Nobody Should Believe Me - “The Preventionist” Erases Munchausen by Proxy with Dr. Jim Hamilton

Episode Date: November 13, 2025

In the second part of Andrea’s rebuttal to The Preventionist, Serial Productions’ podcast on child abuse pediatrician Dr. Debra Jenssen, she speaks with Dr. Jim Hamilton, a leading expert on Munchausen by proxy. They break down how prevalence statistics are misused, what The Preventionist gets wrong, and why leaving out key details—like the Steltz’ teenage son coming forward and emancipating himself—is so damaging. Ultimately, the episode asks what it means when the media gives a platform to alleged abusers while erasing survivors. *** Tickets for Nobody Should Believe Me LIVE: https://www.andreadunlop.net/nobody-should-believe-me-live 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 It's week two of Canadian Tires' early Black Friday sale. These prices won't go lower this year. So you're lying on the floor? Save up the 50% November 13th to 20th. Conditions apply, details online. 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. Making nobody should believe me has really changed my life. And I've often felt like I was clinging to a runaway train. mostly in a good way. The truth is, even though I've always really believed in this show, I didn't expect it to take off the way it did. I didn't get into this as some kind of planned-out career pivot into podcasting, though I'm really glad that it's happened. I started this show because I'd been through something that no one in my life really understood or related to, and as a storyteller, I believe that one of the most powerful things stories can do is make us feel less alone. In this

era of fractured media and misinformation, stories that resonate on a human level are one of the only things that can actually break through. I knew when I set out to cover Munchausen by proxy how misunderstood it was. But what I didn't expect, naively I guess, is that there would be such a strong push to just deny its existence at all and to dismantle what little progress had been made in protecting kids and helping survivors. However, years into this project, I can see that we're in a moment where decades of progress on child abuse awareness, prevention, and treatment are under threat from an increasingly vocal and politically mobile parents' rights movement. And misunderstood as it is, munchausen by proxy abuse makes a relatively easy target. I found the preventionist's coverage of munchausen by proxy to be both misleading and harmful, and this was one of several concerns I brought up to the team at serial.

In response, they said that Munchausen by proxy is, quote, not the primary focus of our series, and we believe we've characterized it fairly and accurately. Downplaying the importance of Munchausen by proxy in this series is interesting, given that the preventionist devotes a full episode of the three-part series to Mark Pinsley's report on the alleged overdiagnosis of Munchausen by proxy. And the lead claimant in the Lehigh lawsuit involves allegations of a false Munchausen by proxy. Munchausen by proxy diagnosis. Munchausen by proxy is the match that lit the fire in Lehigh, and the series goes out of its way to include an additional Munchausen by proxy-related anecdote in the second episode. Now, naturally, I disagree that calling Munchausen by Proxy a rare psychological disorder that's just, quote, a popular storyline in movies is a fair and accurate portrayal.

I mean, it's only been in like four movies, but I digress. To dig into all of this and why it matters, I called up my friend and colleague Dr. Jim Hamilton. Jim is an associate professor in the general pediatric section of the Department of Pediatrics at Yale School of Medicine. He has served on Apsack's Munchausen Biproxy Committee and the Board of Munchausen by proxy support and is one of the most well-regarded experts in the country on Munchausen by proxy abuse. We spoke at the end of October on the eve of the preventionist publication. So, Jim, you've listened to the series, is that correct? Yes, yes, I have.

Yeah, like, what are your high-level thoughts on what this piece of coverage is? Well, my, you know, what the story is is one thing. What the coverage is is another. And it just feels so solidly part of this relentless PR campaign to deny child abuse. to support in a very uncritical way, the people who are accused of perpetrating child abuse. And I always come back to when I see these media things. And, you know, I think media things and podcasts are great, including yours, and we're so thankful for it. But as an academic, as a clinician, as a scientist, like,

I hate that this is being litigated on podcasts, but we live in a world where careful, patient, thoughtful, scientific and scholarly work gets just run over, you know, like a bug on the road by sensationalist media and so on and so forth. I thought, as we're going through this, listening to yet another one of these things, is like, where's the kid? kid. Where's even a description of what happened to the kid, right? It's the perpetrator. It's the perpetrator's troubled boyfriend, the fathers of the children. It's people standing up at some microphone. Where's the kid standing up at the microphone saying what happened to them? My frustration that these things always end up being an asymmetrical warfare, the information space is

entirely controlled by people who can withhold their medical records, withhold the police records, family courts, protect all of these records in terms of what the judicial proceedings are around removing children and so forth. And these people are free to go out and stand at a microphone and castigate and impugn the child abuse pediatricians and others who are trying to help the children. And, you know, even if we have the information, we're not allowed to fight back with it because of our professional responsibilities. It's a very frustrating situation. Yeah. I think what I, you know, what frustrates me about this kind of reporting, and I will say, like, it's my opinion as a journalist that some of this is, some of this

