Nobody Should Believe Me - Abuse Survivors and Victims Deserve Better than 'The Preventionist'

Episode Date: October 29, 2025

In response to Serial Productions’s series The Preventionist, we’re re-airing our episode “What’s Happening in Lehigh?”, where Andrea and Dr. Marc Feldman dive into the claims of “overdiagnosis” of Munchausen by Proxy in Lehigh, PA. This episode includes an intro covering some key details missing from Serial's reporting. *** This week Andrea is joined by Dr. Marc Feldman as she dives into the complexities and controversies surrounding medical child abuse and the developing story in Lehigh, PA about "overdiagnosis". They delve into the media’s role in shaping perceptions and the potential for a moral panic about doctors "falsely accusing" parents of child abuse. Andrea and Dr. Feldman address the challenges in protecting children, critiques of the healthcare and legal systems, and the broader social and political movement emerging from these cases. *** Tickets for NSBM Live - Seattle 3.18.26 https://tickets.thetripledoor.net/eventperformances.asp?evt=2181 Order Andrea’s book The Mother Next Door: Medicine, Deception, and Munchausen by Proxy.  Click here to view our sponsors. Remember that using our codes helps advertisers know you’re listening and helps us keep making the show!   Subscribe on YouTube where we have full episodes and lots of bonus content.  Follow Andrea on Instagram: @andreadunlop Buy Andrea's books here.  For more information and resources on Munchausen by Proxy, please visit MunchausenSupport.com The American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children’s MBP Practice Guidelines can be downloaded here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

True Story Media Hello, it's Andrea, and today I'm airing a special re-release of our episode about the ongoing situation in Lehigh, Pennsylvania. The reason I'm airing this conversation with Dr. Mark Feldman today is because, as many of you have messaged me about, serial productions is releasing a three-part series called The Preventionist about the child abuse pediatrician in question, Dr. Deborah Arsenio Jensen. It's striking to hear Sarah Koenig, one of the most famous true crime podcasters in existence, say in the trailer for this series that she's never heard anything like this story,

when the reality is that this story is so wrote that it follows pretty much the exact template I lay out in today's episode, which originally aired a year and a half ago. And after listening to all three episodes in the series, I'm also struck by how little the journalist Diane Neri actually came up with, despite the fact that according to her, she's been reporting on this story for two years, with the resources of serial, no less. And this isn't because there's no story here. I've also been following what's happening in Lehigh, and I'm planning a full season on the story. It's extremely complex and very interesting. It's just that, very little of it fits into the story that I strongly suspect Neri set out to tell here, that

child abuse pediatricians are too powerful and need to be checked. And as is so often the case with these stories, what Neri left out here speaks volumes. So I'm going to walk you through just a few of those omissions today, so that if you do listen to the series, you can do so with proper context. In the premiere episode, Neri introduces Mark Pinsley, a county controller who wrote an incendiary report about overdiagnosis of Munchausen by proxy in the Lehigh Valley. The series presents him as a kind of crusading underdog trying to help families. But Neri doesn't mention the enormous flaws in Pinsley's report, which is the subject of my episode with Mark that you'll hear in a moment. You may also be interested to know that Pinsley's

PAC, or Political Action Committee, recently received a $50,000 donation from the attorney leading the class action suit against Deborah Jensen and Lehigh Valley Health Network. The local news speculated that this was likely a record for a donation at the county level. Neri talks in the first episode about how Mark Pinsley first became aware of this alleged issue of overdiagnosis after hearing from a lawyer representing two parents who'd been accused of Munchausen by proxy. It's interesting to me that Neri names neither the, quote, author and lawyer representing the parents or the parents themselves, as both are readily discoverable. The lawyer in question is someone called Beth Allison Maloney, an author, attorney, and former

guardian ad litem with a pretty interesting history. There's too much to go into detail here, but a few quick facts that you might find relevant. Number one, Maloney was disciplined by the main board of overseers of the bar in 2016 for professional misconduct. The board found that she had filed non-meritorious legal claims, i.e. baseless claims, and had violated three ethical rules by, pursuing cases without a legal or factual basis, failing to act fairly towards opposing parties, and engaging in conduct that harmed the administration of justice. Maloney, for her part, acknowledged her misconduct, saying that her, quote, zeal for her client's causes interfered with her judgment. She received a public reprimand and agreed to stop handling contested family law cases, which might explain the career pivot.

