at the very beginning?
Answer.8: The syndrome's name derives from Baron Munchausen, a literary character based on the German nobleman Hieronymus Karl Friedrich, Freiherr von Münchhausen (1720–1797.)
Question. 9: With the term “a literary character” one does not require a medical degree to see why this has “not been” like so many other aged disorders studied to near extinction?
Answer. 9: Surely no medical researcher worth their Nobel Prize would wish to continue the works of a historical Baron who became a well-known storyteller in the late 18th century - for entertaining dinner guests with tales about his adventures, during the Russian-Turkish War.
Question. 10: Is there further historical information to back this up?
Answer. 10: In 1785 German-born writer and con artist Rudolf Erich Raspe anonymously published a book in which a heavily fictionalised version of. "Baron Munchausen;" tells many fantastic and impossible stories about himself.
Is it not fair to suggest “Con artist,” “fantastic and impossible stories,” says it all.
Question. 11: Where do we go from here in the understanding of this disorder?
“Raspe's Munchausen became a sensation, establishing a literary exemplar - Person or thing serving as a typical example or appropriate model of a bombastic liar or exaggerator?”
Answer. 11: Leaving one to wonder with this; “establishing a literary exemplar of a bombastic liar or exaggerator, as to where in reality does Medical Science fit in here.
Question. 12: Are there any more recent suggestions regarding this - as it appears Mythical Disorder, or was it apparently created from a bed of mistrusts?
Answer. 12: In 1951 it was first described as a pattern of self-harm, where individuals fabricated histories, signs and symptoms of illness.
Question.. 13: Is this when the name Munchausen’s Syndrome came into use?
Answer. 13: It appears researchers or medics being occasioned by symptoms they did not recognise nor had a treatment for and in remembering the stories about Baron Munchausen named this condition. “Munchausen's Syndrome,” as reported article in The Lancet in February 1951.
Question. 14: Where does this lead us?
Answer. 14: Here it is now described as a common syndrome, which most Doctors have seen but never recognised about which - very little has been written.
Question. 15: But surely this is not the Medical Profession we have been so made aware of - to not study an interesting disorder as this?
Answer. 15: Like the famous Baron von Munchausen, the Persons affected have always travelled widely and their stories, like those attributed to him, are both dramatic and untruthful.
Accordingly the syndrome is respectfully dedicated to the Baron and named after him.
People it appears love stories and have an unhealthy dislike of the truth!
Thus NO self-respecting Medical Researcher would want to be affiliated to Story Telling - would they!
Or is that just too close to home!
Question. 16: Are you saying this sparked much controversy?
Answer. 16: Certainly did. The nomenclature -The rules for forming describing terms in a particular field of arts or sciences, sparked controversy with medical authorities debating the appropriateness of the name for about fifty years.
Question. 17: So that appears to take us up to 2001?
What do you feel happened to change their Brain?
Answer. 17: Although the praise for bringing cases of Factitious Disorder to light lingered on.
Participants in the debate objected in several different ways that a literary allusion was inappropriate given the seriousness of the disease; that its use of the anglicized spelling "Munchausen," showed poor form; that the name linked the disease with the real-life Münchhausen, who did not have it; and that the name's connection to works of humour and fantasy and to the essentially ridiculous character of the fictional Baron Munchausen - was disrespectful to Patients, suffering from the disorder.
Question. 18: Is that not what you have to put up with People attempting to suppress your thoughts by saying there is a Comma or a full stop out of place in your paper?
Answer. 18: Somewhat gives that impression - does it not!
Can anything be more disrespectful than a Doctor saying after all of the tests have been carried out. "We do not know the cause and have no cures" - to a multiple symptom suffering Patient.
Question. 19: Is there since 2001 an acceptance of the now aged name - Munchausen Syndrome?
Answer. 19: Yes it appears that is so, as now Medical Science says. “True Munchausen syndrome fits within the subclass of Factitious Disorders with predominantly physical signs and symptoms.”
Question. 20: “Subclass.” “Predominantly physical signs and symptoms.”
Sigh - Does Nothing change?
Answer. 20: As I am finding; if one fronts up Medical Science with good sound information be it Scientifically Proven or not - they will like a Peacock - always pull in their feathers in case they are ruffled.
Question. 21: But surely Medical Science must account for something as sufferers demonstrate they will have a history of recurrent hospitalisation, travelling and telling dramatic, extremely improbable tales of their experiences? Yet still require help?
Answer. 21: This is so and perhaps the reason it is undergoing a name change as it appears there are discussions to reclassify them as somatoform disorders in the DSM-5, as it is unclear whether or not People are conscious of drawing attention to themselves.
Question. 22: I feel there is a devil in the detail here - but I am unable to see it, can you help me?
Answer. 22: Somatoform disorders are Mental illnesses that cause bodily symptoms, including Pain.
The symptoms cannot be traced back to any Physical Cause.
And they are not the result of substance abuse or another Mental illness.
People with Somatoform Disorders are not faking their symptoms.
And illness is not a Process of the Mind! IS IT!
Yet with the use of the word. “Conscious.” Medical Science is once again blindly being drawn into the realms of The Mind as the creator of all illness.
I do so hope this is the case before all are like Lemmings - forced to jump off the precipice.
Question. 23: I can see the devil here as plain as the nose on ones face?
“In the current Medical Science act of repeating a process with the aim of approaching a desired result, the term; "Somatoform Disorder," as used in the DSM-IV-TR and other literature is no longer in use.
That particular section of the DSM-5 has been renamed. "Somatic Symptom and Related Disorders."
Answer. 23: Well spotted - shame our medical profession are not as wide eyed and open minded as you.
Question. 24: With this in Mind do you feel there are moves afoot to rename Munchausen Syndrome?
Answer. 24: Sure is - must not let a good name stand in the way of a good kudos sounding profit must we.
“Officially, Munchausen syndrome has been renamed "Factitious Disorder."
Question. 25: Does that bring with it subsets?
Answer. 25: It does indeed; with specificity either as; "Imposed on Self" or "Imposed on Another." Formerly; "by Proxy".
Question. 26: How is Munchausen’s syndrome related to By Proxy and is there really a connection?
Also I can now see with. "Imposed on Self," where your earlier comment fits nicely. “All illness is this process not having gone as intended by the Person’s involved.”
Answer. 26: Munchausen Syndrome is related to Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy - MS bP/MSP, which refers to the abuse of another Person, typically a Child in order to seek attention or sympathy for the abuser.
Question. 27: So It is an obsessive want - to create symptoms for the victim in order to obtain repeated medication or even operations?
Answer. 27: That is what the Medical Science says.
Question. 28: But what do you say?
Answer. 28: obsessive want - to “create symptoms,” or even “operations.”
Thus. “IT IS NOT IN MY HEAD” and being prescribed medications and/or an operation will prove it!
Question. 29: But? In Munchausen Syndrome, the affected Person exaggerates or creates symptoms of illnesses in themselves to gain examination, treatment, attention, sympathy, and/or comfort from medical personnel?
Answer. 29: In some extreme cases, People suffering from Munchausen's Syndrome are highly knowledgeable about the practice of medicine and are able to produce symptoms that result in lengthy and costly medical analysis, prolonged hospital stay and unnecessary operations.
What about all the tests people have to endure in order to demonstrate their illness exists - let alone is Biological in creation!
Do these TESTS not Prove or Disprove anything.
One has to consider People do not deliberately produce, feign or exaggerate symptoms.
No more than they are conscious - if we have to use such a word, of drawing attention to themselves.
They are however working on instructions from Traumatising Parents - thus seeking Understanding. Therefore - Factitious Disorder is only imposed on another.
Question. 30: I am able to observe?
“The role of. "Patient," is a familiar and comforting one and it fills a Psychological need in People with this syndrome?
Answer. 30: Yet if the Medical Profession has no knowledge of the Emotional Phenotype - Based on our entire history and collection of Memories, the image we show to the world and how to understand and use it - the syndrome is Biological or in the Brain.
Thus must be chemically treated.
Question. 31: Does? This disorder as distinct from hypochondriasis - an overwhelming Fear that one has a serious disease, even though health care providers can find no evidence of illness and other somatoform disorders in that - those with the latter do not intentionally produce their somatic symptoms - Have any Scientific Merit?
Answer. 31: Munchausen Syndrome is distinct from other psychiatric disorders such as malingering, in that a Person with Munchausen does not fabricate symptoms for material gain such as financial compensation, absence from work, or access to drugs.
Question. 32: You have not answered my question?
Answer. 32: No it has no Scientific Merit - confirmed with; the cause is not known and there is no known cure.
Question. 33: So are you saying since 1951- Medical Science has not only lost the plot - it never in real terms had a plot?
Answer. 33: Risk factors for developing Munchausen Syndrome include Childhood traumas, growing up with Parents/caretakers who were emotionally unavailable due to illness or emotional problems, a serious illness as a Child, failed aspirations to work in the medical field, personality disorders and a low self-esteem.
Question. 34: Point taken? Are there Gender differences?
Answer. 34: The Data from Medical Science would surely demonstrate - Munchausen Syndrome is more common in Men and seen in young or middle-aged adults.
Question. 35: Do you feel there is more to it than that?
Answer. 35: Sigh. Whilst I am obliged to accept the Scientific Findings, I would desire to question the wisdom of such findings.
Question. 36: Is it fair to suggest; Those with a history of working in healthcare are also at greater risk of developing it?
Answer. 36: Once again I feel sure the numbers would qualify this - but would feel it a slight against healthcare workers - if the Emotional Phenotype of a Person so disposed is not understood and scientifically proven.
Question. 37: It is reported? Arrhythmogenic Munchausen Syndrome - a rare form of cardiomyopathy in which the heart muscle of the right ventricle (RV) is replaced by fat and/or fibrous tissue. where the right ventricle is dilated and contracts poorly.
As a result, the ability of the heart to pump blood is usually weakened - describes individuals who simulate or stimulate cardiac arrhythmia's to gain medical attention?
Scientific Merit or NOT?
Answer. 37: If one puts these two together. “Arrhythmogenic.” “Munchausen Syndrome” and asks Medical Science the cause and they do not know - then it must be fair to suggest - how can they know whether this is part of the syndrome made worse; if they have no knowledge of the Entire Body Chemistry and the part it plays in this disorder.
Thus as you suggest this understanding has no scientific merit.
Question. 38: So? Has a similar behaviour called; Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy been documented in the Parent or Guardian of a Child?
Answer. 38: No doubt about it - The Adult ensures that his or her Child will experience some medical affliction, therefore compelling the Child to suffer treatment for a significant portion of their youth in hospitals.
Furthermore, a disease may actually be initiated in the Child by the Parent or Guardian.
This condition is considered distinct from Munchausen Syndrome.
In addition All medical professionals will not be able to make the connection when a Child becomes an Adult and sufferers mysterious illness - with no apparent cause.
Question. 39: Why? Is this condition considered distinct from; Munchausen Syndrome?
Answer. 39: Jobs for the Medical Scientists/Research boys.
Question. 40: There is growing consensus in the paediatric - Child illness specialism community that this disorder should be renamed; "medical abuse," to highlight the harm caused by the deception and to make it less likely that a perpetrator can use it as Psychiatric Defence - when harm is done?
Answer. 40: There are two questions here. “Medical abuse.” I might like to argue The complete syndrome even as long ago as 1779 was caused by a form of Medical Abuse.
And I feel there is a good argument against the use in defence of a Psychiatric Disorder - this must be implemented with the greatest of care.
As one is real and the other an abuse by the legal profession.
Question. 41: Where if at all? Does treatment fit in?
Answer. 41: Because there is uncertainty in treating suspected Munchausen Patients, some advocate that medical professionals or Doctors first explicitly rule out the possibility that the Patient has an early stage disease - that is not yet clinically detectable in order to avoid under-treating real illness.
Then they may take a careful Patient history and seek medical records, to look for early deprivation, Childhood Abuse, or Mental illness.
If a Patient is at risk to himself or herself, inpatient psychiatric hospitalisations may be initiated.
Question. 42: Is this real or am I imagining it? “That is not yet clinically detectable in order to avoid under-treating real illness?
Answer. 42: Sadly so - if Medical Science cannot diagnoses a disorder - Doctors as agents for Medical Science, will create it.
Question. 43: Did you miss this little gem?
“If a Patient is at risk to himself or herself, inpatient psychiatric hospitalisations may be initiated.”
Answer. 43: I did not - but in hospitalisations I feel sure the attending Medical Person’s as agents of Medical Science did - especially if they applied medications to what is very clearly demonstrated a - Thought Process of the Mind disorder.
Question. 44: Are you perhaps being a little unfair there?
Answer. 44: Well Yes and No - they cannot be blamed if they in the year 2001 and perhaps the same today 2015 have no knowledge, nor interpretation of the Emotional Phenotype and its importance in the understanding and treatment of any Mind created Body symptom.
Question. 45: What does this mean? “Medical providers or Doctors may consider working with mental health specialists to help treat the underlying mood or disorder as well - to avoid counter transference?”
Answer. 45: If we consider this disorder was recognised in 1785 and confirmed in 1951 - is it not fair to say and it can be seen with these words; the early shoots of Doctors in an illness as a modality - creating what we easily recognise today as Specialists!