happens because journalists are out of their depth. And they don't understand the issues and they are being, you know, co-opted by these very emotional stories and they're sort of who they're seeing is the underdog, right? They're seeing the parents as the underdog against the system. So I will not say that I think all of this reporting is happening in bad faith. You know, yes, there's a built-in asymmetry that should be acknowledged if you are reporting on one of these cases. For example, you know, did the parents sign a HIPAA release so that you could not only see the medical records that they were wanting to share with you, but all of them? And so that you could speak to the doctors about the case. You know, did you do a public records request so that you could see

what was said in the police reports and all the sort of complicated pieces that go into one of these cases? It's not impossible to figure out. You know, it's like the genuine lack of curiosity about what happened to the children in these cases is, I think, morally repugnant. It's an awful and regrettable thing. What I was struck by is the sort of something about the format, something about the sort of conversational human interest sort of vibe of the show kind of makes it sound like I'm just, you know, I, the interviewer is just sort of innocently letting this person tell their story. but there is a lot of editorializing in it. You know, there's an interesting sort of technique, a slight of hand technique of making it clear they're just talking about this one person, Dr. Jensen, whether or not one agrees with their portrayal of her or their conclusions, but sort of then sort of seamlessly shifting to talking about caps in general. This all begs the question. If Munchausen by proxy is, quote, not the primary focus of the series, then what is exactly?

It sure feels like another entry in the newly popular child abuse pediatricians are destroying families genre, but Serial says this isn't the case. They wrote me, quote, our show is about an individual physician and her particular form of diagnostic practice. It is not meant to serve as a condemnation of the field of child abuse pediatrics at large. Many of the criticisms included in the show were actually formed through a process of speaking in depth with other Caps about what differentiates their practice from Dr. Jensen's. To the degree that the host, Diane Neri, does differentiate Dr. Jensen's practice from other Caps, there are few direct quotes and little insight into how Neri framed any of the questions she asked. For example, she cites Capp's criticism of their colleagues who are, quote, exceedingly dogmatic in their approach and in their opinion too quick to diagnose abuse. but it's unclear whether they're in any way referring to anything Dr. Jensen did. In another example, Neri presents two caps who disagreed with Dr. Jensen and her team's assessment on a particular case, the Amanda Sarnovsky case featured in episode three, but it's unclear how this case was presented to them.

Neri says in the show that these caps were given anonymized medical records. I asked Serial if any of the parents they featured signed HIPAA releases so that serial could see complete medical records, But in their most recent email to me, they didn't answer this question or comment on whether the professionals asked to weigh in on Dr. Jensen's work were given any additional context such as police or CPS records. The one cap whose voice is featured on the show, Dr. Jensen's former boss, Dr. Randy Alexander, had only glowing things to say about her and reported that he'd never received any official complaints about her and would have acted on them if he had. As to the idea of this not being an overall criticism of caps, well, here are Neri's exact words at the end of the series. She says, quote, here's my diagnosis. It seems to me that everyone involved in child welfare cases that include a child abuse pediatrician,

I mean caseworkers, doctors, hospital administrators, cops, prosecutors, judges should take into account the real possibility that the cap might be mistaken. So I definitely read that as a comment on caps as a whole. And I'm left wondering, what is the point of this series? I have my takeaways, of course, but what do the people making this thing think they're doing with it? I spend a lot of time on this show defending doctors who I believe have done the right thing to protect children, often at great costs to themselves. However, I don't think doctors are perfect or above criticism. There are also many doctors we've spoken about who've contributed to the harm of child abuse victims

and a few who've been culpable for child deaths. Pediatric doctors bear a heavy weight of responsibility because of the trust we place in them to care for our most vulnerable citizens. And saying that there's room for change in the medical system and the child welfare system is an understatement. It's just that none of the reporting

in the preventionist actually points to a real problem. Diane Neri's argument, as far as I can tell, is that child abuse pediatricians have too much power and influence, and she offers the idea of second opinion laws as a solution. But I think this problem is contrived. Neri doesn't present any evidence that the checks and balances on Dr. Jensen weren't working, or that any of these parents were denied due process. And in the one case she speaks about in depth, that of Amanda Sarnovsky in episode three, Dr. Jensen was the second opinion. She confirmed a diagnosis made by another doctor. The point Neri appears to be making is that doctors shouldn't be acting alone or absent from oversight. And they're not. I'm all for peer

review. I think peer review is good in setting up peer review relationships and so on and so forth. You know, there's transparency there. There's, there's, you know, having more eyes on the situation is always the case. But keep in mind that, you know, the cap isn't sitting in the emergency room watching every case that comes in. The cap is called by a concerned physician. Typically, it could be a concern somebody else. But somebody has already looked at the facts of the case and said, this is something that should be looked at by somebody else. So it's not like the people that the caps are introduced to to assess are randomly selected children from the population. They're people who are suspected of child abuse. And it's not every kid that goes

to the emergency room with an injury. It's only a very small number of them. And so the idea that caps are quick to find for abuse. I think that in some of the materials that you showed me and others I've read, discussions with my colleagues on the safety, advocacy, and health section of the Department of Pediatrics at Yale, it's often the cap who says, thanks for bringing the case to our attention, but I don't think this is abuse. And given that the people they say see are suspected, I mean, you know, something like a 50% you know, CPS reporting incidents is not a statistic that suggests that, you know, these are madmen and women out for, you know,