Maloney is a vocal advocate against the child protective system. She is the author of the memoir, Saving Sammy, which is described as the story of one mother's fight against the medical establishment, and a book called Protecting Your Child from the Child Protection System, which provides advice for parents being in. investigated for abuse and includes special sections that address how mothers of medically complex children often face the, quote, medical kidnapping of their children and outlines steps to help reduce that risk. Maloney is also very active on TikTok, where she has more than 80,000 followers. She has a lot of videos about caps and Munchausen by proxy abuse like this. There's a lot of fear mongering going on right now that there are mothers with Munchausen by proxy all over the place. There's an epidemic of mothers in the country who are poisoning their

children and exaggerating their children's symptoms and the kids aren't really sick, the parents are making it all up. That is not true. Again, much more to come on Ms. Maloney. For now, I want to tell you about one of the families she's representing, who is described, but not named by Neri. According to Neri, the mom in question told her that both of her sons have complex medical needs, including autism and an autoimmune disorder and metabolic disorder respectively. She told Neri that after her older son suddenly began behaving erratically and was taken to Lehigh Valley Children's Hospital, the doctors diagnosed both parents with Munchausen Biproxy. Neri defines Munchausen by proxy as a psychological disorder and says that, quote,

it's a popular storyline in movies, but in reality, it's an incredibly rare condition. So first off, if you've listened to any of this show, you'll spot the issue with the description of Bunchausen by proxy as a rare psychological condition, rather than a form of abuse. It's presented this way because, and of course, how could two parents have the same rare psychological condition? But as we know for many cases, including Colin McDaniel's case that we covered last season, there are plenty of incidences where both parents are complicit in the abuse. The parents are not named in the series, but the people Neri is talking about here are Kimberly and Stephen Seltz, who are part of the class action lawsuit. This is a really complicated

case, but I want to give you a quick overview. In the Stelts' court filings, they report that the police were called to their home in 2022 when their then 16-year-old son, referred to as MS, was, according to them, having a mental health episode. MS subsequently ended up at the hospital, where he disclosed to the staff there, including Dr. Asrnyo Jensen, that he and his younger brother were being abused. MS ultimately became emancipated from his parents so that he could make his own medical decisions and went to live with another family. He remains estranged from his parents. So it wasn't doctors who blew the whistle on the Steltses. It was their own child. In their civil suit, the Steltses accused their son of lying about his abuse, saying that he has

mental health and substance abuse issues and that he was coached by opportunistic doctors on how to make his allegations stick. They go on to say in the lawsuit that both CHOP, Children's Hospital of Pennsylvania, and MS's longtime pediatrician, were pressured by Jensen and LVHN to support the abuse allegations. Stelts' younger son was ultimately returned to their care after a lengthy battle with CYS. Interestingly, MS, the older son, has recently turned 18, and he recently filed his own intent to sue a number of the hospitals who treated him. Again, much more to come as this whole story evolves. Neri opens the series with a heartbreaking anecdote from a, quote, strikingly pretty young mom about losing her baby. And again, Neri doesn't name her.

And I'm a mom who lost everything in less than 24 hours due to one doctor. doctor's misdiagnosis. Dr. Jensen needs to be fully and entirely under investigation. Her diagnoses should not hold up in court any longer. She has falsified parents too many times. Enough is enough. The woman the soundbite belongs to is Reno Iori, who is currently under investigation by CYS and whose boyfriend, Asa Askiola, has been criminally charged with abusing their baby and is awaiting trial. According to court records and local news reports, ASA was charged with multiple felonies, including six counts of aggravated assault, four counts of child endangerment, and one count of simple assault, after police responded to a call

about a two-month-old baby who had stopped breathing while being bottle-fed. The infant was eventually transferred to a Lehigh Valley Health Network facility, where doctors diagnosed abusive head trauma, brain hemorrhages, bruising, and healing fractures. A later skeletal survey revealed additional healing breaks in the clavicle, ribs, and leg. During a police interview, Askeola reportedly admitted to, quote, minor shaking, while trying to resuscitate the child and said the baby's, quote, brain issue probably happened because of the shaking. Askiola and Eoreo are part of the lawsuit, and they claim that all of this was a result of false allegations by Dr. Jensen and a number of other doctors at LVHN, and that the doctors pressured the police and prosecutors to go forward with charges. So, that's some context for episode one. We'll be back next week with more on episodes two and three.