Thus. “We do not know the cause,” was created.
Question. 46: What about; “countertransference?”
Are you aware of this and does it fit into other modalities of treatment?
Answer. 46: Nice question, one any Person in the Healthcare Business should be aware of but in my experience not only is not, but more importantly does not know how to protect themselves or their Patient from it.
“Countertransference?” is defined as redirection of a psychotherapist's feelings toward a client - or, more generally, as a therapist's emotional entanglement with a client.
Question. 47: Are there any other ways we can explore this?
Answer. 47: Yes. “Transference.
Question. 48: What is that?
Answer. 48: The Patient is not satisfied with the analyst in the light of reality - as a helper and adviser who is remunerated for their services.
Thus is the process by which emotions and desires originally associated with one Person, such as a Parent or sibling, are unconsciously shifted to another person - the Therapist.
Question. 49: So if we accept. “Countertransference?” and. “Transference” as in real terms both being of the same essence - where do we go from here?
Answer. 49: If we can accept a Person being a fledging or a seasoned Therapist; “does not know how to protect themselves from it.”
Then we surely have to consider there was something missing in their training as indeed there was mine - of how to recognise and how to protect themselves from “Countertransference?” and “Transference.”
Question. 50: Accepted - but surely we must accept also as Tennyson quoted...
"...I am a part of all that I have met...?"
As being part of Human Life?
Does this demonstrate the truth of Transference and our judgmental approach ensures we transfer one Person's disorder onto us the therapist?
Answer. 50: This is so; but within the therapeutic world we are no longer talking about Natural Human Life - we are referring to a quantum shift into what we now cutely accept as. “Normal.” Illness is Normal - total absence of illness is Natural.
Question. 51: In a therapeutic environment, are both of these understandings good and/or bad?
Answer. 51: I feel sure in certain therapeutic circles there will be satisfactory argument for both, based on the belief both parties understand the processes of therapy and more importantly each other’s position in the therapeutic environment.
Question. 52: Does this in general work?
Answer. 52: Whilst I am not privy to other therapeutic environments, thus any views have to be my own - I am aware most if not all therapies, more so these days often having fleetingly glanced at aged emotional concerns, work in the. “Moment” and try to fix the future with treatment wrapped around current relationship/work problems - yet not recognising these are only an expression of the Emotional Phenotype.
Question. 53: Have you ever experienced Transference or Countertransference?
Answer. 53: In my fledgling days as a therapist having not been taught how to protect myself and others - most certainly YES.
Although one has to consider. “Countertransference?” is more difficult to fully quantify as this is a two party. Therapist/Patient/Client felt activity in the main.
Thus the dynamics of therapy response become entangled with emotions with both parties Pleasing the other at their own expense.
Based on the now Publicly written fact I was too Emotionally ill to be. Me, let alone a Therapist and was most seriously controlled by the deepest desire to
“Please everyone, always and only at my own expense.”
Thus possibly affected or was responsible - much more than I realised at the time.
Question. 54: I realise this must be a revisiting of aged information - but how long did it take you to realise you were not protecting yourself and indeed others from: Transference“ and “Countertransference?”
Answer. 54: I think it took some Eight to Ten years to work out a protocol I could use, at that time I realised - if either of these took place the ultimate responsibility was on myself as the Therapist to ensure as best I could - this did not take place.
Question. 55: Once you had the protocol? How long did it take you to perfect its use?
Answer. 55: Looking back now in so far as I am able to be honest with myself and say - I was not a successful as I should or ought to have been, yet there was no definitive crossover - although there is a distinct possibility a Heart Attack in September 1992 played an important part and still today I not am totally sure - I no longer please others always and only at my own expense and therefore have perfected same.
However it is easier to most times be selective with its use - as a tool - rather than a weapon of self-destruction.
There is no question in my mind at all - not having a Fee Structure Contract of engagement - played a big part in this as did my early days of...
...High Un Relievable Anxiety.
Question. 56: May I take from this it is not easy to protect one’s self from either of these, as we are all but Human.
However for a Therapist just starting on their journey having a better understanding would surely be a long-term and great asset in effective therapy if they or their colleges were able to affect a resolution of each students Fears-Anxiety within their chosen treatment modality.
Answer. 56: One cannot apply this to every therapist - although perhaps one should; we have first have to recognise we are all unique and have our own Emotional Phenotype to contend with, which may or may not have to undergo some transformation in order to ensure therapeutic efficacy.
Meaning many damaged People become therapists of one modality or another - as indeed was my pursuit.
The realism is I created Talking Cures for me alone.
Question. 57: Is this protocol secret and more importantly is it easy to explain - if it is not so easy to encompass in one’s life.
Answer. 57: I feel it imperative we recognise I created the Protocol - thus for me to incorporate it into to my therapeutic applications and my life - took time, for a student taught this early in their studies it would be much easier.
Question. 58: So what is the Protocol?
Answer. 58: Strangely it is something WE all do and have done since Birth and do so automatically - as we should, moreover we are unaware of the importance of this ability, however it has to take somewhat of a quantum shift to be encompassed as a therapeutic tool.
From Birth we all have an in built ability to Believe what we are told - see or hear.
At the same time but as a separate application - Disbelieve.
Both are Rights not Gifts.
Unless damaged/altered by traumas (Gifts) - these abilities under the aforementioned circumstances are always with us.
As a Therapeutic Application/Tool it is imperative they are combined as...
“...I Believe everything I Hear and I do not Believe a word.”
Question. 59: Is it really as simple as that?
Answer. 59: In a manner of speaking - yes it is.
This is not something one does or does not do - it has to become a way of life in every aspect of one’s daily activity - or as we discussed earlier; just as automatic as the Natural Version.
Once this is incorporated into one’s life as a therapist and even a Patient - as it must be, it changes the complete dynamics of the therapeutic environment, by allowing a more open and honest - As the therapy is for Patient not the Therapist; exchange of knowledge leading to a more secure therapeutic outcome.
This very secure protocol is securely based on one of the most destructive of Human activity - but in the reverse; Judging.
In the therapeutic environment it is. Not the Therapist requirement to Judge - Right or Wrong; it is the only important Person in the therapeutic healthcare field - The Patient; for without such a Person there would not be a requirement for Professional healthcare at all.
Question. 60: So am I able to conclude from this? “Judging causes both - Transference and countertransference?
Answer. 60: You most certainly are correct - more importantly Judging causes ALL Human Burnout. No exceptions!
Question. 61: So how does any form of therapy demonstrate itself as effective?
Answer. 61: Therapeutic and Medical Treatment must centre only on the Traumatic or underlying factors of a disorder: a mood disorder, an anxiety disorder or borderline personality disorder. Etc.
Question. 62: So is there an indication of; Take your Pick rather than treat the Person?
Answer. 62: The Patient's prognosis depends upon the category under which the underlying disorder falls; depression and anxiety for example, generally respond well to medication and/or cognitive behavioural therapy.
Whereas borderline personality disorder, like all personality disorders is presumed to be pervasive and more stable over time.
Thus offers the worst or best outcome.
Question. 63: Please give me some time to ponder the wisdom of this?
Answer. 63: Of course. Surely we must accept; “thus offers the worst or best outcome,” as being the only practical answer - if one is only able to treat one symptom at a time.
Question. 64: May we now look at the presenting symptoms of Munchausen Syndrome?
Answer. 64: There are several symptoms that together point to Munchausen Syndrome.
Patients may have multiple scars on abdomen due to repeated, "emergency" operations.
Some have frequent hospitalisations, knowledge of several illnesses, frequently requesting medication such as painkillers, openness to extensive surgery, little to no visitors during hospitalisations, exaggerated or fabricated stories about several medical problems and much more.
Question. 65: There must be a very powerful message - tucked away here?
Answer. 65: Yes indeed there is.
Munchausen Syndrome should not be confused with hypochondria - abnormal chronic anxiety about one's health, as Patients with Munchausen Syndrome do not really believe they are sick, they only want to be sick and thus fabricate the symptoms of an illness.
Sadly; insidiously losing control - which in reality they never had.
It is also not the same as - pretending to be sick for personal benefit such as being excused from work or school.
Question. 66: Does that indeed explain the message - or are you just introducing the answer?
Answer. 66: The only message I am really able to read is the Medical Service worldwide is not for the Patients, it is for Money or Kudos - no one with a Medical Degree would be able to diagnose a symptom; if it really was not there - would they!
Question. 67: Are there ways a Patient can fake their symptoms?
Answer. 67: There are several ways in which Patients fake their symptoms.
Other than making up past medical histories and faking illnesses.
Patients might inflict harm on themselves such as taking laxatives or blood thinners, ingesting or injecting themselves with bacteria, cutting or burning themselves and disrupting their healing process - such as reopening wounds.
Surely if a so-called Medically Qualified Doctor at least in 2015 was unable to differentiate between real symptoms and Fake - then it is perhaps time to hang up the stethoscope - is it not!
Question. 68: But? As many of these conditions do not have clearly observable or diagnostic symptoms and sometimes the syndrome will go undetected because Patients will fabricate identities when visiting the hospital several times? is that fair?
Answer. 68: Having been around since 1785 (1951) Munchausen Syndrome is recognised as having several complications and Patients will go to great lengths to fake their illness.
With Severe Health problems, Serious Injuries, Loss of Limbs or Organs and even Death are possible complications.
We surely can cut our dedicated Doctors a bit of slack here as they are only agents for Medical Science whilst at the same time - they are the ones who have the diagnostic skills - are they not.
Therefore must take the ultimate responsibility; for if they do not; where do we go to from here!
Question. 69: Originally, this term was used for all Factitious Disorders?
So what - if anything has changed?
Answer. 69: Nothing, however, there is considered to be a wide range of Factitious Disorders and the diagnosis of. "Munchausen Syndrome," is reserved for the most severe form, where the simulation of disease is the central activity of the affected Person's life.
Question. 70: Surely we have to consider this is no more than the search for a new or rename?
Answer. 70: Of that I have no doubt.
Question. 71: What then can we make of? “Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy?
Answer. 71: MSBP or MBP is a behaviour pattern in which a caregiver fabricates, exaggerates, or induces Mental or Physical health problems in those who are in their care.
With deception at its core, this behaviour is an elusive, potentially lethal, and frequently misunderstood form of Child Abuse or Medical Neglect that has been difficult to define, detect and confirm. “Medical neglect that has been difficult to define, detect and confirm" - says it all.
Question. 72: Has this rename like the earlier name provoked much in the way of controversy?
Answer. 72: MSbP has also spawned much heated controversy within the legal and social services communities.
In a handful of high-profile cases, Mothers who have had multiple Children who died from sudden infant death syndrome have been declared to have MSbP.
Based on MSbP testimony of an expert witness, they were tried for murder, convicted and imprisoned for several years.
In some cases, that testimony was later impeached, resulting in exoneration of those defendants.
Leaving one to consider just where in reality does - full responsibility lay.
Question. 73: If only for my pathetic little Mind?
Can we collate the. “Signs and symptoms,” in order to make better sense of this as is clearly being demonstrated - a Process of the Mind and not in the slightest of Biological Creation at all?
Answer. 73: In Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy, an Adult caregiver makes a Child appear Mentally or Physically ill or impaired by either fabricating symptoms or actually causing harm to the Child, in order to gain the attention of medical providers and others.
In order to perpetuate the medical relationship, the caregiver systematically misrepresents symptoms, fabricates signs, manipulates laboratory tests, or even purposely harms the Child by poisoning, suffocation, infection, physical injury.
And a skilled highly qualified Doctor really takes notice of the Carer and not the examination results of the Patient. Why I ask!
Question. 74: What about Death by this type of activity?
Answer. 74: Studies have shown a mortality rate of between 6% and 10% of MSbP victims, making it perhaps the most lethal form of abuse.
A review found the average age of the Person affected at diagnosis was 4 years; slightly over half of were aged 24 months or younger and 75% were under six years old.
The average duration from onset of symptoms to diagnosis was 22 months.
Six percent were dead, mostly from Apnoea (temporary cessation of breathing, especially during sleep) - a common result of smothering or starvation and 7% suffered long-term or permanent injury.
About half of them had siblings; 25% of the known siblings were dead and 61% of siblings had symptoms similar to the victim or that were otherwise suspicious.
The Mother was the perpetrator in 76.5% of the cases, the Father in 6.7%. In the above study, most presented with about three medical problems in some combination out of 103 different reported symptoms.
The most frequently reported problems are Apnoea (26.8% of cases), anorexia / feeding problems (24.6% of cases), diarrhoea (20%), seizures (17.5%), cyanosis (blue skin) (11.7%), behaviour (10.4%), asthma (9.5%), allergy (9.3%) and fevers (8.6%.)
Other symptoms include failure to thrive, vomiting, bleeding, rash and infections.
Now try to tell me the entire Medical Profession is not at fault here - for belligerently not proclaiming
"The Mind is the Master Controller of all life forms - thus all illness is a process of the Mind based on Memories.".
Question. 75: As many of these symptoms are easy to fake because they are subjective? Can you really be that harsh?
Answer. 75: Yes I can and should - someone has to!
For example, reports that; "my Baby had a fever last night," are impossible to prove or disprove.