to take a piece of flesh out of poor beleaguered parents. I have been a big fan of Skim's Intimates for years, and I truly cannot believe that it took me so long to discover their sleep sets. Our lovely sponsor sent me a pair of their holiday pajamas, and I'm not kidding, I have only changed out of them when absolutely necessary since they arrived at my door. First of all, they are super cute. They are red with snowflakes and reindeer, and my only criticism is that they haven't made a kid's version yet because my daughter, Fiona, really wants a matching set. They are soft and cozy, but they're also extremely breathable. which is crucial because, listen, I'm 43. My temperature situation is all over the place. I truly could not more strongly endorse these pajamas. I immediately got rid of all my others

because they cannot compete. So go get yourself some. You will not be sorry. Shop my favorite pajamas at skims.com backslash nobody. After you place your order, be sure to let them know that we sent you. You can select podcast in the survey and be sure to select our show in the drop-down menu that follows. And if you're looking for the perfect gift for everyone on your list, the skims holiday shop is now open at skims.com. And remember that shopping our sponsors is a great way to support the show. You know you've hit middle age when you find yourself saying things to your kids like, hey, money doesn't grow on trees, you know, and what am I made of money? Well, the good news is there's a better and less eye-roll-inducing way to teach your kids value of a dollar than sounding like a sitcom dad.

And that's Acorns Early. Acorns Early is the smart debit card and money app that grows kids' money skills as they grow up. The app has a chore tracker and your kids can set savings goals and start building good money habits early. They also get their very own customizable debit card. Fiona chose one with puppies. We are all about puppies right now, which is both cute and useful. Plus, with Acorn Early's spending limits and real-time spend notifications, parents always stay in control. So if you're ready to teach your kids the smart way to earn, save, and spend, you can get your first month on us when you head to AcornsEarly.com backslash nobody. Or download the Acorns Early app. That's one month free when you sign up at AcornsEarly.com backslash

nobody. 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 fees starting from $5 per month unless canceled, terms apply at acorns.com backslash early terms. In Serial's initial response to my comments that I felt they were mishandling munchausen by proxy abuse, they pointed me to a commonly cited statistic from the American Academy of Pediatrics that puts the number of children under 16 affected by Munchaus and By proxy at fewer than two per 100,000. And like many statistics on the under-recognized phenomenon, this only tells a piece of the story. Prevalent studies, unfortunately, in the sort of landmark paper that the

American Association of Pediatrics published, if you read it, carefully, they talk about several different studies that deal with the prevalence of medical child abuse and Munchausen by proxy abuse. These studies, the larger studies, the population studies came from England. They used as their sort of denominator. So how many kids were reported by the pediatricians? And they divided that by all of the children in that age group in the entire country. That's a flawed approach for a number of reasons. One is it's perfectly possible that children are being medically abused in ways that don't come before doctors in ways that are obvious. In many cases of medical child abuse, the primary audience is the school, is the

family. You know, people who are perpetrating that abuse do just as much medical contact as they need to preserve the narrative that the child's sick. Again, you know, and we've talked about this in the past, as much as the high-profile cases like the Colise case and the Blanchard case have raised the profile of medical child abuse, it's also given terrible misimpressings about what the average case is like. They're not all ravenous for attention. Some of these are parents who are afraid of losing connection with their child and want to keep them dependent. Those are sort of low-boil kinds of cases. They don't present like, you know, with a lot of smothering and poisoning and trips to the emergency room every other week.

So you might see something more like this, you know, fabricated autism or ADHD diagnosis and an IEP and a bunch of sort of like messaging to the child that they're not normal and like. that kind of thing, educational abuse. Exactly right. And that wouldn't be caught by these larger studies. So to put it more simply, they can't be sure all the people that they counted as non-cases of medical child abuse are really non-cases of medical child abuse. But suffice to say, look, I don't believe that medical child abuse is highly prevalent in the general population. But I think it's more prevalent in clinical populations and in

populations of special needs children, for example, than anybody is fully aware of. So in that seminal paper published by the American Association of Pediatrics, there are studies of smaller populations. Populations, for example, of kids who had apnea. that that needed to be explained. And, well, I was also thinking of, you know, the children's, the paper out of Seattle Children's that was studying instances of munchausen by proxy in children that were given gastric feeding tubes. And that was, you know, that was like much higher.

