Visit our Re-post guidelines
Münchausen syndrome is an illness where the patient repeatedly reports or exaggerates an illness to receive medical attention.
"Münchausen syndrome by proxy" used to describe the behavior pattern where a caregiver deliberately (unconsciously or not) exaggerates, fabricates, or induces physical, psychological, behavioral, or mental health problems in someone who is in their care.
It is generally used to describe a person, or an individual. However, corporations have been defined as individuals - and on March 6th, the Standard Examine suggested that Congress has "Münchausen syndrome by proxy" because they are the caretaker of "well, us: the country, our economy, postal services, meat inspections, air traffic control, infrastructure, law enforcement, military, credit rating, commerce..."
The article goes on: "This disorder can sometimes be traced to an early legit emergency, where the caregiver with FDbP (Münchausen syndrome by proxy, aka Factious Disorder by Proxy) first experiences the rush of admiration they'll later crave."
The article gives the example:
"So the idea was planted: The country in peril equals Republicans to the rescue! Even more important: Republican ideas — no matter how unsound — getting implemented.
"My child is SICK — quick cut taxes!!""
Now I have to say that when I read this article, my thoughts immediately went to Angelina Jolie. Is it possible that the clinic that treated her is also suffering from Münchausen syndrome by Proxy?
When I read independent reports about Angelina's 'illness', I learn that there is no illness. There was no emergency. There were no symptoms. Only a genetic test that:
according to Angelina "the BRCA1 gene mutation, which gives her an 87% risk of developing breast cancer at some point in her life".
And now that her breast have been removed, she says: "her risk of breast cancer is now reduced to a mere 5 percent"
but... according to GreenMedInfo: " thousands of "mutations" in the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes have already been identified and characterized on a molecular level, adding much more complexity to the picture than the present level of medical knowledge"
and "some of these so-called "mutations" actually REDUCE the risk of breast cancer. BRCA1 variation K1 183R is related inversely to cancer risk"
and "research exists showing that BRCA2 mutation carriers and non-carriers have similar breast cancer-specific rates of breast-cancer specific death"
and " although BRCA positive patients have more frequently negative prognostic factors, their prognosis appears to be equal to or better than in patients with normal, also known as wild-type, BRCA"
NaturalNews.com says "there are thousands of ways to prevent cancer and suppress the expression of BRCA1 genes. But Jolie and the cancer industry seem to imply no options exist other than chemotherapy, radiotherapy or surgery".
and "Cancer micro-tumors exist in everyone. Cancer must be "managed" in everyone to keep it in check and avoid the growth of tumors."
and "The cancer industry tricks women using unethical fear tactics to scare women with false statistics into high-profit cancer procedures that only cause them harm."
The National Cancer Institute says "about 12.0 percent of women .. will develop breast cancer sometime during their lives compared with about 60 percent of women who have inherited a harmful mutation in BRCA1 or BRCA2 "
60 percent is serious no doubt, but it is not the 87% that Angelina quoted from her doctors. But the National Cancer Institute goes on to say "It is important to note, however, that most research related to BRCA1 and BRCA2 has been done on large families with many individuals affected by cancer. ... it is possible that the large number of cancer cases seen in these families may be due in part to other genetic or environmental factors. ... risk estimates that are based on families with many affected members may not accurately reflect the levels of risk for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers in the general population."
and further, although Angelina used the words "lifetime risk" the National Cancer Institute says "no data are available from long-term studies of the general population comparing cancer risk in women who have harmful BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations with women who do not have such mutations."
It seems to me that, if the doctors recommending treatments to Angelina actually studied the genetics and the statistics available - they would NOT have made the statements that:
"the BRCA1 gene mutation, ... gives her an 87% risk of developing breast cancer at some point in her life".
And "her risk of breast cancer is now reduced to a mere 5 percent".
Unless they have access to some statistics and information not available to the National Cancer Institute? Or could it be, simply, that they are suffering from "Münchausen syndrome by proxy"?
I am in favor of Angelina's right to make decisions about her healthiness - and her risk of illness. But I believe we must take care, with all health freedoms, that our doctors are not motivated by conscious, or unconscious self interest.
to your health, tracy