The number and variety of presented symptoms contributes to the difficulty in reaching a proper MSbP diagnosis.
The primary distinguishing feature that differentiates MSbP from "typical," physical Child abuse is the degree of premeditation involved.
There is no. "Typical Abuse" = Abuse is Abuse; no Child hurts themselves - unless instructed to do so.
Whereas most physical abuse entails lashing out at a Child in response to some behaviour - crying, bed wetting, spilling food, assaults on the MSbP victim - appear to be unprovoked and unplanned.
Also unique to this form of abuse is the role that health care providers play by actively, albeit unintentionally, enabling the abuse.
By reacting to the concerns and demands of perpetrators, medical professionals are manipulated into a partnership of Child maltreatment.
Surely if one is highly Medically Trained; it is the Person in front of you in the surgery who is the Patient NO ONE ELSE - therefore if you cannot medically explain the symptoms should not there be a RED FLAG alert - whether you are right or wrong!
Question. 76: But where is the answer?
Answer. 76: Here it is! “The number and variety of presented symptoms contributes to the difficulty in reaching a proper MSbP diagnosis.”
All because the Medical Profession only teaches failure - thus any dedicated frontline clinician is only able to see one symptom at a time and thus see with their Eyes and never their MIND!
Question. 77: “Challenging cases that defy simple medical explanations may prompt health care providers to pursue unusual or rare diagnoses, thus allocating even more time to the Child and the abuser?”
Is this a confirmation of your last comment?
Answer. 77: Sadly yes it is. Let us remind ourselves I am not against the Medical Profession at all - only Bad Medical Science!
Described by - Even without prompting, medical professionals may be easily seduced into prescribing diagnostic tests and therapies that are at best uncomfortable and costly and at worst potentially injurious to the Child.
If the health practitioner instead resists ordering further tests, drugs, procedures, surgeries or specialists, the MSbP abuser makes the medical system appear negligent for refusing to help a poor sick Child and their selfless Parent.
Surely as I said before - it is the Patient even if they are too young to speak - who through their symptoms who should speak, after all Medical Science would have us believe ALL ILLNESS IS of Biological Cause and provable by tests!
Question. 78: I can see the devil here?
“Like those with Munchausen Syndrome, MSbP perpetrators are known to switch medical providers frequently, until they find one that is willing to meet their level of need; this practice is known as; "doctor shopping" or "hospital hopping?"
Answer. 78: As we have discussed with Michael Jackson and Robin Williams there will always be a Highly Trained Medical Professional willing to write an invoice - no matter what the consequences!”
Question. 79: How can we make sense of this?
“The perpetrator will continue the abuse - because maintaining the Child in the role of the Patient satisfies the abuser's needs?”
Answer. 79: The cure for the Victim is to separate the Child completely from the abuser.
Question. 80: Is there an indication the Medical Profession is waking up to the Mind kills the Body - if damaged by traumas?
Answer. 80: One would dream to think so!
Sadly if this as below is allowed to continue - misunderstood; I very much doubt it!
When Parental visits are allowed, sometimes there is a disastrous outcome for the Child.
Even when the Child is removed, the perpetrator may turn their attention to another Child: a sibling or other Child in the family.
More recently a psychiatric form of MSbP has been postulated - Psychiatric Munchausen’s Syndrome By Proxy - which involves the presentation of a psychiatric disorder in the Child.
Munchausen by Proxy can also have many long-term emotional effects on a Child.
Depending on their experience of medical interventions, a percentage of Child Victims may learn that they are most likely to receive the positive maternal attention they crave when they are playing the sick role in front of health care providers.
Several case reports describe Münchhausen's Syndrome Patients suspected of themselves having been MSbP victims.
Seeking personal gratification through illness can thus become a lifelong and multi-generational disorder in some cases.
In stark contrast, other reports suggest survivors of MSbP develop avoidance of medical treatment with post-traumatic responses to it.
Question. 81: Means just what?
Answer. 81: Illness is an Advantage not a Disadvantage - “Do not take my illness away from me as I will have to face my abusers (Parents) again - alone!
Question. 82: How can this be explained?
Answer. 82: This variation possibly reflects broad statistics on survivors of Child Abuse in general, where around 30% go on to also become abusers even though a significant percentage do not.
The Adult care provider who is abusing the Child often seems comfortable and not upset over the Child's hospitalisations.
While the Child is hospitalised, medical professionals need to monitor the caregiver's visits in order to prevent any attempt to worsen the condition of the Child.
Question. 83: How would a Child understand or process all of the information received?
Answer. 83: If they are unable to speak for themselves and when they are able are not believed - this is much worse than any previous ABUSE and WILL create mysterious and untreatable illness symptoms.
Question. 84: What about Doctors duty under the laws of each individual country?
Answer. 84: It appears in many jurisdictions; Medical Professionals have a duty to report such abuse to legal authorities. Should we not ask - do they recognise it or are only interested in being paid for their efforts, based on historical experience of; “this is how it is done!”
From Tutors and previous studies!
Question. 85: May we look at the warning signs?
Answer. 85: Warning signs of the disorder include: A Child who has one or more medical problems that do not respond to treatment or that follow an unusual course that is persistent, puzzling and unexplained.
Caused and/or portrayed/brought on by caretaker; particularly Mother.
Physical or laboratory findings that are highly unusual, discrepant with Patient's presentation or history; physically or clinically impossible.
A Parent who appears to be medically knowledgeable, fascinated with medical details and hospital gossip, appears to enjoy the hospital environment and expresses interest in the details of other Patients' problems.
A highly attentive Parent who is reluctant to leave their Child's side and who themselves seem to require constant attention.
A Parent who appears to be unusually calm in the face of serious difficulties in their Child's medical course while being highly supportive and encouraging of the physician, or one who is angry, devalues staff, and demands further intervention, more procedures, second opinions and transfers to other more sophisticated facilities.
Surely we must consider there are enough clues here if one is open eyed to see - whether ones education includes Munchausen Syndrome of not - to raise ones hackles!
Question. 86: How do People so disposed become Health Care Professionals?
Answer. 86: The suspected Parent may work in the health care field themselves or profess interest in a health-related job.
Leaving one to question the interviewing technique or desperation on behalf of the authority to engage People at any costs.
One may add a although a Psychotic is extremely clever at deception - if the Medical Profession were able to connect the Mind and Body in deference to the Brain and Body then surely we must consider this situation could not so readily slip through the net; aided and abetted by - No Medical Professional would dare to submit a negative or contradictory report; against a colleague!!!
Question. 87: What happens if?
The signs and symptoms of a Child's illness do not occur in the Parent's absence?
Answer. 87: Hospitalisation and careful monitoring may be necessary to establish this causal relationship, especially if there is a family history of similar or unexplained illness or death in a sibling or a Parent with symptoms similar to their Child's own medical problems or an illness history that itself is puzzling and unusual.
Question. 88: Are there interesting clues here?
Answer. 88: Yes indeed. “an illness history that itself is puzzling and unusual.”
If the Mind were to be incorporated within medical knowledge then there would be no medical mysteries - even if with medications, there were still no definitive cures.
Question. 89: What is a play here?
“A suspected emotionally distant relationship between Parents; the spouse often fails to visit the Patient and has little contact with Physicians - even when the Child is hospitalised with a serious illness?
Answer. 89: No-one knows - acceptable. Or desires to know - not acceptable.
Of the existence of OUR Emotional Phenotype - as it would interfere with the profit for continual failures!
Question. 90: What does this mean to an attending Doctor?
“A Parent who reports dramatic, negative events, such as house fires, burglaries, or car accidents, that affect them and their family while their Child is undergoing treatment?
Answer. 90: If a Doctor is swayed by this within their Scientifically Proven deliberations with THEIR PATIENT - then I would have to question; does the Doctor still deserve to be called a Doctor at all!
Question. 91: Are you serious?
Answer. 91: Sadly so! Surely this must be so if a dedicated and highly trained Doctor allows a Parent who seems to have an insatiable need for adulation or who makes self-serving efforts for public acknowledgment of their abilities sway their diagnoses and treatment of what must only be now considered their; “Charge,” - or Their Patient!
Should not. “In Loco Parentis” - Latin - for In place of a Parent, be instilled into a Medically trained Mind!
Moreover if any Clinician actually becomes interested/involved in this activity - what is that clinician hiding - one may be forced to ask!
Question. 92: Is this a major clue to your last comment?
“A Patient who inexplicably deteriorates whenever discharge is planned?
Answer. 92: A good observation and clearly demonstrating - Illness is an advantage, more importantly - Caution is required or serious considerations given to a diagnosis of MSbP/FII - Fabricated or Induced Illness by Carers/FDP and Fictitious Disorder by Proxy.
Even if a clinician has no treatment knowledge at all!
Especially as it appears - Many of the items above are also indications of a Child with organic, but undiagnosed illness.
Question. 93: Does not Medical Ethics come into force here?
Answer. 93: An ethical diagnosis of MSbP must include an evaluation of the Child, an evaluation of the Parents and an evaluation of the Family dynamics.
Question. 94: Would that not lead a dedicated Doctor into serious trouble?
Answer. 94: It appears to be - A Diagnoses based only on a review of the Child's Medical Chart can be rejected in court.
Question. 95: May we look towards Diagnoses?
Answer. 95: It appears even in very recent times Munchausen Syndrome as well as by Proxy are still seen by many as controversial terms.
The World Health Organization’s International Statistical Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision (ICD-10) and the official diagnosis is Factitious Disorder - 301.51 in ICD-9, F68.12 in ICD-10.
Within the United States, Factitious Disorder imposed on another (FDIA or FDIoA) was officially recognized as a disorder in 2013, while in the United Kingdom, it is known as Fabricated or Induced illness - by carers.
In DSM-5, the diagnostic manual published by the American Psychiatric Association in 2013, this disorder is listed under 301.51 Factitious Disorder.
Question. 96: So what if anything does all this mean in modern times as it appears the illness is not going away?
Answer. 96: This, in turn, encompasses two types of this disorder! or Name change!
Question. 97: So where do we go from here?
Answer. 97: Like always from medical science studies which only tell us about it - never why, it is back to the very beginning is surely the only direction we can travel.
Factitious Disorder imposed on self - formerly Munchausen Syndrome.
Factitious Disorder imposed on another - formerly Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy; diagnosis assigned to the perpetrator; the victim may be assigned an abuse diagnosis e.g. Child Abuse.
Terminology = confusion
Still widely used, the term. "Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy," has led to much; "confusion" in the literature.
In the United States, the term has never officially been included as a Discrete Mental disorder by the American Psychiatric Association, which publishes the widely recognized Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), now in its fifth edition.
Although the DSM-III (1980) and DSM-III-R (1987) included Munchausen Syndrome, they did not include MSbP. DSM-IV (1994) and DSM-IV-TR (2000) added MSbP as a proposal only and finally being recognized as a disorder in DSM-5 (2013) - yet each of these last three editions of the DSM listed this disorder or proposal with a different name.
Elsewhere as well, ongoing lack of consensus has led to much "confusion" over terminology and MSbP has been given many names in different places and at different times.
Question. 98: OK received and understood?
Where oh were does Medical Science go to now?
Answer. 98: What follows is a partial list of alternative names that have been either used or proposed - with approximate dates:
Factitious Disorder Imposed on Another (current) (U.S., 2013)
American Psychiatric Association, DSM-5.
Factitious Disorder by Proxy (FDP, FDbP) (proposed) (U.S., 2000)
American Psychiatric Association, DSM-IV-TR.
Fictitious Disorder by Proxy (FDP, FDbP) (proposed) (U.S., 1994)
American Psychiatric Association, DSM-IV.
Fabricated or Induced Illness by Carers (FII) (U.K., 2002)
The Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health.
Factitious Illness by Proxy (1996) World Health Organization.
Paediatric Condition Falsification (PCF) (proposed) (U.S., 2002)
American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children proposed this term to diagnose the Child/Victim.
Perpetrator (Mother) would be diagnosed "Factitious Disorder by proxy;"
MSbP would be retained as the name applied to the 'disorder' that contains these two elements, a diagnosis in the Child and a Diagnosis in the caretaker.
Induced Illness (Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy) (Ireland, 1999–2002)
Department of Health and Children.
Syndrome (1984–1987) named after a Professor of Medicine.
This label, however, had already been in use since 1957 to describe a completely unrelated and rare form of cardiomyopathy.
Polle Syndrome (1977–1984), from the then common belief that Baron Münchhausen's second wife gave birth to a daughter named Polle during their marriage.
The Baron declared that the baby was not his and the Child died from "seizures" at the age of 10 months.
The name fell out of favour after 1984, when it was discovered that Polle was not the baby's name, but rather was the name of her mother's hometown.
Just as the name of this disorder been in disarray, so too has its definition.
For example, while it initially included only the infliction of harmful medical care, the appellation (a protected name) has subsequently been extended to include cases in which the “only harm arose from medical neglect, noncompliance, or even educational interference.”
Question. 99: All that just to say this? “only harm arose from medical neglect, noncompliance, or even educational interference?”
Answer. 99: Sadly yes but we must surely accept a Warts and ALL approach if we are to truly for the very first time in History Understand illness - no matter what cute little name it is given.