So, so, yeah, looking at some of those sort of. Right. So if you, there are studies out there that are smaller studies. They're generally less scientifically rigorous. they're usually done out of a particular practice. And the papers are written with those limitations clearly, clearly addressed. But they show that, you know, the percentage in some of these things can be as high as 10, 12, 13, 14, 15 percent among, like, medically complex, difficult to explain, difficult to manage medical, pediatric medical cases. And so I just published a paper on prevalence and am disappointed at how.

little empirical evidence there is on it and how many people sort of just reflexively cite those larger studies that published a kind of vanishingly small prevalence. Yeah, and it's really, you know, it's an issue because that's to say that, like, there are many things that were once believed to be vanishingly rare. That turned out not to be vanishingly rare once we had better data. That's sort of how it works. And yes, I think there's the, there's the, you know, she makes this, what I found to be quite a glib comment in the first episode, you know, where she says basically, well, this is a popular storyline in movies, but, you know, it's incredibly rare in real life, which I felt was like pretty dismissive. And then, you know, what she's doing in this case, and we'll talk a little bit about this particular family that, curiously, she does not choose to name, even though their names are very much public.

public, Kimberly and Stephen Stelts, who are the lead plaintiffs and the lawsuit against Debra Jensen and the hospital. And, you know, she puts this emphasis on it being a rare psychological disorder, which, you know, the actual name for the psychological disorder is factored's disorder imposed on another, but I don't think this is just a terminology debate. She's classifying it that way because the argument that the steltzes are making is that they were diagnosed as having Munchausen by proxy and that if it's a rare psychological disorder, well, what are the chances that both of them would have it? So it must be wrong. So can we sort of talk through the, you know, the faults in that whole idea of this being a psychological disorder that you

would diagnose in parents in the way they're presenting it? it's understandable and predictable that a situation that arises in the medical context is dealt with by everybody in a medical framework, and the medical framework is disorders and diagnosing them. Okay. My personal view, we could talk about it more, I won't belabor it now, is that we should throw away those diagnoses. Those diagnoses, those diagnoses. diagnoses, you know, like most diagnoses require that you sort of collect information from the person you're trying to diagnose. There's a premise that they're trying to get help and would like to improve their well-being. And so being truthful in those interviews and those

evaluations, those tests is assumed. But those things are not true of people who have engaged in medical child abuse. And so we've seen too many cases. cases where the abuse baby is thrown out with the diagnosis bathwater. The legal representation for the state tries to say, okay, this person has factitious disorder. The other side says, well, what are the data? What are the tests that we use to diagnose this? Where's the empirical evidence? Does this meet the Daubert standard, et cetera? It just opens up the door to, having a losing argument, a losing conversation about something that misses the point entirely. The point is that the person who is being accused of medical child abuse has done things,

has engaged in behaviors, has said things, has failed to do to say things, has done things that she hasn't admitted to, has said she's done things that she hasn't done. All for, in it's different in any case, some psychological need that she maintains or feeds by having her child be sick. There's a thousand reasons why people would knock off a 7-Eleven. And kleptomania is probably that reason in like one in a million cases. That doesn't mean that the stores weren't robbed. Right. Or that you need to do psychological testing on the person that you have on video.

the store to determine whether or not they're a kleptomaniac. Right, right. So, you know, my view of how we should handle these cases, first of all, is that we should stop thinking about a diagnosis. These are medical problems, but they're not that kind of medical problem. I think there are things like infection control. In a hospital, you do a number of things for infection control. You encourage the use of masks, you encourage frequent hand washing, you have procedures for what you can use and reuse, and, you know, wiping down the equipment with alcohol swabs, et cetera.

There's no, you know, there's no diagnosis that we need for infection control. It's just a, it's an integral part of medical care, but it doesn't fit in that diagnosis thing. It's a thing we care about. It's a thing we look into. It's a thing we keep track of. It's a thing we involve ourselves with in order to protect patients. And I think we should treat the health care seeking behavior, the health care seeking strategies, the health care-related attitudes of all patients, but particularly, for our purposes

today, in the parents of pediatric patients, to consider it almost the most. like the seventh vital sign, like we consider pain management in all cases now, and we think about it before it becomes a problem, so it won't become a problem. We have a completely different view of pain in medicine than we had, you know, 40 years ago where it was, oh, well, you know, stuff hurts, suck it up, better cut. But now, you know, we, there are a zillion reasons why being fastidious about pain management and pain prevention in all sorts of aspects of medical care is considered the sixth vital sign. I think we should consider illness behavior, health care behavior, the seventh vital sign. We should think about this in every patient that comes into the hospital.

And if we do that, I think there are a number of extremely positive consequences for that. one is if we do it for everybody, if we look at every parents, you know, their involvement, are they doing too much? Are they doing too little? As one of my colleagues at Yale here puts it, I think it's beautiful. She says, are they too into it? Okay. If we do that for everybody, then it isn't, it isn't accusatory. It isn't offensive to anybody because it's just what we do now, to make sure that we make sure that the family is as focused on quality of life as an end goal as anything else. That should be the end goal. So if we see patienthood and over-medicalization of the case consuming the family's lives, we have to say,

do you really want to spend your life like this? You know, this is natural. We need to understand the developmental course of these situations. So a parent, for example, who has their kid, for perfectly good reasons, go on a feeding tube, let's say that person isn't a wealthy person. And their child is on a feeding tube. They have other kids in the house to feed. They're barely getting by. And they're getting their prescription, they're getting prescription formula for this feeding