And some final thoughts before our conversation with Mark. If you'll recall, Diane Neary wrote a very similar piece on Dr. Sally Smith for New York Magazine. And throughout this series and her reporting on the Kowalski case, she demonstrates a profound unwillingness to grapple with the risks of doctors being more cautious about reporting abuse. Namely, that children could be sent back into households where they will continue to be harmed and in some cases will die as a result of. of their abuse. We talked about such a case in our last season with Colin McDaniel and are wrapping up our coverage on another one tomorrow with the rest of the Olivia Gantz story. I'm not saying that we shouldn't consider parents' rights and the potential trauma of removing children from their home, but there's no evidence that there's a systemic lack of caution around abuse

diagnoses. So my question for Diane Neri is this. If you think doctors should be more cautious about diagnosing abuse to ensure that parents' rights are protected, how many children are you willing to sacrifice to accomplish that, because that is the choice. And it's one that people on the ground do have to grapple with. It's one that I'm constantly grappling with. And the reality is that it isn't without precedent for something to slip through the cracks, even with all the resources of cereal in the New York Times. In 2018, an NYT podcast called Caliphate was discredited after its central source, a man who claimed to have been an ISIS executioner, was revealed to have fabricated his story. The Times retracted key portions returned its Peabody Award.

and faced widespread criticisms for failures in verification and editorial oversight. Now, I did reach out to the team at Serial about my concerns, and as of Monday afternoon when I'm recording this, I have heard back from them, and they asked me if I'd elaborate on what I believe they've gotten wrong, which I will do, and I appreciate their openness. So while we're working on all this, I have a favor task. First, if you do listen to the series, and you think that there is some piece of what Diane Neary is saying here that's legitimate and that I should consider in my reporting, please let me know. And if you have your own strong feelings about this series, please let them know, either in your reviews of the show

or by emailing them at Serial Shows at NYTimes.com. We'll also leave that in the show notes. I know that many of you are feeling discouraged about this, and I am too. The truth is trying to get people to recognize the complexities and nuances of these cases is going to be an uphill battle, especially in this current anti-science, anti-expertise moment that we're in. I appreciate how much you all care about this. It makes me feel much less alone. So just know that I'll be with you, fighting the good fight. These are harrowing times in America, especially for our friends and neighbors in immigrant communities. So if you're looking for resources or ways to help, we wanted to let you know about a wonderful organization that we're partnering with this month. The National Immigrant

Justice Center has worked for more than 40 years to defend the rights of immigrants. NIGC blends direct legal services, impact litigation, and policy advocacy to fight for due process for all and to hold the U.S. government accountable to uphold human rights. NIGC's experienced legal staff collaborate with a broad network of volunteer lawyers to provide legal counsel to more than 11,000 people each year, including people seeking asylum, people in ICE detention, LGBTQ immigrants, victims of human trafficking, unaccompanied immigrant children, and community members who are applying for citizenship and permanent residents. C continues to fight and win federal court cases that hold the U.S. government accountable to follow

U.S. law and the Constitution. In recent months, NIJC's litigation has challenged ICE's unlawful practice of arresting people without warrants and has successfully blocked President Trump's proclamation to shut down access to asylum at the border. As ICE continues to abduct people from our communities and the U.S. government deports thousands of people without a chance to have a judge consider their cases, it is more important than ever that we come together. to defend due process. All people in the United States have rights, regardless of immigration status. You can donate and learn more about NIHC's work by visiting immigrantjustice.org. That's immigrant justice.org. You can find that link and more information at our website. This ad was

provided pro bono. Hey, it's Andrea. It's come to my attention that some of you have been served programmatic ads for ICE on my show. Now, podcasters don't get a lot of control over which individual ads, play, and for whom on our shows, but please know that we are trying everything we can to get rid of these by tightening our filters. And if you do continue to hear them, please do let us know. In the meantime, I want it to be known that I do not support ICE. I am the daughter of an immigrant. I stand with immigrants. Immigrants make this country great. Before we begin, a quick warning that in this show, we discuss child abuse and this content may be difficult for some listeners. If you or anyone you know is a victim or survivor of medical child abuse,

please go to munchausen support.com to connect with professionals who can help. The Maya Kowalski case is certainly the most flashy headline-grabbing story about a, quote, false accusation of Munchausen by proxy or medical child abuse. And I certainly have not seen a case that has quite the potential to singularly undermine the ability of doctors to protect vulnerable kids, but it's not an isolated story. These stories have really become a trend. So notably, you have Mike Hicks and Boggs 2020 series for NBC, Do No Harm, which featured, among other people, my sister Megan Carter. And by the way, there's also a lawsuit against a children's hospital in San Diego, where parents are suing over the video surveillance

of their teen during a medical child abuse investigation, and there is a situation in Lehigh, Pennsylvania that really started boiling over this past summer, and that's the one we're going to dig into today. People believe their eyes. That's something that actually is so central to this whole issue and to people that experience this, is that we do believe the people that we love

when they're telling us something. If you questioned every thing that everyone told you, you couldn't make it through your day. I'm Andrea Jenlop, and this is Nobody Should Believe Me. Just as a reminder, if you want even more new content in the meantime, you can subscribe on Apple or Patreon, where you will get at least two bonus episodes a month. Right now, I am deep diving the Justina Pellateer case with Dr. Bex. And as always, if monetary support isn't an option for you, rating and reviewing the show and sharing it on social media are great ways to support us. In some sense, if you've seen one of these stories, you've seen them all.