Question. 100: OK so what if anything does Medical Science have to say about the Epidemiology of the disorder?
Answer. 100: One study showed that in 93 percent of cases of MSbP, the abuser is the Mother or another Female Guardian or caregiver. MSbP may also be attributed to another prevalent socialization pattern, which places Females in the primary care-taking role.
A psycho dynamic model of this kind of maternal abuse exists.
MSbP may be more prevalent in the Parents of those with a learning difficulty or Mental Incapacity and as such the apparent Patient could in fact be a grown adult.
Fathers and other Male caregivers have been the perpetrators in only 7% of the cases studied.
When they are not actively involved in the abuse, the Fathers or Male guardians of MSbP victims are often described as being distant, emotionally disengaged and powerless.
These men play a passive role in MSbP by being frequently absent from the home and rarely visiting the hospitalised child.
Usually, they will vehemently deny the possibility of abuse, even in the face of overwhelming evidence or their Child’s Pleas for Help.
Overall, Male and Female Children are equally likely to be the victim of MSbP.
In the few cases where the Father is the perpetrator, however, the victim is three times more likely to be Male.
Question. 101: Does this have any real Human or Scientific merit?
Answer. 101: Nothing of any value at all.
Question. 102: What????????
Answer. 102: Yes this is not Medical information - it is Society and Culture activity!
Question. 103: Are you suggesting this is no more than information one could glean from Society and culture?
Answer. 103: I do not. “Suggest these things.” I “say” them because they are the truth - if only we as a race of People were able or desired to see with our Minds - instead of just our Eyes!
Question. 104: May we look a little deeper at the Naming of this Syndrome?
Answer. 104: Of course.
The name "Munchausen syndrome by Proxy" (MSbP) is derived from Munchausen syndrome, different though related, conditions.
People with Munchausen Syndrome have a profound need to assume the sick role and will exaggerate complaints, falsify tests and/or inflict illnesses on themselves directly.
Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy perpetrators, by contrast, are willing to fulfil their need for positive attention by hurting their own child, thereby assuming the sick role onto their Child, by proxy.
Surely if one purposely makes a Child ill it is a matter for the Law as it is tantamount to Murder - if only by a plea of insanity.
These proxies then gain personal attention and support by taking on this fictitious "hero role" and receive positive attention from others, by appearing to care for and save their so-called sick Child.
Both are named after Baron Munchausen, a literary character based on Hieronymus Karl Friedrich, Freiherr von Münchhausen (1720–1797) a German nobleman and well-known storyteller.
In 1785, writer and con artist Rudolf Erich Raspe anonymously published a book in which a fictional version of "Baron Munchausen" tells fantastic and impossible stories about himself, establishing a popular literary archetype of a bombastic exaggerator.
Question. 105: Did we really need to just repeat this information?
Answer. 105: No not at all - sadly the framework for this discussion - A medical Paper supplied by Wikipedia as usual in the absence of satisfactory explanations - always does this.
Question. 106: So why do we?
Answer. 106: Someone MUST show up the frailties of Medical Science papers, which only either - regurgitate past failures or in New Studies simply repeating the information just to Pad out the paper in order to make it appear impressive!
Question. 107: So if I understand? This paper is only a Framework upon which you build later and better information regarding illness?
Thus the same must be applied to the? Often seen; “Initial description? Or abstract.”
Answer. 107: Is the truth. In all honesty I seriously believe it is not done on purpose to confuse readers - it is as a result of generations of. “Taught Confusion,” within the entire Medical Profession.
Described in this manner: "Munchausen syndrome" was first described in 1951 as when someone invents or exaggerates medical symptoms, sometimes engaging in self-harm, to gain attention or sympathy.
The term. "Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy," was first coined in a 1976 paper titled "Folie à deux" - Delusion or mental illness shared by two People; in the Parents of Psychosocial dwarfs: It appears there are two cases in order to describe the abuse-induced and neglect-induced symptoms of the syndrome of Abuse Dwarfism.
According to other sources, the term was created by a British paediatrician a professor of paediatrics in 1977 at a leading English University - which described the extraordinary behaviour of two Mothers.
According to the Professor, one had poisoned her toddler with excessive quantities of salt.
The other had introduced her own blood into her Baby's urine sample.
This second case occurred during a series of Outpatient visits to the Paediatric Clinic of a nearby Royal Infirmary.
He referred to this behaviour as Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy - MSbP.
Question. 108: As this was in 1977 and the Medical Profession was showing signs of Growing up what was the attitude of the Professors Findings by his Medically Trained Peers?
Answer. 108: The medical community was initially sceptical of MSbP's existence, but it gradually gained acceptance as a recognized condition.
There are now more than 2,000 case reports of MSbP in the professional literature.
Reports come from developing countries, as well as the US, with one case from 2012-2013, in Orlando, Florida and the most recent in West Chester, New York in early 2015.
Other reports come from Sri Lanka, Nigeria and Oman.
Question. 109: So are we to accept in 2015 there is no longer any Controversy?
Answer. 109: Sadly NO!
Question. 110: How can we explore this?
Answer. 110: First we must look at the apparent list of wrongful convictions in one major country.
During the 1990s and early 2000s, the professor was an expert witness in several murder cases involving MSbP/FII.
Later to be knighted for his work for Child Protection, though later, his reputation and consequently the credibility of MSbP, became severely damaged when several convictions of Child Killing in which he acted as an expert witness, were overturned.
The Mothers in those cases were wrongly convicted of Murdering two or more of their Children and had already been imprisoned for up to six years.
The pivotal case was a Mother also a lawyer wrongly convicted in 1999 of the murder of her two baby sons, largely on the basis of the professors evidence.
As an expert witness for the prosecution the professor asserted that the odds of there being two unexplained infant deaths in one family were one in 73 million.
That figure was crucial in sending the Mother to jail but was hotly disputed by the Royal Statistical Society, who wrote to the Lord Chancellor to complain.
It was subsequently shown that once other factors e.g. genetic or environmental were taken into consideration, the true odds were much greater, i.e., there was a significantly higher likelihood of two deaths happening as a chance occurrence than the Professor had claimed during the trial.
Those odds in fact range from a low of 1:8500 to as high as 1:200.
Question. 111: If no one knows the cause of this disorder and do not have knowledge of the Emotional Phenotype can these numbers really mean something tangible in these cases?
Answer. 111: Sadly no - it appears to me the statistics were a legal ploy to gain the upper legal and moral high ground.
Question. 112: It appears the case was overturned - how can we demonstrate this?
Answer. 112: It emerged later that there was clear evidence of a Staphylococcus aureus infection that had spread as far as the Child’s Cerebrospinal Fluid.
Question. 113: This I can see. “Staphylococcus aureus,” is worthy of further consideration?
Answer. 113: Correct - .” Following a not exhaustive search of this disorder; I conclude no Medical Institution suggests a cause - only that its presence Causes many symptoms!
One surely has to ask. “Why.”And Toxic Shock - Childs own body chemistry following emotional and or physical traumas may well be the answer to what appears to be a virus infection.
Question. 114: May we continue with what appears to be the Legal aspects?
Answer. 114: Yes of course; The women was released in January 2003 after three judges quashed their convictions in the Court of Appeal, but suffering from catastrophic trauma of the experience, one later died from alcohol poisoning.
Question. 115: Really?
Answer. 115: Yes as always she died of an unrelated disorder - or a dismissal by her Medical Practitioners - unable to recognise the Emotional Phenotype of her lifestyle.
Question. 116: Was the Professor involved as a prosecution witness in any other cases?
Answer. 116: It appears there were Three other high-profile cases resulting in Mothers being imprisoned and subsequently cleared of wrongdoing.
Question. 117: What was the outcome?
Answer. 117: In 2003 the Opposition spokesman on health, accused the professor of inventing a; "theory without science" and of refusing to produce any real evidence to prove that Munchausen syndrome by proxy actually exists.
It appears part of the Professors defence to this was; “It is important to distinguish between the act of harming a Child, which can be easily verified and motive, which is much harder to verify and which MSbP tries to explain.
For example, a caregiver may wish to harm a Child out of malice and then attempt to conceal it as illness to avoid detection of abuse, rather than in order to draw attention and sympathy.
Question. 118: What if anything can be read into this?
Answer. 118: How can a Professor of Anything let alone Scientific Medicine belonging to an Institutional Body who with the 100,000 illness in the world Recognised and Diagnosed and not one of them has it truly been demonstrated the Definitive Cause is Known and has a Definitive Cure = no more illness and no more medications - be an EXPERT WITNESS to anything.
Let alone a case appearing to be as Medically Complex as these.
Especially as. “The distinction is often crucial in criminal proceedings, in which the Prosecutor must prove both the act and the Mental Element - constituting a Crime in order to establish Guilt.
Question. 119: Does this prove your point?
“In most legal jurisdictions, a Doctor can give expert witness testimony as to whether a Child was being harmed but cannot speculate regarding the motive of the caregiver, FII (Fabricated or induced illness) only refers to the fact that illness is induced or fabricated and does not specifically limit the motives of such acts to a caregiver's need for attention and/or sympathy?
Answer. 119: Sure does. “But cannot speculate regarding the motive,” is a clear example of the Dedicated Doctor as a result of poor knowledge or education - is always on their own.
Question. 120: Were there a lot of these types of cases and what was the outcome?
Answer. 120: It appears; In all, around 250 cases resulting in conviction in which the professor was an expert witness were reviewed - with few changes.
Question. 121: So is there an implication the professor was right or wrong in the findings?
Answer. 121: The Professor was investigated by the British General Medical Council over evidence he gave - in just one trial.
Question. 122: What was the outcome?
Answer. 122: In July 2005, the GMC declared The Professor guilty of; "serious professional misconduct" and was struck off the medical register for giving "erroneous" and "misleading" evidence.
Question. 123: Was that the end of it as it appears once again the Professor had been deserted by his own profession?
Answer. 123: At appeal a High Court judge said; the severity of his punishment "approaches the irrational" and set it aside.
Question. 124: Did the outcome of this appeal raise any interesting points?
Answer. 124: The judgment did it appears raise important points concerning the liability of expert witnesses - with the view that referral to the GMC by the losing side is an unacceptable threat and that only the Court should decide whether its witnesses are seriously deficient and refer them to their Professional Bodies.
Question. 125: But surely, this cannot be correct; if one belongs to a Professional Body who collectively does not have a clue about this or any other illness - then the outcome can only be The Medical Professional in times of need and support - will only be on their own?
Answer. 125: Sadly nothing changes - be an outsider or an insider and speak out against the Medical Profession and it long history of failures and one may well end up as history.
Question. 126: However it appears in certain areas of institutional Governing Bodies? - yet In addition to the controversy surrounding expert witnesses, an article appeared in forensic literature detailing legal cases involving controversy surrounding the murder suspect?
Answer. 126: Sadly this appears to be the truth of it. The Governing Body will always seek some form of Moral High Ground?
Question. 127: Was there a furtherance to this?
Answer. 127: The literature it appears provided a brief review of the research of criminal cases involving Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy - in which Psychopathic Mothers and caregivers were Murderers.
It also briefly describes the importance of gathering behavioural data, including observations of the Parents who commit such Criminal Acts.
Question. 128: Yet it appears? Still the Medical Profession will not accept illness is a process of the Mind and the Brain is only and agent of the Mind?
Answer. 128: Indeed this is so.
Question. 129: How can this dire situation be improved?
Answer. 129: An article references the 1997 work in which covert video recorders were used to monitor the hospital rooms of suspected MSbP victims.
In 30 out of 39 cases, a Parent was observed intentionally suffocating their Child; in two they were seen attempting to Poison a Child; in another, the Mother deliberately broke her 3-month-old Daughter's Arm.
One would question “Did any medical professional ask or know" - WHY!
Upon further investigation, those 39 patients, ages 1 month to 3 years old, had 41 siblings; 12 of those had died suddenly and unexpectedly.
The use of covert video, while apparently extremely effective, raises controversy in some jurisdictions over privacy rights.
Question. 130: And still in 2015 - is it fair to say the Medical Profession do not have a clue as to “WHY?”
Answer. 130: Sadly this it appears is the truth of it.
Question. 131: Can we explore further? the Legal status?
Answer. 131: It appears - In most legal jurisdictions, Doctors are only allowed to give evidence in regard to whether the Child is being Harmed.
They are not allowed to give evidence with due regard to the Motive.
Australia and the UK have established the legal precedent that MSbP does not exist as a - medico-legal entity.
In a June 2004 appeal hearing, the Supreme Court of Queensland, Australia, stated: As the term Factitious Disorder (Munchausen's Syndrome) by Proxy is merely descriptive of a behaviour, not a psychiatrically identifiable illness or condition, it does not relate to an Organised or Recognised Reliable Body of Knowledge or Experience.
Thus a highly educated Doctors evidence was inadmissible.
The Queensland Supreme Court further ruled that the determination of whether or not a defendant had caused intentional harm to a Child was a matter for the jury to decide and not for the determination by expert witnesses:
Thus a Child made ill by a Parent - has less protection than an attempted Murder Victim where the culprit was not immediately recognised.
Leaving one to wonder WHY.