tube. Essentially, Medicaid or their health insurance is paying for their kid to eat. And now it looks like the kid is getting better. And the parent realizes that, gosh, some of the things that we're getting from, you know, direct medical equipment companies like special formula and diapers, et cetera, I've got to pay for all of those things. So what if that parent panics and says, I can't, this kid can't get off those tubes? That is an extremely sympathetic. way of thinking about people who are technically engaged in medical child abuse. Okay. But if we if we allowed ourselves to think about these scenarios and ask patients questions and understood like, you know, what dilemmas that somebody might be in, like the adult cancer patient spends, you know,

three years being a cancer patient and, you know, the doctors tell them, well, you know, you're in remission here, so go back to your life. But maybe they had to quit their job. Maybe the people who were caring for them had to quit their job. Maybe the whole family system now relies on this person being a patient and the patient doesn't even know what to do. They don't have an identity. So that person is at risk for getting sucked into the patient role. And just as we know that people we put on pain medicines may become addicted, but you have to do it because otherwise it would be awful for them, we'll cross that bridge when we come to it, we will get them unaddicted. You know, what if we thought that way about patients and how involvement in the medical

system can in fact become addictive, understand that, deal with that compassionately, openly so that people can't kind of start doing these things in secret and walking down a road of deception that brings them past the point of no return, and then they've literally got to be all in. That's the way I would like to see this dealt with. And I think if we did, we would have many fewer situations like the ones that are talked about like in this podcast, where it's just basically a war, a war between parents and doctors, a war between you know, the state and the parents. The results speak for themselves.

We need a new paradigm for understanding these things. The utter lack of curiosity with which the preventionist approaches not only Munchausen Biproxie abuse, but this over-diagnosis report made by Mark Pinsley, a county controller with no experience in any relevant field, is really galling. Because why not go deeper if you're going to devote a third of the series to it? If you're going to just skim the surface of this whole thing, why spend two years reporting it? Serial is supposed to be investigative journalism. The claims Pinsley and these families are making are pretty incendiary.

So maybe, I don't know, investigate the actual claims? A wild idea, I know. Another thing that I challenged Serial on was letting the claims of Kimberly and Stephen Stelts that they had been diagnosed with the psychological condition of much of. has them by proxy, stand without context, as it's very clear that this is an abuse diagnosis made by a doctor, not a diagnosis made by a mental health care professional. Serial told me that they reported it this way because that was the claim the Steltses, who, again, they don't name, made in their lawsuit.

But Serial describing it as a rare psychological diagnosis, rather than an abuse diagnosis, shores up the Stelts' claim that this diagnosis couldn't be correct because the doctors hadn't met them. And a reminder that the Stelts' older son came forward about the abuse he and his brother were suffering. So reinforcing the Stelts' framing of Munchausen by proxy is hardly benign. This would be like dismissing a teenage victim's outcry about being sexually abused because the parents hadn't been psychologically evaluated for pedophilic disorder. And couching Munchausen by proxy as a DSM diagnosis, rather than a form of abuse that is detected through a record review and separation test

is often handy to perpetrators who can hire a psychologist to say that they just don't have it. This is what both Lisa McDaniel and Biotto-Kowalski, among others, have done. Framing Munchausen Biproxy abuse this way isn't just incorrect, it can be dangerous. There's no value added.

There's no value added. And there's opportunity lost if we sit around and wait for people's behavior to rise to, the level of a diagnosable psychological problem. The Munchausen by proxy cases I cover on this show are necessarily the dramatic ones, because this abuse generally goes to an extreme before there's any intervention, especially from the criminal justice system.

The perpetrators I talk about have subjected their children to invasive surgeries, poison, suffocated, or starved them, crossing a Rubicon where there should be no conversation about reunification. But, as Jim reminded me, this isn't most cases. And not every perpetrator will take it this far. And the earlier we can catch harmful behavior, the easier it might be to deter it. So we have to, like, we have to think about this before these people become despicable. Yeah.

So that we can think about them with, like, think about them as people, not as stereotypes. Think about them as people like us with needs and help keep the guardrails up and help prevent them from going down these paths. I really appreciate where you're coming from. And I think that what is helpful about what you're talking about is, yeah, it remains focused on the child, right? And the harm to the child and the health of the family, right? Because it's not, I think what I get perennially frustrated with to kind of bring us back to the preventionist is this. idea of being positioned as like dionary at you know and all at all whatever the terminology is you know are four parents right they're four families they're four keeping families

together and you know you and i are four you know ripping them apart just willy-nilly you know the minute that there's any suspicion of abuse and that's how these doctors in particular are being portrayed right is well they're just hammers looking for a nail and kind of this idea and And I think, you know, I think there are some, I had a wonderful interview yesterday with Dr. Boos, who's a child abuse pediatrician for the upcoming season, you know, he was talking about, you know, just this idea of like the value system underlying all of this, right, which is that presumably, and this is obviously where you and I fall, right, that we have a value that children have an inherent right to be safe. in their homes. And that if their parents cannot provide that right, then they shouldn't be left in those homes to suffer. And that is not a value that everyone shares. Most people will not openly say that they don't share that value. But I struggle to see how something like the preventionist is speaking from that set of values. You know, again, I think, I think, I think