A family, usually a white family, but not exclusively, claims that they brought their child to the doctor looking for help only to, out of nowhere have that child snatched away or medically kidnapped as the parlance goes and then be accused falsely, of course, of Munchausen by proxy. And what do you know? When someone in the media takes up the cause, suddenly they hear from so many families who've also been falsely accused. And then what was one sad story begins to look like an epidemic. Here's Daphne Chen in the Netflix film Take Care of Maya. She is the reporter who broke the Kowalski's story. And here she's talking about what happened after that piece was published

in the Sarasota Tribune. It was January 2019 when I hit publish on that piece about the Kowalski family. And I kind of thought I'd move on to the next thing. But that was when the call started coming in and the email started coming in. And I realized that this was a lot bigger than just the Kowalski's. Kailen Keating, the film's producer, has also described a similar in many of her interviews. This is a clip from a podcast called Guys We've Ficked. This is a podcast that's all about female sexuality, and they also broaden the scope sometimes into sort of these bigger, far-reaching feminist issues. This was an interview that came out shortly after the film debuted. And again, like, since the film came out like a week, not even a week and a half

ago, I mean, every family writing me without knowing their background or anything about their case, right? Not everyone's going to be telling the truth, I'm sure, out there. But a lot of people are. And They all stand out to me. I mean, they're all just like, it's been years in some of these cases and they're struggling. Like, they lost their job. They lost their home. They lost their reputation. Their mugshots in the paper.

It's going to be on the internet forever. It's like they all have the same story. It's just like different face, different name, different place. Honestly, listening to this, I can't quite imagine what it would be like after the life experience that I've had to just assume that everyone who gets in touch with me is telling the truth, that must be kind of nice. These stories are more or less all constructed the same way. They have the utmost credulity towards the parents who've claimed they've been falsely accused, and they omit any pieces of the story that might be a bit inconvenient to the narrative. They usually include a no comment from the doctor being attacked, with no mention of the fact

that the doctor can't legally comment on the case because of HIPAA, and there's usually a PR-E-type statement from the hospital about how their patient safety is the utmost important to them, et cetera. So there's often a lot of talk about how the doctor's report in these cases was wrong, but the actual report itself, which any of these parents could release to the media if they wish to do so, is never shared. They get to publicly excoriate the doctor all while keeping their own privacy intact. And all of these, quote, falsely accused parents, they're starting to organize. And in the wake of the Kowalski verdict, the chances that they'll wield significant political power is very real. What began with these more fringy groups like Mama, that's Mothers

against Munchausen allegations, is becoming a real mainstream movement. And in my view, it's on its way to creating a full-blown moral panic. And in Lehigh, local politicians are taking up the cause. Mark Pinsley, a county controller in Lehigh Valley, released a report last summer on what he called the, quote, systematic overdiagnosis of medical child abuse in the county. This clip is from Channel 6, a local news station in Philadelphia. An elected official in Lehigh County is calling for action after he says he discovered an unusually high number of rare medical diagnoses. And he says they led to multiple parents losing custody. of their children. Action News investigative reporter, Chad Bedelli, has the exclusive details and takes us inside the complex issue of medical child abuse.

So we brought in Dr. Mark Feldman, friend of the show, and my friend in real life, to help us try and figure out what's going on here. I'm Dr. Mark Feldman. I'm a clinical professor of psychiatry at the University of Alabama. I've been studying my childhood by proxy, also called medical child abuse for about 30 years. Dr. Mark Feldman has been at the front lines of trying to push back on misinformation about medical child abuse in the media for decades now. And he's become very concerned about this situation in Lehigh. So I read some of the initial coverage, saw that nobody had interviewed an expert in the field.