Question. 132: Can this be good for anyone other than those within the system?
Answer. 132: The diagnosis of Doctors - that the appellant (Mother) intentionally caused her Children to receive unnecessary treatment through her own acts and the false reporting of symptoms of Factitious Disorder (Munchausen Syndrome) by Proxy - is not a Diagnosis of a Recognised Medical Condition, disorder, or syndrome.
It is simply placing the appellant within the Medical Term used for the category of People exhibiting such behaviour.
In that sense, their opinions; “were not expert evidence,” because they related to matters able to be decided on the “evidence, by ordinary jurors.”
Question. 133: Where does this leave the attending Doctors and more importantly the Victims?
Answer. 133: As is so often the case; “up the Paddle without a Creek.”
Question. 134: What sort of answer is that?
Answer. 134: Back to front medical speak.
Question. 135: Is not? The essential issue as to whether the appellant reported or fabricated false symptoms or did act - to intentionally cause unnecessary medical procedures to injure her Children? a matter for the jury's determination?
Answer. 135: The evidence of Doctors that the appellant was exhibiting the behaviour of Factitious Disorder - Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy, should have been excluded.
Principles of law and implications for legal processes that may be deduced from these findings are that: Any matters brought before a Court of Law should be determined by the facts, not by suppositions attached to a label describing a behaviour, i.e., MSBP/FII/FDBP; MSBP/FII/FDBP is not a mental disorder (i.e., not defined as such in DSM IV) and the evidence of a Psychiatrist - should not therefore be Admissible; MSBP/FII/FDBP has been stated to be a behaviour describing a form of Child Abuse and not a medical diagnosis of either a Parent or a Child.
A medical practitioner cannot therefore state that a Person "suffers," from MSBP/FII/FDBP and such evidence should also therefore be inadmissible.
The evidence of a medical practitioner should be confined to what they observed and heard and what forensic information was found by recognized medical investigative procedures; A label used to describe a behaviour is not helpful in determining guilt and is prejudicial.
By applying an ambiguous label of MSBP/FII to a Woman is implying guilt without factual supportive and corroborative evidence.
The assertion that other People may behave in this way, i.e., fabricate and/or induce illness in Children to gain attention for themselves (FII/MSBP/FDBY), contained within the label is not factual evidence - that this individual has behaved in this way.
Again therefore, the application of the label is prejudicial to fairness and a finding based on fact.
Of course any lawsuit must rely implicitly on the facts - however were the medical profession to have long ago incorporated The Mind into all illness - then instead of being a legal buffoon as the case law demonstrates they would as they should be an entity to be recognised.
And the innocent Victims in this seriously misunderstood situation would surely have at least some protection - even if it was not available from the victims loved ones.
Were not the Medical findings of Poisons/Un natural contents in the Childs system not FACTS.
Question. 136: Was this as it appears stupidity accepted into law?
Answer. 136: It appears - The Queensland Judgment was adopted into English law at the High Court of Justice. by The presiding Justice.
Question. 137: Were there any additions to this?
Answer. 137: In final conclusions of the presiding Justice regarding Factitious Disorder, it was stated that: I have considered and respectfully adopt the dicta of the Supreme Court of Queensland in R v. LM  QCA 192 at paragraph 62 and 66.
I take full account of the criminal law and foreign jurisdictional contexts of that decision, but I am persuaded by the following argument upon its face that it is valid to the English law of evidence as applied to Children Proceedings.
The terms. "Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy" and "Factitious (and induced) illness (by proxy)" are Child protection labels - that are merely descriptions of a range of behaviours, not a paediatric, psychiatric or psychological disease that is identifiable.
The terms do not relate to an organized or universally recognized body of knowledge or experience that has identified a medical disease. i.e. an illness or condition and there are no internationally accepted medical criteria for the use of either label.
In reality, the use of the label is intended to imply or suggest an idea or feeling that in the individual cases there are materials susceptible of analysis by paediatrician's and of findings of fact by a court concerning fabrication, exaggeration, minimization or omission in the reporting of symptoms and evidence of harm by act, omission or suggestion or induction.
Where such facts exist the context and assessments can provide an insight into the degree of risk that a Child may face and the Court is likely to be assisted as to that aspect by Psychiatric and/or Psychological expert evidence.
All of the above ought to be self-evident and has in any event been the established teaching of leading paediatrician, psychiatrists and psychologists for some while.
That is not to minimize the nature and extent of professional debate about this issue, which remains significant, nor to minimize the extreme nature of the risk that is identified in a small number of cases.
In these circumstances, evidence as to the existence of MSBP or FII in any individual case is as likely to be evidence of mere propensity, which would be inadmissible at the fact-finding stage.
For my part, I would consign the label MSBP to the history books and however useful FII (Fabricated or induced illness) may apparently be to the Child Protection Practitioner - I would caution against its use other than as a Factual Description of a series of incidents or behaviours, that should then be accurately set out and even then only in the hands of the paediatrician or psychiatrist/psychologist.
I cannot emphasis too strongly that my conclusion cannot be used as a reason to re-open the many cases where facts have been found against a career and the label MSBP or FII has been attached to that career's behaviour.
What I seek to caution against is the use of the label as a substitute for factual analysis and risk assessment.
In a book published in 2004, the author notes that such findings have been in the minority among U.S and even Australian courts. Paediatrician's and other physicians have banded together to oppose limitations on Child-Abuse professionals whose work includes FII detection.
The April 2007 issue of the journal Paediatrics specifically mentions the aforesaid Professor as an individual who has been inappropriately maligned.
Question. 138: Is there a bigger picture we should all be seeing here?
Answer. 138: Yes there is - Everyone with the exception of the Child are Adults and as such individually protective of the Knowledge hidden in their Mind - that any illness they have, was caused by their Parents and any illness their Children have - was caused by them.
Question. 139: Phew? What can one make of that little lot?
Answer. 139: The Medical Profession and The Law are unable to securely Represent People with an illness it does not, is not able or simply WILL not - comprehend; thus ALL concerned are no more than Fee paying Victims.
Question. 140: Are? there any Notable cases we could review as best we are able?
Answer. 140: There are Three, which may be of interest.
Case 1. A mother is accused of harming her Child.
In a book relating to a Munchausen by Proxy and Childhood, there are details of a young Women’s life growing up with a Mother suffering from Munchausen by Proxy, who took her to Various Doctors having coached her to act sicker than she was, to exaggerate her symptoms and demanded increasingly invasive procedures to diagnose the Child’s enforced imaginary illnesses.
Case 2. A Women in the south west of the UK was jailed for 3 years and 3 months after subjecting her son to a total of 325 medical actions - including being confined to a wheelchair and being fed through a tube in his stomach.
She claimed her son suffered from a long list of illnesses including diabetes, food allergies, cerebral palsy and cystic fibrosis, describing him as; "the most ill child in Britain" and receiving numerous cash donations and charity gifts, including two cruises.
Case 3. In 2014, 26-year-old Women was charged in New York with second-degree depraved murder and first-degree manslaughter.
She allegedly fed her son dangerous amounts of salt after she conducted research on the Internet about its effects.
Her actions were allegedly motivated by the social media attention she gained on Face book, Twitter and blogs.
She was convicted of second-degree murder on March 2nd, 2015.
Question. 141: Can you collate a simple understanding from this?
Answer. 141: If after all of the years of study a Doctor is unable to see past the protesting Parent through to the only important Person in the surgery and rely on the Scientific Tests instead of the brow beating by a Psychotic Parent - then I have to conclude; the Doctors qualifications are not worth the paper they are written on.
Leaving one to ponder will there ever be a “Cure” and would the understanding of it be easier if the Emotional Phenotype was clearly understood and how much of this illness is incumbent with all - so called mysterious illness.
Question. 142: Hold on what have you said here?
“how much of this illness is incumbent "to lean or lay upon" with the present principle of all illness - so often of mysterious cause?
Please explain and why you are at it - your views as to how this very destructive illness is created in a Person and how or why it affected Children of affected Parents?
Answer. 142: Of course and thank you for the opportunity.
Whilst we must recognise the outcome from such activity as Munchausens’s or by Proxy Syndrome is for all concerned a most serious disorder - however tell me of a disorder that does not have the same outcome - if not cured.
In order to make sense of the disorder and how it is intrinsic in ALL illness, we must first or for the moment ignore the tragedies of the outcome - this as designed by the subconscious Mind; only blinds us from the truth.
In reading this paper one must by now surely have taken a step back and asked of oneself - as indeed even I have; “what does my training actually amount to" - if my own profession has been so blind as to firstly not see and accept the Mind and Body are one and the Mind instructs the Brain to organise the Body into is daily activity based on previous memory history.
Having taken stock - is it not fair to suggest, “we must stand back and recognise” if one does not understand this disorder - one, not only does not but cannot, ever understand any illness - whether that be of: Mind, Brain or Biological.
Thus successful treatment is either not a possibility or by no more that luck - if indeed it appears to be successful.
It has long appeared to me our Film Script Writers and Film Makers as so far ahead of Medical Science - as to make it appear - Medical Science has yet to invent The Humble Pen and Paper!
A quote from a Film titled. “Murder of Innocence” - “A critically acclaimed drama charting a Women’s decent into a Frightening and Murderous insanity - as her Family denies any claims of Mental Illness.”
Whilst we have to recognise this is a Film and not an absolute representation of the truth - I find do however find it impossible to accept; it is not based on absolute truth.
The Wikipedia story of One Laurie Dann - Born Laurie Wasserman October 18, 1957 Chicago, Illinois; Died May 20, 1988 aged 30, demonstrates a striking resemblance to the Film Story?
Closer examination reveals it is a depiction of a sad but very true story!
How can we justify all of this information, first we must recognise whilst Guilty for the tragic outcomes - Laurie Dann (nee Wasserman) was just as much a Victim as those whose lives she destroyed or seriously affected.
As was the Medical Profession through its somewhat deliberate misinterpretation of what it declares as Scientific Proof of any illness - without the tangible outcome of a cure for any and every illness.
Thus by default is responsible for sending Laurie Dann recognisably Mad and her Parents although by her death and lack of scientific knowledge; somewhat proven innocent by default of their Daughters activity, yet are absolutely Responsible - although not Guilty of unwittingly creating as history tells - a Monster.
With this understanding may we now for the very first time in the history of illness we are able to create the very necessary understanding - ALL illness is only an adaptation of this misplaced use of a word - Munchausen’s Syndrome and thus is created by lack of knowledge and is never of a Natural Cause.
The only Natural Cause of Death is when a Person of very old age and NO illness; decides it is time to go to what may well be - a better place.
If we cannot or do not recognise. ALL illness no matter what Name it has been given in pursuit of understanding it, or a management created - has but one and ONE only reason for being. “Understanding.”
Following Emotional and or Physical Traumas - Pre Conception, Post conception, during confinement at or Post Birth.
Followed by more traumas - often every day of a Person’s life - to the point it becomes the Person’s LIFE.
In pursuit of this Understanding a Person has very few options available to them.
Two of the most powerful are:
A. To Blame themselves - as no one will take responsibility recognise or apologise for creating the traumatic events.
B. Create an illness the more mysterious to the medical profession the greater the perceived or actual value of the traumas - thus illness now becomes an advantage and not in the slightest a disadvantage, as it offers if need be, a lifetime of protection against further traumatic abuse.
Perchance it could or would be that simple - quite the reverse as now the perpetrator of the Traumatic abuse turns on the Child by disbelieving - then when asked what is wrong when the Child has no option but to say.
“I feel ill or I do not know (Silence by the Child is a nice way of aggravating an Adult responsible for unwittingly abusing a Child.)
Or simply always being: tired, lethargic, fatigued, bored, disinterested, distant, no concentration or rebellious/naughty - in short as an abusive Adult would only see a Child as
“you are not the Child I/we brought you up to be.”
Failing to recognise the Child is exactly the Child they brought them up to be. Moreover - this dismissal of a Child WILL only create mysterious illnesses.
Now it is imperative in order to really understand this disorder we must go back numerous generations - let us say to Victorian Times (interesting is this the UK only, or more pandemic) where Children must be seen and not heard - we can or perhaps should go back much further in history to truly make sense of this disorder.
I can find no justification worldwide for believing other than any Parent would only desire their Children - not to grow up to suffer the same as they did or to lead an improved or better life than they.
Sadly as Parents we fail to see the protection we afford our Children is not as we really desire it to be - it is so often and always within illness - no less than a Lead Jacket.
I feel it would difficult to impossible to find a Parent or even a growing Child that did not have this phrase (my words thus require an individual interpretation) “I am not going to get Married, I am not going to have any Children but! if I do get Married or have Children - “I will not let them grow up to suffer in the same manner as I.”
With this in mind history has no option but to repeat itself.
And Toxic Shock may well be have been the answer to Laurie's situation to what may have appeared to be - a virus infection.
However it would seem fitting She was not biologically ill for to be so would have denied her the ability to pursue her life with the necessary energy and wit in pursuit of receiving the “understanding” required.
Question. 143: In order to understand or make more sense of this illness - may we examine Laurie's Life and the events leading up to her demise?