that this often comes to be as it's evolved because the children are invisible. It doesn't seem like you're picking sides. It seems like there's a family and you're breaking the family up and the parents are sticking up for their family. But the whole concept of family assumes that the parents are fulfilling their roles as protectors of the children. it's also the case the things that we wish to have people pay attention to are things that people would like to believe don't happen you know it's as simple as that like no one wants to believe like if we can't trust mothers to love their children what on earth can we trust and and there are a lot of people who simply don't want to believe that a mother would

poison their child, or that a mother would sort of advocate to have a kid treated like a person with physical disabilities and kept from, you know, the activities of typically developing children just so that she could have something to do with her time or feel loved and supported by people in her community or to, you know, be the vice president of the cerebral, you know, the cerebral palsy, you know, advocacy committee in her town or what have you. We don't want to believe that that could be. Mark Pinsley's report about the alleged overdiagnosis of Munchausen by proxy in Lehigh was certainly headline grabbing.

And the Stelts family, who are the lead plaintiffs, are a Munchausen by proxy case. But there are now a dozen families who've joined this lawsuit, and more than half of them are physical abuse cases. But one of the things that concerned me about the series, I listened to the three, first three episodes, is the danger of seeing medical child abuse in the same framework or using the same template of understanding that's used for physical abuse. take the case of head trauma, shaken baby, if you will, any kind of violence perpetrated against a child to cause physical abuse, it is reasonable to think about that case, or those cases, as a parent who is overwhelmed and maybe they need anger management, maybe they have a substance abuse problem. Maybe they have an untreated sleep disorder and they are always disregulated. Maybe they have an untreated bipolar disorder, whatever. It's much easier to,

and much more correct, to think about remediation. Think about having the parent in the presence of the child under certain circumstances or meeting certain, you know, goals, et cetera. You can see some incrementalism in reunification that might be appropriate for that kind of case. But that's rarely the case for medical child abuse. People really don't understand that unlike the father who spouts off and, you know, shakes a kid out of frustration, the father's not intending to do it. if there's any misdirection or deception involved, it's to cover up because they know they did something wrong. But when the jigs up, then, you know, it's not unusual, I don't think, for people

who have abused their children in that way to want to not, you know, they want to not hurt their children again in the future, so on and so forth. Medical child abuse is much more in the cases that reach this level where CPS has to be contacted are much more like child exploitative. than physical abuse. It's not an event-oriented kind of abuse. You're not looking for like the sexual penetration event or the shaken baby event that has its correlated medical findings. And what CAPs do very well is they understand those things

and can make fine distinctions between things that non-abuse trained pediatricians have a harder time doing. the intentional use of the child as a prop in sort of this theatrical narrative of the sick child and the sacrificing mother who is remaining loving and cheery in the face of scary illnesses in their child, etc. That is a long-running play and it has to be understood like as a narrative, the medical records are essentially sort of the screenplay, the text of the narrative, how we got here, how things, how this illusion that the child is sick is being maintained. And in that case where what the parent is trying to do is intentionally

protect a narrative, they can't be trusted. They can't be trusted with their other children. They can't be trusted until they see what they've done, admit what they've done, and make, like, psychologically, accurately targeted therapy efforts to fix whatever need, put them in this position in the first place. People, you want to link the abuse together. There's a natural tendency to want to link medical child abuse, which is less accepted, together with things that are more accepted. together with things that are more accepted. It's understandable to think about these things together. But they're really important, like qualitative, like differences in the nature of the abuse, the course of the abuse, et cetera.

And, you know, here's where it comes in handy to think of them differently. I've been involved in a lot of cases where the doctors have been suspicious that something was going on and they caught the mother. on tape, suffocating the child or putting something in the child's IV. And they and CPS basically said, case closed. They said, we've got all the evidence we need. We saw it happening right here. And then, as a defense, the mother and her attorney claim that, yes, she did that. It's on tape. There's no denying it. The doctors have not paid attention. to the child's real needs. They haven't diagnosed the child's real medical problems. And you

go into court with your videotape and the mother comes into court with the story saying that everything that I've done up to this point, the doctor's said to do. It's all in the medical records. And the prosecution is caught completely off guard and they lose. And so medical child abuse is not an event-related form of abuse. It's a narrative-related type of child exploitation. As we spoke about previously, the Stelts case is particularly interesting because it has an element I've never seen before, a teenage victim coming forward to disclose his own abuse and that of his younger brother. The Stelts' son then became emancipated from his parents and remains estranged from them. I asked Jim what he made of this remarkable detail. That's an unusual