And so I had to reach out to one of the reporters and frankly ask her to interview me. She did because I wanted to get a balanced perspective, but then my quotes were sort of buried in the resulting article, though I think she tried. I reached out to others and got no response from any of them. And it was also obvious that a doctor there, a board-certified Child Protective Services advocate, who is also a pediatrician named Dr. Jensen,

was being targeted, which is what you see in case after case all over the country, they vilify one board-certified child abuse pediatrician and attempt, in essence, to destroy that person's life. Dr. Feldman is unique in his media savvy. He's been interviewed by well over 100 publications, and this is something that most of our expert colleagues really won't go near. And understandably, as the response to his comments in the media

is not always exactly measured and kind. I did get hate email from the rather benign and brief comments that were included in Lehigh Valley News, kind of the sort of emails you would expect an impulsive and sociopathic individual to send. I asked Mark what he thought about Mr. Pinsley and his report. All I know about him and I've never spoken to him is that, He was responsible and still is because he shortly thereafter, after the press conference won re-election. He is responsible for financial expenditures and for monitoring the financial expenditures in that area. And that's how he justified his not being a clinician in any way, his knowing very little about munchausen by proxy, but is getting involved.

He said that this was a. in essence, a waste of time. It was brutal for the families, and it was also costly to place the children out of the home and to involve CPS and the judges who made the ultimate determination. So that's how he kept trying to tie himself to this cause. So someone who is not a doctor inserting themselves into a conversation they have no knowledge about for their own political gain. That's really the vibe in America right now, isn't it? And, Pinsley tied it to that old political chestnut that he's just looking after taxpayers' pocketbooks. And as Dr. Feldman and I discuss, rather than looking for a real problem to solve, of which there are plenty, Mark Pinsley essentially creates a fake one.

There were a disproportionate number of accusations or reports to CPS of medical child abuse as he viewed it. he thought that that was telling and that meant that innocent people were being accused and that monies were being wasted. As I pointed out, when I gave the interview, I said, you know, they should be delighted to be one of the few areas in Pennsylvania that has a board certified child protective services and abuse pediatrician that knows about this subject. There are only 350 in the country. It's a very rigorous process. And so the message I took away was that the rest of Pennsylvania is not doing a good job identifying

these cases. Dr. Jensen should be praised rather than vilified. So there are very real problems with the child welfare system in this country. According to Dr. Price, 76% of DCF investigation. are happening because of, quote, neglect issues that are mostly things related to poverty and that are really a resource problem. And also, families of color are really disproportionately affected. So there are those real problems. And this report does not address any of those things. There was a big press conference that the controller held with 70 people. So clearly it was all

prearranged and the media were alerted. All of the families that attended claim to have been the victims of misdiagnoses of munchausen by proxy or medical child abuse. And it was obvious that it's certainly self-serving for people who have engaged in medical child abuse to claim that they didn't. In addition to these anecdotes from parents, Penley references some data to make his case, but it's pretty flawed. Pinsley also used some research that's obsolete, was in England and the Republic of Ireland from the early 1990s saying that the real rate of Munchausen by proxy, the term they used in that report, was extremely low. Well, again, that study has been criticized, is defunct, but he relied on it over and over to say that medical child abuse is so incredibly rare. that whenever anyone makes the diagnosis, they're bound to be wrong.

Mark hits on something here that has really struck me listening to this discourse around the Maya Kowalski case and this entire, quote, medical kidnapping debate, which is that the people having this conversation are coming from a place of essentially this abuse isn't real because there just doesn't seem to be a case where they could be convinced. If you can look at the evidence in the Kowalski case,

in the Justina Pellateer case, another famous case where the family attempted to sue a hospital, this time unsuccessfully, or even in my sister Megan's case and say, oh, no, this was definitely a false allegation. If you can look at these cases and not even see the possibility of abuse, then you don't believe it's real. And as Mark points out, we don't treat other forms of abuse this way. There's something really curious going on, which is if somebody accused of sexual abuse, or rape says they didn't do it, we don't then say, well, they didn't do it. They denied it, therefore they didn't do it. But there's something about medical child abuse, and this arose in this report where just because the parents said they didn't do it, that's proof that they didn't in his mind. And every bit of the report relies on that misbelief. He may think that

Out of the 10 or so families, they're all innocent, and maybe some of them are, but I think that's really unlikely that it's more than maybe one or two, because again, there was a skilled child abuse pediatrician involved who also does not make the final decision about whether a case is founded or not. It seems that it's a board of judges that determines whether something is founded or not in terms of accusations. And judges are not clinicians. Neither is Mr. Pinsley or any of the other people he interviewed. They wouldn't know a patient if they fell over one. And so he did talk to three people who are supposed to be experts, but know nothing about the subject. One or two of them admitted to that. One or two of them are statisticians. The third is a law professor who is