Answer. 143: Of course - one may consider at the time of this event it should have been a flag to the Medical profession: Laurie Dann (nee Wasserman; October 18, 1957 - May 20, 1988) was an American murderer who shot and killed one boy and wounded two girls and three boys in a Winnetka, Illinois elementary school.
She then took a family hostage and shot another Man before killing herself.
Laurie Dann was born in Chicago and grew up in Glencoe, an affluent northern suburb of Chicago.
She was the daughter of an accountant, Norman Wasserman and his wife, Edith Joy.
The history outcome of the deaths at her hand: Date May 20, 1988. Killed 1. Injured 6. Weapons; Firearms and Poison.
Question. 144: This is a matter of record?
What about her life?
Answer. 144: Those who knew Laurie Dann - described her as shy and withdrawn - but attractive.
She dated a number of her male peers as a teenager and graduated from New Trier High School in Winnetka, Illinois, in 1975.
Her grades were poor in high school, but she was able to attend Drake University in Des Moines, Iowa.
When her grades improved, she transferred to the University of Arizona with the goal of becoming a Teacher.
Question. 145: This does not appear unremarkable - as the Medical Profession would have us believe - she was a late developer?
Answer. 145: As usual the devil is in the detail with; “shy and withdrawn.” “Her grades were poor in high school” and “the goal of becoming a Teacher.”
Surely we must have - if we purport to be therapist of any modality or adopt a multi-- disciplinary team approach the integrity and wisdom required to stay in the box instead of peeking outside and ask to each of these now questions. “WHY” WHY” WHY.”
Question. 146: But if we adopt the integrity and wisdom of asking. “WHY” with such venom - what are we able to see or should we be looking for?
Answer. 146: Shy and withdrawn - tells us already there is some form of abuse going on in her life.
Confirmed By - her grades were poor in High School (one with access to better knowledge be able within her School Report be able to see - Lacks concentration daydreamer, could try hard, has the ability.)
And as. Creativity is the Brakes on Madness, as a way of relieving an extremely high anxiety with sights set high - with the desires of becoming a Teacher.
Question. 147: What other clues should the Significant People around her picked up on?
Answer.147: She began dating a pre-med student and the relationship soon became serious, soon becoming possessive and demanding.
Question. 148: How are we to understand? “becoming possessive and demanding?”
Answer. 148: One may consider a So-called Mind Specialist should have been able to recognise this as Psychotic - unnatural, Behaviour.
After all the people around her saw and experienced this first hand and did nothing.
Because Laurie was always so plausible.
Because it appears no one from any of the psychological doctrines involved in Laurie’s healthcare, had the necessary understanding - the Mind is Connected to the Brain and Body and Traumas affect everything we do in life.
Had they such understanding then young Laurie’s concerns would have been addressed earlier and sadly had medication not been the only treatment - such a highly trained individual would have at their disposal; the outcome from such treatment, could not have been in Laurie what appears to be - the very beginning of the so called Munchausen’s Syndrome; now created by Scientific Medicine.
Question. 149: In 1980, with the relationship failing, Laurie Dann moved back to her Parents' home.
She then transferred to North Western University to complete her degree, but she dropped out of all her classes and never graduated?
Can we see what is going on or developing here?
Answer. 149: If we recall the possibility in her school reports she had shown ability and was a late developer this surely should have in the very least put her Parents on notice “Something was wrong with their Daughter.”
Question. 150: Is there a confirmation here?
“She met and married Russell Dann, an executive in a successful insurance brokering firm in September 1982, but the marriage quickly soured with Russell's family noting signs of obsessive-compulsive disorder and other strange behaviour, including leaving trash around the house?
Answer. 150: Are we really to believe her Parents were not already aware of this activity by their Daughter - if not why not! “signs of obsessive-compulsive disorder and other strange behaviour, including leaving trash around the house.”
Question. 151: What do you mean by. “If not then - why not?”
Answer. 151: Both are the same as the Parents only saw the Child they brought up - thus Laurie was complying with their upbringing desires.
Question. 152: Meaning?
Answer. 152: Forget the activity think of the question; “signs of obsessive-compulsive disorder and other strange behaviour, including leaving trash around the house.” “WHY” “WHY “WHY.”
Question. 153: Obviously this is progressive? What happened next?
Answer. 153: She saw a psychiatrist for a short period who identified her Childhood and upbringing as a cause of her problems.
Question. 154: Should that not have been at least a demonstration - she was at last being understood?
Answer. 154: One would like to think so - if only her later death at her own hand and the murder of an innocent bystander one can see the Psychiatrist did her no favours - had this not been the case Laurie would surely had at the very least for the first time in her life - someone on her side.
Question. 155: Do you feel this outcome was inevitable?
Laurie and Russell Dann separated in October 1985?
The divorce negotiations were acrimonious, with Laurie claiming that Russell was abusive?
Answer. 155: Sadly yes to the first part the second was not so; had the attending Psychiatrists knowledge of the Emotional Phenotype this would have been predicted and possibly avoidable.
As Laurie had made Russell her Punitive Person in exchange - for her now somewhat emotionally absent and abusive Parents.
Question. 156: Where do the Police fit into this ongoing process?
Answer. 156: If one takes information from the film and accepts it to be the truth - then it is clear to me the Police were now as implicit in the outcome as the Parents and Psychiatrists with Russell being somewhat the innocent bystander.
Question. 157: How can this be so?
Answer. 157: As always us Humans never believe the truth always using the protection, “we cannot investigate as there has not been a crime committed.
Of course we must recognise the workload our Police departments have to work through and some situations have to be prioritised - should we ignore when history demonstrates otherwise the Police in their wisdom always found for the perpetrator - Laurie, in these types of seemingly domestic circumstance.
Question. 158: Is there a justification of your seemingly dismissal comments?
Answer. 158: As always - In the following months, the Police were called to investigate various incidents, including several harassing phone calls made to Russell, his family and his friends.
Question. 159: Are we to understand the Police and other interested parties ignored what appear to be quite a warning signal?
Answer. 159: As always - In April 1986, Laurie Dann accused Russell of breaking into and vandalizing her Parents' house, where she was then living.
Question. 160: Surely this was not what you meant by your above Comment? Is it?
Answer. 160: Yes and no - but this certainly is as it is a confirmation of all events prior to or as a consequence of; Shortly after, she purchased a Smith & Wesson .357 Magnum, telling the salesman that she needed it for self-defence.
Question. 161: It must be acceptable in the USA with its Gun Law possession Laws for the salesman to sell the mentioned weapons to Laurie?
Answer 162: One would have thought so - my guess there was other mitigating circumstances.
A Psychotic is always the most successful salesperson one could imagine.
However as we are told Laurie always wore gloves - this in the absence of desperation of the impending sale should have raised flags of warning - not to sell to this vulnerable and nervous young woman.
Question. 163: But what are the Police to do?
When they showed concern about Laurie’s gun ownership and unsuccessfully tried to persuade her and her family that she should give up the gun.
Answer. 163: Is it not fair to say - where there is a will there is a way.
Had the Parents been aware of the monster they had created they would have imposed the same influence as that used in Laurie’s creation and with the understanding involved - if only with the weapons she would have willingly given them up - as they were nothing to do with the situation at all.
Question 164: So are we beginning to demonstrate your point - ALL illness has an element of Munchausen’s intrinsic to whatever illness so diagnosed?
Answer 164: Yes indeed this is what may be considered Laurie’s very first recognisable sign recognisable by others - In August 1986 she contacted her ex-boyfriend, who was by then a resident at a hospital and claimed to have had his Child.
Question. 165: Were the other signs?
Answer. 165: Sadly this is steeped in the long-standing attitude practiced by so many - disbelief.
“When he refused to believe her, Laurie called the hospital where he worked and claimed he had raped her in the emergency room.”
This could easily have been true - but disbelief would dismiss it anyway.
As could these; In September 1986, Russell Dann reported he had been stabbed in his sleep with an ice pick.
He accused Laurie of the crime, although he had not actually seen his attacker.
The Police decided not to press charges against Laurie based on a medical report which suggested that the injury might have been self-inflicted and Russell's abrasive attitude towards the Police and his failed polygraph test.
Had the Police adopted a Believe and Disbelieve at the same time and had knowledge of the Emotional Phenotype.
There would have been a clue when Russell failed a Polygraph Test.
A Psychotic will always create in an innocent Person...
...activities far outside their normal rage.
Question. 166: Is this a demonstration of the above?
Russell and his family continued to receive harassing hang-up phone calls and Laurie was arrested for calls made to Russell's sister?
The charges were dropped due to lack of evidence?
Answer. 166: Yes if one fails to collect the time-line of information presented to you in your professional capacity - this can only be the outcome.
A psychotic is unbelievably plausible in everything they do.
Question. 167: Is this demonstration of Psychotic activity?
“Just before their divorce was finalized in April 1987, Laurie accused Russell of raping her with a steak knife?” “There were no physical signs supporting Laurie's claim,"
"although she passed two polygraph tests?”
Further exacerbated when Laurie accused Russell In May 1987, of placing an incendiary device in her home.” “No charges were filed against Russell for either alleged event.”
Answer. 167: How many clues does a person have to demonstrate the deep requirement to be - understood.
Question. 168: What is the reasoning;? despite all of the prevailing evidence - Laurie's Parents believed her claims, supported and defended her throughout?
Answer. 168: Perhaps the first sign of Munchausen in the Parent, which by Medical Terminology makes Laurie and her activity - By Proxy.
Question. 169: How on earth do you make that connection?
Answer. 169: Whilst it is a Fundamental Right for a Parent to support their Children - surely we must also recognise it is a Right removed if their Children do something as illegal as Laurie.
In this case it could not be right - as Laurie was doing exactly as they had brought her up to be - under their proxy spell.
Question. 170: Are you saying Laurie knew exactly what she was doing at all times?
Answer. 170: Yes precisely and with great deliberation as to the outcome - she would make no mistakes.
What she would not be able to be in possession of and is the sole reason for all of her activity is “WHY.”
Question. 171: So there a hidden but serious implication in Laurie’s ongoing activity?
By this time, Laurie Dann was being treated by another psychiatrist for obsessive-compulsive disorder and a "chemical imbalance;" the Psychiatrist told Police that he did not think Laurie was Suicidal or Homicidal.
Answer. 171: Yes this may well have been one of the or the final straw that broke the back of Laurie’s downfall and demise.
Question. 172: How or why?
Answer. 173: There are three points of interest here.
A. OCD is no more than an Emotional Phenotype Expression and as such beyond treatment, treating the EP especially with any form of medication is only creating madness.
B. As indeed is the so-called Chemical Imbalance - attempt to chemically balance this at your peril.
C. Any so called trained medical person making such guesstimates like this - is little less than a snake oil salesman fraud.
The subconscious Mind will always show you to be WRONG.
Question. 174: Surely Laurie had some good points going for her?
Answer. 174: It appears there was a mixture of good and bad.
Laurie Dann worked as a baby sitter and some employers were happy with the care she provided their Children.
Others made complaints to the Police about damage to their furniture and the theft of food and clothes.
Despite the complaints, no charges were pressed.
However Laurie’s Father did pay for damages in one case.
Question. 175: These contradictory comments do not make any sense at all?
Answer. 175: Surely we have to consider once again; because NO ONE will accept the Mind is our Master - for good or Bad; all institutions will only work to ease their workload or cover their tail end.
Is it possible in a small town in the late Nineteen Eighties Laurie’s Father of financial security exerted - local influence in the proceedings!
Thereby making all appear to bury their collective heads in the Sand and forgetting about their Tail sticking up - still being vulnerable.
Question. 176: It appears Laurie is by People who should know better now - being driven from bad to worse; to disaster level?
Answer. 176: In the summer of 1987. Laurie sublet a university apartment in Evanston, Illinois.
Once again, her strange behaviour was noted, including riding up and down in elevators for hours, wearing rubber gloves to touch metal and leaving meat to rot in sofa cushions.
She took no classes at the university, but made friends in fraternities on campus and dated some of the fraternity brothers.
And still People either stood back and did nothing or were taken in by the Psychotic smooth talk of Laurie.
Question. 177: Is there no one - even today 2015 who will stand up and do something?
Answer. 177: On the face of it one would think so.
In the fall of 1987. Laurie claimed she had received threatening letters from Russell and that he had sexually assaulted her in a parking lot, but the police did not believe her.
A few weeks later she purchased a .32-caliber Smith & Wesson revolver.
With her condition deteriorating. Laurie and her family sought specialised help.
In November 1987, she moved to Madison, Wisconsin, to live in a student residence while being observed by a Psychiatrist who specialized in obsessive-compulsive disorder.
She had already begun taking clomipramine, a drug for OCD and her new Psychiatrist increased the dosage, adding Lithium carbonate to reduce her mood swings and initiating behavioural therapy to work on her phobias and ritualistic behaviours.
Question. 178: Was there - could there be any beneficial outcome for the treatment Laurie received?
Answer. 178: Despite the now Three Types of intervention and a forth on the way, her strange behaviour continued, including riding elevators for long periods, changing television channels repetitively and an obsession with, "good" and "bad" numbers.
There were also concerns about whether she was - “bulimic.”
Question. 179: It appears to me any form of intervention is only making her worse? But why?