event. I have not had any personal cases where that is true, but I've had plenty of personal cases where the older child was so co-opted into the narrative that they were ill, that they didn't fight it. I mean, it's not just being, whether you're aware of it or not. Some people say, how could an older kid be convinced that, you know, convinced that they're sick when they're really not. That's not what they're convinced of. They're convinced that they can't support themselves. They have nowhere to go. And they have two options, one to make their mother furious with them or to go along. And so they go along to get along. This is an extraordinary young man who extricated himself at that age, sort of was aware of what was going on and did something for

himself. But very often they don't. And not because they don't know. It's because they really don't have a choice. Yeah. I mean, and, you know, we've heard, you know, you and I have both talked to many survivors of this abuse. And, you know, we, we have heard from them about their experiences of sort of how their mother would co-op them into this, right? And they would say things to them like, you really are sick. So you need to do X, Y, Z in front of the doctor, or they won't believe you and you'll die. I think this young man is extraordinary and also like sort of that shouldn't be the expectation that there would be an outcry from the child for all those reasons you mentioned. And it's extraordinary to me. I think the fact that Neri doesn't give us

any context for the steltzes, to me that shows an ill intent. Because as a journalist, if you are just approaching this the way that she frames it, you know, two years ago, I got a call about this situation. And I went down there to investigate. And you find out the details of the steltzes. How are you not intrigued by that? I mean, that is, that's, how does, and how does that not give you pause when you think, like, this young man is trying to live his life and you're doing PR for this lawsuit? I mean, it's so, yeah, I mean, that part is just so striking to me.

I don't know if this young man is old enough to listen to podcast. about the problem that he was victimized by, but how must it feel to adult survivors and to people like him who essentially, you know, we talked in the beginning of our discussion today about like who's speaking for the child? Where's the voice of the child? Well, we now have adult survivors that thanks to you and the efforts of the professionals associated with Munchausen support, are coming forward and telling their stories. Like, there's telling their stories to us, and they're telling the stories to each other. But what do you think they think and feel when, you know, so-called respected journalists

are uncritically siding with the kind of people who abuse them? You know, I think our society, the medical community, especially, the legal community, really needs to hear from these people and put a, put a face on this abuse, put a name on this abuse, and a media climate like this, like, you know, they would just be getting abused again if they came out and started telling their stories. The media is making, doing that, require too much courage. With a business to run and two kids to raise, it's important that we stay on top of our finances in my household. And it helps to have a bank that's actually on your side, which is why I love time.

You can open a checking account with no monthly fees and no maintenance fees. You can get paid up to two days early when you set up a direct deposit. And with qualifying direct deposits, you're eligible for fee overdraft up to $200. on debit card purchases and cash withdrawals. In fact, to date, Chime has spotted their members over $30 billion, billion with a B dollars. And with Chime, you also get access to over 47,000 fee-free ATMs, which is more than the top three national banks combined. So wherever your holiday travels might be taking you, they've got your back. So work on your financial goals through Chime today. Open an account in two minutes at chime.com slash believe. That's chime.com slash

Chime feels like progress. And remember, the shopping our sponsors is a great way to support the show. Chime is a financial technology company, not a bank, banking services and debit card provided by the Bankor Bank N.A or Stride Bank N.A. Members FDIC. Spot me eligibility requirements and overdraft limit supply. Timing depends on submission of payment file. Fees apply at out of network ATMs. Bank ranking and number of ATMs, according to U.S. News and World Report 203. Chim, checking account required. Well, the holidays are barreling towards us at the end of this, the longest year in human history. And I just want to be fancy and cozy at the same time. And my favorite brand quince makes this possible. Of course, Quince's cashmere sweaters are a perennial hit, and I also love their washable silk tops, skirts, and dresses.

Yes, silk that is washable. It is so easy to care for and it looks super lux and polished. I am currently eyeing the silk slip dress and the silk jersey mini wrap for holiday parties. And if you're the kind of responsible person who does holiday shopping early, look no further. Quince has beautifully curated gift guides with accessories, sweaters, bedding, jewelry, you name it. They also have adorable kids' holiday pajamas. Quince is truly a one-stop shop for all the lovely things. And, as always, Quince works directly with ethical top-tier factories so you can skip

the middlemen and pay 50% less than similar brands. So step into the holiday season with layers made to feel good, look, polished, and last from Quince. Perfect for gifting or keeping for yourself. Go to quince.com slash believe for free shipping on your order and 365-day returns. Now available in Canada, too. That's Q-U-I-N-C-E dot POM slash Believe to get. get free shipping and 365-day returns.

Quince.com slash believe. And remember, the chopping our sponsors is a great way to support the show. It was a bit surreal listening to Neri describe her experience of getting wind of this story and not mentioning the existence of the viral and similarly misleading, story she wrote about Maya Kowalski for New York Magazine, dragging Dr. Sally Smith through the mud. I just thought, of course the parents in Lehigh wanted to talk to Neri. They know a mark when they see one. I do think there are journalists who get swept up in these stories out of genuine naivete.