famous for denying the existence of medical child abuse, even in cases in which it's obvious. That's my opinion. He did not go to an authentic expert. He did not ask questions of the American Professional Society on the abuse of children. He did not look at those guidelines, and he did not reference the references that they include in those national guidelines. There's also an underlying assumption in all of this that judges and politicians take the opinions of doctors and experts extremely seriously, meaning that if a parent isn't charged and gets their children back, there must be a good reason for it, that there must have been compelling evidence on the parents' side, and that the doctor's opinions were duly considered

in court. Unfortunately, that's not the case. even when the evidence is so compelling that I think I can offer a very thorough report written and oral when I testify, because there is a bias towards reunification. I even had a guardian ad litem in one case say, in her report and to the court, a child belongs with his mother. Well, there was no doubt that this was an abusive mother. And my fear is that the Pinsley report will shape so many perceptions because there were inflammatory headlines in the morning call, newspaper, and elsewhere, that if that's all you read or you just read the beginning and the

end of the article, you'd think that all of his points were valid when very few were. Now, I do respect his request, if not demand, for a review of the process and more education. And he does advocate involvement of law enforcement in every case, which makes sense to me because I think criminal charges are too infrequently brought. That's not why he wants law enforcement in there, but that's the way I read it. So there are some valid points. But overall, from the very first sentence to the end, I highlighted the problems and almost all of the report is highlighted in green as a result because of the problems, error is misunderstandings. And it's clear that if the judges on what's called the BHA there Bureau of Hearings and Appeals say that medical

child abuse didn't take place, he views that as the final judgment. But I know from personal experience over 30 years, they often get it wrong. And that's heartbreaking because the children and then are imperiled further. Politicians love to use the idea of doing something, quote, for the children as a political football, but that doesn't mean that they've really got their best interest at heart. Abuse children don't vote. That's one issue. Their parents do.

Their parents can carry posters in front of the hospital demanding Dr. Jensen's removal for which they were apparently pretty successful. That's what's happened in case after. case after case. My daughter, Fiona, just turned seven this month. It is true what they say. It just goes by in a blink. But she is getting to be a grown-up girl.

I am so proud of her, and she is learning grown-up things and getting some big-kid responsibilities. Right now, we are earning our way to getting a pet gecko. And Project Gecko, as we're calling it in my house, is being powered by our sponsor, Acorns Early. Acorns Early is the smart debit card and money app that grows kids' money skills. as they grow up. It comes with an in-app chores tracker that helps kids connect their responsibilities with the value of a dollar. It also lets kids set their own savings goal for a gecko or anything else they want, and kids can spend what they earned with their very own customizable debit card

giving them that extra sense of independence. Plus, with ACORN early spending limits and real-time spend notifications, parents always stay in control. So if you want a fun way to teach your kids about money and keeping small lizards alive, you should give it a try. Ready to teach your kids the smart way to earn, save, and spend? Get your first month on us when you head to AcornsEarly.com backslash nobody or download the AcornsEarly app. That's one month free when you sign up at AcornsEarly.com backslash nobody. And remember that shopping our sponsors is a great way to support the show.

Acorns Early card is issued by Community Federal Savings Bank, member FDIC, pursuant to license by MasterCard International. Free trial for new subscribers only, subscription fee starting from $5 per month, unless canceled. Terms apply at www.acorns.com backslash early terms. It's officially fall, the air is crisp, and the world is complicated. I just want to be cozy. And being cozy starts with having the ripe brown underwear, because if your most sensitive bits are not comfy, how can the rest of you be? This is why I always reach for skims, which was my favorite underwear brand even before they were a sponsor. I'm a huge fan of the fits everybody boy short and the highway

brief. These are my go-toes. They are super soft and delicate feeling, but you can throw them in the wash and they really hold up. I also love Skim's bras. Their t-shirt bra and the triangle bralet are my current favorites, but Skims knows that boobs come in a fabulous variety of shapes and sizes, and they've got you covered. Their cup sizes go up to a G, and they have a huge selection of styles. You can shop my favorite bras and underwear at skims.com backslash nobody. After you place your order, be sure to let them know that we sent you. Select podcast in the survey and be sure to select our show in the drop-down menu that follows. And remember that shopping our sponsors is a great way to support the show.

I would never say that all parents are treated fairly by the system. There is so much that could be done to help parents who are struggling rather than just punishing them. There's so much that could be done to help prevent child abuse. And in fact, we're going to talk to a fantastic expert in the next episode about just that. But that is not what this movement is about. Those are not the rights these parents are advocating for. The parents' rights movement is really saying parents have the right to torture their children.