Answer. 179: Laurie purchased a .22 semi-automatic Beretta at the end of December 1987. In March 1988, she stopped attending her appointments with the psychiatrist and behaviour therapist.
At about the same time, she began to make preparations for the attacks.
She stole books from the library on Poisons and Diluted Arsenic and other chemicals from a lab.
She also shoplifted clothes and wigs to disguise herself and was arrested for theft on one occasion.
Both her psychiatrist and her Father tried to persuade her to enter the hospital as an inpatient, but she refused.
Laurie continued to make numerous hang-up phone calls to her former in-laws, friends and baby sitting clients.
Eventually, the calls escalated to death threats.
An ex-boyfriend and his wife also received dozens of threatening calls. In May 1988, a letter, later confirmed to have been sent by Laurie, was sent to the hospital administration where her ex-boyfriend then worked, again accusing him of sexual assault.
It appears as all of the institutions are involved always have the accountant looking over their shoulder observing the cost against outcome - they all become activity blind, unable to do anything until an outcome is observable.
With every activity and professional intervention that did not "understand" "Why," the only option was for Laurie Automatically to deteriorate in her actions.
Question. 180: There surely has to come a time when someone does something positive if only in Laurie’s best interest?
Answer. 180: Since the phone calls were across state lines, the FBI became involved and a federal indictment against Laurie was prepared.
However were they able to adopt the Believe-Disbelieve protocol the outcome may well have been different.
However, the ex-boyfriend, fearful of publicity and concerned about Laurie getting bail and then attempting to fulfil her threats against him, decided to wait until other charges were filed in Illinois. Attempting to be. “Prepared,” yet “Fearful.”
Question. 182: Or is there a hidden agenda going on here? "the ex-boyfriend, fearful of publicity."
Answer. 182: But. "Why," was he fearful, what if anything did he have to hide.
Question. 183: Can it get any worse for all concerned as well as Laurie - who it is clear to see is as much a Victim as a Perpetrator here?
Answer. 184: In May 1988, a janitor found her lying in the foetal position inside a garbage bag in a trash room.
This precipitated a search of her room and her departure back to Glencoe.
During the days before May 20th 1988, Laurie prepared Rice Cereal Snacks and juice boxes poisoned with the Diluted Arsenic she had stolen in Madison.
She mailed them to a former female friend, ex-baby sitting clients, her Psychiatrist, Russell Dann and others.
In the early morning of May 20th, she personally delivered snacks and juice "samples" to other friends, acquaintances and families for whom she had baby-sat, some of whom had not seen her for years.
Other snacks were delivered to Alpha Tau Omega, Psi Upsilon, and Kappa Sigma fraternity houses and Leverone Hall at North-western University in Evanston.
Notes were attached to some of the deliveries.
The drinks were often leaking and the snacks unpleasant tasting, so few were actually consumed.
In addition, the arsenic was highly diluted so nobody became seriously ill.
Still it appears - no one took any definitive action.
Question. 185: I am beginning to understand it is onlookers who caused the real concerns with Laurie?
Answer. 185: Not quite the truth of it for, at the very heart of all of Laurie’s concerns are her Parents, the onlookers were just contributory agents.
Who by default confirmed Laurie’s beliefs.
Question. 186: How can this be justified, as everyone would say it was Laurie who was out of control?
Answer. 186: Of course they would - Cannot have Parents taking the blame can we as it upsets Human evolutionary control mechanisms.
At about 9:00 a.m. on the 20th, Laurie arrived at the home of the Rushe family, former baby sitting clients in Winnetka, Illinois to pick up their two youngest Children.
The family had just told Laurie they were. “MOVING AWAY.”
A most serious let down or you do not. "Understand" for Laurie.
Instead of taking the Children on the promised outing, she took them to Ravinia Elementary School in Highland Park, Illinois, where she erroneously believed that both of her former sister-in-law's sons were enrolled, in fact, one of Laurie’s intended targets - was not even a student at the school.
She left the two Children in the car while she entered the school and tried to detonate a firebomb in one of the school's hallways.
After Laurie’s departure, the small fire she set was subsequently discovered by students and quickly extinguished by a teacher.
She drove to a local day care attended by her ex-sister-in-law's daughter and tried to enter the building with a plastic can of gasoline, but was stopped by staff.
Next Laurie drove the Children back to their home and offered them some arsenic-poisoned milk, but the boys spat it out because it tasted strange to them.
Once at their home, she lured them downstairs and used gasoline to set fire to the house, trapping their Mother and the two Children in the basement - they managed to escape.
She drove three and a half blocks to the Hubbard Woods Elementary School - with three handguns in her possession.
She wandered into a second grade classroom for a short while, then left.
Finding a boy in the corridor, Laurie pushed him into the boys' washroom and shot him with a .22 semi-automatic Beretta pistol.
Her Smith & Wesson .357 Magnum revolver jammed when she tried to fire it at two other boys - so she threw it into the trash along with the spare ammunition.
The boys ran out of the washroom and raised the alarm.
Laurie then re-entered the second grade classroom where Students were working in groups on a bicycle safety test.
She ordered all the Children into the corner of the room.
The Teacher refused and attempted to disarm Laurie, managing to unload the Beretta in the struggle.
Laurie drew a .32 Smith & Wesson from the waistband of her shorts and aimed it at the several groups of students.
She shot five Children, killing eight-year-old Nicholas Corwin and wounding two girls and two boys before fleeing in her car.
Laurie was prevented from leaving the area by car because the roads were closed for a funeral cortege.
She decided to drive her car backwards down the nearby street, but the road dead-ended into a private drive.
Abandoning her car, she removed her bloodstained shorts and tied a blue garbage bag around her waist.
There are so many clues here all missed by so many People in Laurie’s Life - clearly the worst of them is how did she obtain so many firearms.
Was there a profit motive by the retailer.
Question. 187: This surely can only become worse or reach a no return situation?
Answer. 187: Correct; With her “two” remaining “guns,” she made her way through the woods and came upon the house of the Andrew family.
Laurie entered the house and met a mother and her twenty-year-old son, who were in the kitchen.
She claimed she was raped and had shot the rapist in the struggle.
The Andrews were sympathetic and tried to convince her that she need not fear the Police because she had acted in self-defence.
Mrs. Andrew gave Laurie a pair of her daughter's pants to wear.
While she was putting them on, Philip Andrew was able to pick up and pocket the Beretta.
He suggested that she call her family. Laurie agreed and called her Mother, telling her she had done something terrible and that the police were involved.
Philip took the phone and explained Laurie’s story about the rape and shooting, suggesting that Mrs. Wasserman come to get Laurie; Mrs. Wasserman said she could not come because she did not have a car.
Or is there a more powerful message here!
Mr. Andrew arrived home and they continued to argue with Laurie, insisting she give up the third gun.
Laurie called her Mother again and this time Mr. Andrew spoke with Mrs. Wasserman, asking her to persuade Laurie to give up the gun.
While Laurie spoke with her Mother, Mrs. Andrew left the house and alerted the Police.
Mr. Andrew told Laurie that he would not remain in the house if she did not put down the gun and also left the house.
Laurie ordered Philip to stay.
Just before noon, seeing the Police advancing on the house she shot Philip in the chest, but he managed to escape out the back door before collapsing and being rescued by the Police and Ambulance personnel.
With the house surrounded, Laurie went upstairs to a bedroom.
The Wassermans and Russell Dann were brought to the house.
At about 7:00 p.m, an assault team entered the house while Mr. Wasserman attempted to get Laurie’s attention with a bullhorn.
The police found her Body in the bedroom; she had shot herself in the mouth.
Question. 188: Am I to understand and the reason you have included all of this information is the Aftermath - or the clear up situation?
Answer. 188: Yes you are correct. All but one of the victims wounded by Laurie recovered from their injuries, including the schoolgirl who was shot suffering severe internal injuries.
The victims, school Children and Parents received extensive support to help them cope with the psychological after-effects of the attacks.
Parents and members of the community subsequently devoted many years to gun control policy.
Philip Andrew gave interviews about gun control from his hospital bed and later became active in local and state gun control organizations as the executive director of the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence; he subsequently became a lawyer and then an FBI agent.
The Laurie Dann shootings also fuelled the debate about criteria for committing Mentally ill people to Mental health facilities against their will.
Some favoured the involuntary commitment of a Person who is determined to be Mentally ill and incapable of making informed decisions about treatment; civil libertarians opposed the idea saying, "It would be a shame if we cut back on the civil liberties of literally millions of Mentally ill People because of the occasional bizarre incident."
Question. 189: Is there was there a lesson to be learned with this tragedy?
Answer. 189: Yes collate the time line of events and act earlier.
A book called Murder of Innocence was written by Eric Zorn about the tragedy and a made-for-television film of the same name was based on it.
In the film, Laurie Dann's name is changed to Laurie Waide.
Question. 190: But like always that tells me about it but not why?
Answer. 190. : It appears there was a search for a rationale… Some blamed Laurie Dann's family for defending and protecting her in spite of the signs of her deteriorating Mental Health.
Investigations were hampered by the Wassermans' refusal to be interviewed by Police or to provide access to Laurie Dann's psychiatric records - the records were eventually obtained by court order.
On the night of Laurie Dann's death, the Wassermans allowed only a very brief search of her bedroom, after which they cleaned it and removed potential evidence.
The police were criticized for not sealing off Laurie Dann's room as part of the crime scene.
Parents of the shooting victims subsequently sued the Wasserman family for damages.
Further criticism was directed at Laurie Dann's Psychiatrists for failing to identify or take action regarding the signs of her decreasing mental stability.
At the time of her suicide, Laurie was taking an unlicensed drug called anafranil - generic name: clomipramine.
The effects of this drug were initially considered as contributing factors to her mental well-being, but ultimately ruled out.
Two newspaper clippings were found among Laurie’s possessions after her death.
One described a man who randomly killed two People in a public building.
The other described a depressed young man who had attempted to commit suicide in the same way that Laurie did; he survived and discovered that his Brain injury had cured him of his obsessive-compulsive disorder.
Notice the Parents were never of accused of creating Lauries illness.
Was this really a demonstration OCD is a Brain or Mind function.
One theory of Laurie’s rationale was that she targeted People who like the Family that moved away "disappointed" (Did not could not understand) her in some way: The same applied to - her ex-husband, her former sister-in-law - through to the firebombing attempts at her Children's schools and day care, her ex-boyfriend and his wife, as well as former friends and baby sitting clients.
If one absorbs the above information instead of just reading it one should be able to see it is only the Emotional Phenotype that is under consideration and there are Three items that are seriously noticeable by their absence.
A. Not once was the situation of Laurie’s Traumatised Mind mentioned.
B. Not once was the Parents truly implicated in the cause of Laurie’s life long struggle to be "understood."
C. No professional stood up and accepted responsibility for their implication in all that Laurie achieved in pursuit of being understood.
Question. 191: Are you saying Our Human Healthcare System was not only against Laurie all the time - it actually created everything they were able to blame Laurie for?
Answer. 191: Yes that is exactly what I am saying and if we are to put a Scientifically Proven or accepted name to the entire outcome it would surely have to be Munchausen’s and or by Proxy as all of Laurie’s activities were created by Significant others in her life and none of them in real terms realised same; or most certainly would not take responsibility by shouting...;
“...Laurie was Not the Daughter WE brought into this world.”
Question. 192: According to some scholars writing; The Myth of Male Power, there is suggestion that Laurie Dann's actions were an example of Women's violence against Men, claiming that all of Laurie’s victims were male, demonstrated by - she burned down a Young Men's Jewish Council, burned two boys in a basement, shot her own son and killed a rapist?
What is your understanding of this and are you alone?
Answer. 192: Whilst it is said these claims have subsequently been assigned as ridiculous and I would concur - I would in reality question the truth of the outcome of this; as Women still today in 2015 are not by many, given to having much emotional stability.
A debate which does not meet with my approval and yes it does somewhat appear I am on my own.
Question. 193: What is the Emotional Phenotype saying here?
Answer. 193: It must surely be imperative we consider Laurie actions whilst appearing to be an example of Women's violence against Men - is no more than Scientific Distraction as it all appears to point towards her Father...
...who should have been a man instead of a controlling Monster himself.
Question. 194: Whilst I have to consider your points are rather open to further discussion, are there any organisations who appear to support this misbegotten belief?
Answer. 194: Yes there is an organization called Equal Parents, who in public discussions relating to Child custody and access, who have repeated these claims.
Question. 195: Bearing in Mind this story is now some Twenty-Five years old - does it appear there have been recent studies or understandings relating to why Laurie carried out her activities?
Answer. 195: It appears; Academics have been reported as having discussed the matter in their monographs - writing on a single subject.
Sadly whilst my search has not been exhaustive I am unable to say whether their new findings if any - have been accepted into Medical Understandings.
Question 196: What about that seriously negative report “The Myth of Male Power,” has any Person attempted to review the statement made?
Answer. 196: It appears the writer later issued a correction on a web site.
One may question. “Was that person pushed or Shoved.”
Question. 197: One may consider you are somewhat Psychotic going into so much seemingly unnecessary detail in a case that has already been confined to the History books?
Answer. 197: Me Psychotic - never; I am Mad as hell Medical Science is still so blind.