They have the right not to give them vaccines regardless of how indicated they are. They have the right to say that the child has brittle bone disease when, in fact, they've beaten the child, and that's why there are fractures of different ages that show up on x-ray. I'm not saying all of them have done that. All of them are evil, but some of them are, and hiding behind the mask of the term parental rights makes it sound valiant, really justified, and perpetrators can come across as very believable. The tears flow, the explanation, that may include a lot of lies, flow. The husbands tend to be unaware of the reality,

but reflexively support the mother, who is the usual perpetrator. And the question that Mr. Pinsley asked of the three outside experts was, what's the likelihood that both father and mother in a family would have, as he put it, Munchausen by proxy? Well, that's a false.

bogus question. It's usually the mother. We know that from research. It's almost always the mother, and the father tends to have jobs that keep him far away, or they have traditional families where the mother is assigned all the care, giving responsibilities, and the father doesn't get involved, or the father loves the mother and doesn't want to believe something as bad as this could occur. Mark is getting at something that I have been thinking about a lot in the wake of the Kowalski case and as I've been digging into the Pellateer case on the subscriber feed. And by the way, I will be talking about that case on the main feed two at some point. Both of these cases are instances where the fathers were not just oblivious, but I believe,

culpable. I believe that they ended up acting as co-conspirators for their own complicated, psychological, and emotional reasons, as Mark points to. And this, as I've mentioned before, presents an obvious danger to casting Munchaus and Biproxy abuse as a psychiatric issue in the mom, rather than what it is, abuse and torture of a child. And just as mothers sometimes cover for and collude with spouses who are sexually abusing their children, it doesn't mean that that mother has pedophilic disorder, and no one would ever make that argument. And as for this specious argument that Pinsley is making about finances,

it falls apart upon closer inspection, especially as one of his recommendations in the report is that each case should get a, quote, second opinion from an expert of the parents choosing. That's another issue that he's so concerned with costs, he says, but gives no accounting of how much time and money of, this is taxpayer dollars, was spent on a report that is so one-sided. If we're going to talk about money, it takes me 10 to 20 hours, typically,

of reviewing records to arrive at a decision as to whether or not this might be a case of medical child abuse and potentially to write a report about it. Mr. Pinsley acts like it takes one visit, an outpatient visit, or an hour with the family to do it. Well, experts aren't going to do it for free, and he should have evaluated the costs of getting a second opinion on every single case, and he should have commented on the bias that would be inherent in the parents choosing who does that.

The cost would be overwhelming astronomical, and I think he wants to go back five years to review all the cases reported of medical child abuse without thinking about the taxpayers and what that would cost and who would be willing to do that once the work has already been done by somebody who's board certified in the field. As Mark dove into this report, he realized that Pinsley was basically advocating to dismantle every step in place to protect kids from medical child abuse. Mr. Pinsley advocates the parental consent prior to what we call the separation test, which is trying to separate potentially abused child. from the parents to see if the child improves when mom is not around.

And often we see that, and then mom is allowed to return, the child gets sick again. Separation tests can be as close as we can get to a smoking gun. And obviously, an authentic perpetrator is not going to consent to a separation test and unmask themselves. Instead, what they're going to do is sign the child out of the high. hospital, whether it's against medical advice or not, unless there are strong mechanisms to prevent that. And Mr. Pinsley does not speak to that important issue. The child may be taken to another jurisdiction. I know of cases where the children have been taken to other countries

to evade the separation test or evade prosecution or separation from the child, even very briefly to see what happens. So I think that's another, to be bold, bad idea that crops up so commonly in this report. The media coverage around this topic often invokes the specter of an earlier moral panic over medical child abuse that involved Dr. Roy Meadows. He was the doctor who coined the term Munchausen by proxy in the Lancet in 1977. Outlets often refer to Meadows as disgraced or discredited. But this, too, is false, as Mark explains. He and another doctor named Dr. David Southall were targeted relentlessly in the 1990s in the United Kingdom by parents' rights groups. Once he identified Munchausen by proxy and people became aware of the phenomenon in a professional

community, they were sometimes able to call it out and intervene. Well, there are People who don't believe that medical child abuse even exists, like shaken baby syndrome doesn't exist, the implication of broken bones doesn't exist, that you have to see bruises, bleeding, and other overt signs of trauma for it to be diagnosed as an abuse case, they went after him. And I'm sorry to say, I was misled about a documentary that I participated in, which was a actually a hatchet job on him that was intended from the start to destroy his career. He was briefly, due to the public outcry mobilized by these parents' rights groups, struck from the registry of physicians. But then he was added back. And that's the part of the story that