May I reiterate this became a stark reality - because NO ONE would go into the detail required, as it was not in their remit or financial control.
I have neither of these restriction to shackle my thinking.
I would prefer to return a Person to well health rather than be on the teams that insidiously create ill health.
Question. 198: Here within is a lot of information that started with Munchausens’s Syndrome and ended up talking about a troubled young women with many different life problems to deal with - yet does not appear to be connected with the discussion.
There is obviously a method in your Madness perhaps you will now explain to us Why did Laurie’s problems start and
how Munchausen’s Syndrome is intrinsically linked as you have suggested - to all illness?
Answer. 198: Of course - first we have to take into consideration never once have I directly treated a Person with Munchausens’s Syndrome, by Proxy or Factitious Disorder - or have I ever heard of a Person having been diagnosed, with such a syndrome.
Question. 199: May we finally look as simply as we are able as to how this activity - as was Lauries, is created and how it becomes Munchausen’s and implicated in ALL illness?
Answer. 199: Yes of course.
Children as aspiring Parents are placed in a position by their Parents of - through imposed - traumatic Fear and as a result having to create a Rule that cannot be broken. With
"I will find someone who will be able to "understand" and assist me in making sense of this situation."
Yet the Mind at this time is extremely clever at the same time, if at least, or just one Person is able to demonstrate beyond contradiction - they truly understand, even though they have never experienced the disorder themselves it sets up a - “way out clause.”
Or a way the Mind Body symptoms can be resolved using their own immune and body replication systems.
Yet must not be considered as or to be confused by anyone least of all the Person themselves as - A back door way out, this would be seen by the Subconscious Mind as admitting defeat or it was wrong in the protection afforded and the symptoms created at the time of trauma.
The Mind then buries the negative thoughts and the rule in the deepest or may we say - secret areas of the Mind.
Thus is most seriously not only protected from inappropriate understandings - treatments, but also seriously protective from being traumatised again in the same manner or by the same People.
This is the time or area of the Mind at the very heart of so-called Genetic illness or Congenital disorders - Parents via their Entire Body Chemistry prior to conception of their own Child/Children impose this chemistry on their Child.
Father until conception, Mother thereafter.
As the Child during confinement at and from birth - matures to Adulthood there is a thought process going on in their Mind - again not necessarily recognised within the so-called Conscious Activity or thoughts...
“...I will not bring my Children into the world to suffer in the same manner as I.”
Very few if any Humans are free of this as it is seen as a Natural and therefore correct desire and in the absence of any traumas will bring up Children free of illnesses.
This secret area will only be accessible to a Person/Therapist who provides an Understanding of a greater magnitude than the Parents and the Traumas they created - are able to muster.
Although this rule is seemingly forgotten by the Child; it remains as active as though it was on a second by second bases - within the thoughts of the Persons Mind.
This activity is Anxiety - whether recognised or not by the Person , thus it has to be relieved on a second by second bases.
Demonstrated by Hyper Activity constant chattering and/or special life and often Negative activities and abilities.
Better known as the Emotional Phenotype.
One of the ways a Child is able to relieve this Anxiety is noticeable when of an age to have independent Friends and later Form Relationships.
With incredible skill and memory ability such an affected Person will manipulate another into being their Punitive - punishing. Person, as a substitute to the original punishing Person.
For one and one reason and desired outcome only; to have the Traumas - understood, created by the Parents resolved and the Fearsome Grip released.
When this is not the case the Punitive Person has somewhat outlived their purpose, thus has to be replaced - however it must always be THEIR FAULT (Punitive Person,) never the Person themselves.
When conceived of such an affected Parent - and their Child so disposed, grows up; they will in turn have their own version of. “I will not let my Children grow up to suffer in the same manner as I.”
Neither of them will ever be able to see everything they ever do is not absolutely the correct and only thing to do under the now forgotten circumstances or rule.
Perhaps we are able to see this disorder is driven by a Mind stored Fear and not driven by a psychiatric disorder (symptom) or psychological trauma (medical science misinformation) to draw attention, sympathy, or reassurance to themselves.
Moreover until Scientific Medicine becomes involved - bears no physical signs and or symptoms.
This situation possibly creates the broad statistics of survivors of Child Abuse in general, where around 30% go on to also become abusers even though a significant percentage do not.
Here we have not only the Birth of so-called Traditional Values but also of Munchausen’s Syndrome as the foundation or intrinsic to all illness - no exceptions.
A Parent who appears to be unusually calm in the face of serious difficulties in their Child's medical course while being highly supportive and encouraging of the physician, or one who is angry, devalues staff and demands further intervention, more procedures, second opinions and transfers to other more sophisticated facilities - SHOULD NEVER EVER BE ALLOWED INTO THE SURGERY.
A Victim of Munchausen’s Syndrome may learn that they are most likely to receive the positive maternal attention they crave when they are playing the sick role in front of health care providers.
What they will not learn is - they are seeking Understanding and nothing else.
Moreover a caregiver may appear to wish to harm a Child out of malice and then attempt to conceal it as illness to avoid detection of abuse in order to draw attention and sympathy or attempting to utilise their experience of medical interventions.
Is in reality only seeking - Understanding - Nothing Else.
An emotionally distant relationship between Parents or when they are not actively involved in the abuse, especially the Fathers who play a passive role in the lives of MSbP victims are often described as being distant, emotionally disengaged and powerless - yet must be considered as destructive in their absence as they would be if they were the direct abuser.
Male guardians - whether active in any form of abuse or not will only be seen by the Child as a seriously negative influence.
Whether Guardians visit the hospitalised Patient and has little contact with Physicians - even when the Child is hospitalised with a serious illness.
Is of no concern they will only be seen as abusers either way - although the Child would not be able or often as not, allowed to verbalise their concerns; as they are never believed.
Usually, Parents will vehemently deny the possibility of abuse, even in the face of overwhelming evidence or their Child’s Pleas for Help.
For my part, I would consign the label MSBP to the history books and however useful FII may apparently be to the Child Protection Practitioner and caution against its use other than as a Factual Description of a series of incidents or behaviours that should then be accurately set out and NEVER at the hands of a paediatrician or psychiatrist/psychologist, with drug management the only treatment they have to offer.
Although this Paper is to maximize the nature and extent of professional debate about this issue which must remain significant, it is not the intention to “minimize,” the extreme nature of the risk that is identified in a small number of cases.
Surely it is imperative we recognise all Medical Science in the absence of knowing the true cause of illness and being in possession of a definitive cure - must be seen as an invention of a; "theoretical opinion without science" and of refusing to produce any real evidence to prove that any illness let alone Munchausen syndrome by proxy - actually exists.
Conclusion: The depth of this paper could be seen as too much information - and one would not disagree, however we must recognise the entire Medical profession with all its long history and research might be able to muster one definitive cure for any illness and one could consider these extracts from this paper which say it all..!
...Laurie: “Once again, her strange behaviour was noted, including riding up and down in elevators for hours, wearing rubber gloves to touch metal and leaving meat to rot in sofa cushions...
...UK Mother: She claimed her son suffered from a long list of illnesses including diabetes, food allergies, cerebral palsy and cystic fibrosis, describing him as "the most ill Child in Britain," receiving numerous cash donations and charity gifts, including two cruises.”
There should be enough information or clues here - indeed there are for Talking Cures, to mount an effective treatment regime - if indeed Laurie or her Parents would have let me close.
Is this the true Blueprint of illness and will - not what will, the entire Medical Procession learn from the content included.
Question. 200: May we now summarise in really simple terms the progress from originating cause to Mind and or Body symptoms?
Answer. 200: Everything from conception through to life as we know it - we see hear or feel that is of a negative (Traumatic) content will place us in Fear.
Fear irrevocably alters the Entire Body Chemistry. NO external - Chemicals, Diet, Exercise, Positive affirmations input, will ever be able to alter.
These chemicals act as exciter of the Mind and in tandem cause Anxiety - which must always and only be relieved.
As a protection against further abuse we unwittingly create symptoms - Every illness we will ever have in our life is created at this time; further life style traumas - will only add to or confirm the list.
We never get ill as a result of just aging or by simply contracting a disease.
In order to ensure; "we" do not pass this on to our Children; "we" as Parents; create Rules and Traditional Values; not only our Children cannot adhere to - although it may appear they do - the reality is they never do adhere to this form of education - no more than they can.
These very rules insidiously along with the Mind created Body Chemistry create a life style and to others often a bizarre activity - which appears and feels to the affected Person quite comfortable and Normal.
Onlookers feeling they KNOW better - in reality they are only enforcing the Rules and Traditional activities onto a Person who has no option but to Automatically create based on aged negative memories - even more bizarre health and life style activities.
Here is where any inappropriate input from a Medically Qualified practitioner will always and only make a Person: really ill, Mad, or a Murderer - now if we really have to use a useless name - Munchausens. By Proxy is just a pathetic attempt to makes sense of what is too difficult to make sense of.
This process is Inherent in ALL ILLNESS no matter how it appears to be caused or affects a Person.
Although Parents are responsible for the initial cause of all illness they are not in any manner Guilty.
As are any significant Person’s in a Childs life.
There are no exceptions to this - as illness post any form of traumatic experience is created by ourselves on an individual bases - thus is unique to each and every one of us.
In order to incorporate this into our lives and therapeutic practice we must change Munchausens, to all illness - to “Understanding" required and any form of. "Management" will only make the illness worse, in addition recognise...
...People do not deliberately produce, feign, or exaggerate symptoms....
"...UNDERSTANDING THEY SEEK"
Factitious Disorder imposed on another - It is said there is a perpetual excitement within Medial Science of always seeking a better understanding of illness and its cause - it is hoped this paper educates and excites instead of pulling the hypothetical rug from under the excitement of Medical Science and all of its front line clinician agents.
When one considers in the past Four Thousand Years of illness intervention and not one definitive cure for one illness - one would wonder; just who is or is not - pulling the rug.
To the point those in Clinical Institutions know what they do - however...
...like Munchausens Syndrome sufferers not WHY.
Munchausens Syndrome a volume sound source - from no sound to deafening; = illness does not exist - only as say a hyper- active child, to - so loud;
NO ONE HEARS!
Kindest regards and best wishes
Peter Smith Talking Cures
Romel Cordeiro Body Smart Clinic - Nerve Pain Solution.
I respect your views and I am glad that you are writing here for all of us to learn the relationship illness and mind.
I can see your seriousness as you wrote this last post, but for me that is a positive experience that helps me stand stronger and also learning from you how to stand for ourselves.
Learning also that the so-called scientific answers, researches, propositions in medicine is not what they say it is and you help me to see through their marketing process with financial gains as the solely purpose.
My idea of you writing a book was more for your views to get out into the alternative medicine world, so they could also see the relationship Mind /illness.
But I can also see that if anyone read all the posts you have written, that the information is also here as in a book it would be.
Thanks for your work and keep it up, we are enjoying the process.
Romel Cordeiro Body Smart Clinic - Nerve Pain Solution.
Very illuminating posts, I see the events as you mention, everyday in clinic, all the test in the world and the results are inconclusive most of the time.
Money exchanged hands and no real answers.
"Answer: Somewhat gives that impression - does it not! Can anything be more disrespectful that a Doctor saying after all of the tests have been carried out "We do not know the cause and have no cures" to a multiple symptom suffering Patient"
...In illness - The Mind/Brain/Body is not in the slightest doing something wrong, it is desperately trying to right a serious and terrible wrong?
"No apologies are made if this paper is seen as repeating or simplistic, for too long Scientific Medical Papers have been written in a manner no one truly understands, if this were not so, cures would have long since been found making this paper and Talking Cures unnecessary or redundant.
Whilst it must be recognised, the framework for this paper is in the public domain and credit given to the authors; Peter Smith Talking Cures asserts the right to be recognised as author and Intellectual ©Copyright holder of his contribution to this document.
"Munchausens Syndrome Explored Explained Understood."
Dated 21st April 2016.
Thus, this document is free to use as an education or Patient led assistance in its entirety.
Talking Cures is a Twenty First Century Medicine...
...able to treat multiple symptoms of Mind and Body in a Person.
Via Telephone 01702 603030 or Skype. Talking.Cures
Criticisms and comments however harsh are welcomed and warmly responded too and seen as an accolade far greater than a United Kingdom Knighthood or Noble Prize.
Please feel invited to mail with questions or comments about this web site
Peter Smith Talking Cures asserts the right to be recognised as author and Intellectual ©Copyright holder - unless specifically stated - of all documents on this website.
These Articles may be printed and distributed at will but published in original form only with the consent of the copyright owner with the necessary authors contact details added.
firstname.lastname@example.org Peter E Smith Talking Cures Is available for Talks and Presentations to Groups of any Size or interest.
107 Victoria Road Southend on Sea Essex SS1 2TF United Kingdom. 01702 603030
Talking Cures is on the register of the Information Commissioner under the Data Protection Act and takes data protection and confidentiality very seriously and can confirm not at any time now or in the future will this site use any form of web site searching techniques to collect information of visitors to this site and if a person decided to email Talking Cures for further information, never will email or other contact information be sold, shown, loaned, or given to third parties. Registration Number Z214793X