never tell. He was added back. Dr. Southall was struck and he was added back. They realized that is the regulatory bodies that this was a public relations campaign against them, that they weren't perfect, but they had done good work. But you can't get the real end of the story told anymore. The Wikipedia entry on Munchausen by proxy is full of lies, overt lies, deliberate lies, and perhaps accidental errors. I attempted to correct it because they refer to him as disgraced and that it was struck from the registry of doctors. And bizarrely, someone, I guess an editor at Wikipedia, contacted me instead if I continued to try to change the entry, they would sue me. I mean, it's beyond belief. And it just showed how crazy people get. They

dig their heels in rather than want to learn the truth. Since I did this interview with Mark, Dr. Jensen has been forced to retire, and a number of parents are organizing a civil lawsuit against her. Directly after the Maya Kualski verdict, and I spoke to Ethan Shapiro about this as well, I said that this verdict was likely to result in many other copycat lawsuits, and that is exactly what is happening, not just in Lehigh, but around the country. country. These lawsuits are popping up everywhere. It's really frustrating to see the way that as a culture, rather than addressing any of the actual problems with the child welfare system, these things we've talked about, the racial and economic disparities, and just all of the issues in this country that make it next to impossible for so many families to care for their children. Everything from like unaffordable child care and health care, housing crisis, the open

opioid epidemic. We do have real problems that affect the children in this country. But instead of addressing those, we're inventing a fake epidemic to enrage and distract people. And it's the story that just makes no sense that evil doctors are breaking families apart for fun and profit. I mean, there's no motive here. And I think that that's kind of your first sign that this is a conspiracy theory. You know, the way that conspiracy theories function is that they divide people and they distract from the legitimate issues. And as we are doing that, it's going to have the effect of making children who are in these vulnerable positions abused children less safe. And, you know, I think a lot about the satanic panic that happened in the 1980s. And I have had people say that I'm sort of.

trying to create a similar panic about medical child abuse and that it's happening everywhere. And even, you know, people like Maxine Eichner, who've written about this in the New York Times, this was from an article that was years ago, you know, called medical child abuse in and of itself a moral panic. And I think they're taking the wrong lesson from the satanic panic of the 1980s. So this was a time when there was this mass collective outrage over thousands of, ultimately unsubstantiated claims of abuse from daycare workers that they were sexually abusing children as part of satanic rituals. It sounds kind of wild to say that now, but it was really widely believed at the time. And I think one of the things that this was a result of,

as I've sort of metabolized all of this and been researching medical child abuse for the last few years and seen how difficult it is for people to accept. I think one of the things that led to the satanic panic was that it happened at a time when we were collectively reckoning as a culture with the idea that child sex abuse was real and that it was nowhere near as rare as it was previously believed to be. And you know, as crazy as it sounds, I honestly think it was more comforting to believe the satanic ritual story than it was to confront the reality of this abuse, which is that it's most likely to happen

at the hands of someone who is close to the child. If the problem is Satanus, it's easier to solve. Just get rid of the Satanus. But when it's dear old Uncle Johnny or a nice baseball coach, Boy Scout leader, parish priest, it gets a lot more complicated. It also, the Satanist comparison gets at a sort of second thing,

which is the it won't happen to me. It won't happen in my family. It won't happen in my neighborhood. And if you are recognizing, as we all mostly do now, that child sex abuse does happen in every community, no one is sort of, quote, safe from it, and you can't just avoid Satanist daycare workers, then it's much scarier. So if the problem here is power-mad child abuse pediatricians, well, that's pretty simple to solve.

Fire the child abuse pediatricians. Burn them in public effigy. There you go. But what if it's not them? What if they're just the people who are asking us to look at a problem that we don't want to see? That maybe that really nice mom on the PTA or the one who's fundraising for her child's rare disorder, you know, the one who's dedicated her entire life to advocating for her sick child's care. What if she's the real problem?

You know, in the end with the satanic panic, we did face it. What was once this just totally aberrant, unbelievable idea that people within a community that we trusted were sexually abusing children is now just accepted as common knowledge. We all understand at this point for the most part that if someone's sexually abusing a child, it's most likely the priest, the Boy Scout leader, the coach, a family number. No pentagrams involved. But this movement around this idea that all of these false habits, allegations of child abuse are happening because of child abuse pediatricians really threatens to

undo all of that progress. You know, the majority of the work that child abuse pediatricians do is not around medical child abuse specifically, though there's been a lot of focus on it in these articles. It's also with physical abuse and sexual abuse cases. And without these highly skilled doctors, the children in any given community are less safe. But hey, kids don't vote, do they? Thank you.