But if you're going to cover child abuse cases, you need to understand the systems that you're reporting on, because otherwise you can end up not only spreading misinformation, but actually contributing to the abuse. The irony, at least as it applies to medical child abuse, is that these people have successfully convinced doctors and other medical professionals to believe their stories and to go along with them, et cetera, and to be essentially the victim by proxy. The poor beleaguered mom, da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da. And then they turn around and they do the same thing with the reporters. I mean, sort of the gall, the con artist skills of these perpetrators, you know, it's easy. It's easy to find people like these journalists who want to be the champion.

The doctors often are the ones who want to be the champion. They want to be important. The patient, the parents say things like, no one else has listened to me. me. Thank God for you. You're the only person who understands my complex snowflake child. Yeah. You're my angel. And they get back all the love and appreciation and so forth that they're looking for. And then when they get caught, they're the victim of the justice system. They play the victim again and they find people that they can co-opt into their narrative. And on it goes. It's, you know, this behavior is really sort of as much as anything an extension of what they were doing with their kids. Yeah, absolutely. And I think, you know, we've talked at some length, certainly in Montailles' board and on the committee, about how, you know, and I think, sorry, we will not rehash the endless terminology debates that we've had. But, you know, a lot of us have sort of settled on this descriptor rather than just medical child abuse of saying Montchhaus and bioproxy abuse,

exactly because it encompasses things that are not medical. Like, yes, there is often a focus on the medical, but it is also educational abuse. It's emotional abuse. It's psychological abuse. It's neglect. And I think, like, this is part of that, right? It's like, this is, like, the journalists are participating in the abuse. They are participating in the exploitation of these children.

And I do not, I am no longer sort of shying away. from that framing because you are you are feeding the beast you know it's like you are you know in terms of like what we do know right about this sort of psychology of this is that it is this thing where like it escalates and you know it because it's like a drug right they have that just compulsive nature to it and you are feeding that if you are a journalist who is just giving them a space to get what they want, right? Which is that attention, sympathy, feeling of control, right? Feeling of fooling people. And I think that, like, that is how we need to frame these, you know, not to say, like, there are certainly journalists, I want to make space for this.

There are journalists that get caught up in these that do a feel-good story about a family, raising money, you know, and like we have this nightmarish health care system where people do have to, like, and perform their child's illness to get money they need to cover it. Like, that's not a not real thing, right? And they're certainly journalists who, you know, are covering kids' cancer, but of telethon, you know, that kind of thing, like that certainly have gotten caught up into it that are not culpable, much like there are doctors that get caught up in this that are not culpable, and then there's ones that are.

And so I think, I think Dianneri, much like Mike Hicks and Bogg, is one that is just actively participating in the exploitation of the children, especially. you know, in those stories where, you know, and this is not relevant for the preventionist, but like where they're including just this horrific medical porn, you know, of the children. Like, do you know how many pictures I've had to look at of my niece hooked up to this, that, and the other thing? I mean, that's horrible that those photos are out there. There's an absolute lack of concern for the children.

Well, it might be sobering. for these journalists to think that because of what they're doing, somewhere out there, there's a parent who's somewhere along this developmental path I've spoken about, who's thinking, how do I get on a podcast? How do I get a feature in the New York Times? How do I get a movie on Netflix? Yep, how do I get a movie on Netflix? I think a lot about the possible unintended consequences of my reporting.

Because while I don't think that most perpetrators want the kind of attention I offer, and I'm certainly not offering them an uncritical platform, I'm still giving them attention, and another reason to be a victim. And while there are stories we've told alongside the victims and survivors of the abuse, that isn't always possible. I feel that every story I've covered on this show was one that needed to be told. But my team and I are always scrutinizing our reporting, asking hard questions. Could anything we say inadvertently make things worse for any of these kids?

Will it make it harder for parents of legitimately sick children in some way that we don't anticipate? We do our very best, but it's high stakes. And I simply don't see evidence of Neri or anyone else on the serial team grappling with this. They seem unconcerned with what Kimberly and Stephen Seltz's son might have endured at the hands of his parents. They don't even mention them. And they don't appear to have grappled at all with what it might mean for all of the children in this story, if Serial is, unintentionally, just giving a sympathetic platform to their abusers. I wonder sometimes if they just don't think we really exist,

if they suspect that maybe we're the ones who are fabricating things. We've certainly all been accused of that at one point or another. Or maybe they don't think about us at all. Maybe they just don't care. It's not like they didn't have the opportunity to get things right. It's a little bit disappointing that our colleague, Dr. Randy Alexander was actually interviewed for the piece. So he was apparently accessible to her to ask for background, to get some clarification, present that example to him and for him

to comment on it. And he's pretty much famous for his work in medical child abuse. He's right there, I worry that we're not too far away from this segment of the media, this segment of however we want to describe the parents who are involved, I was saying it's pointless to talk about, to search for experts on this thing because this thing doesn't exist. Anybody who claims to be an expert on it has been fooled. Or they're sort of complicit in the child's kidnapping. the medical kidnapping business. Well, and we see that in the legal cases, right,

where a lot of times they will try and use the Dober motions or however that's pronounced to just say, Munchauseniproxy is junk science, throw it out. This is not a credible expert because it's not a credible field. They tried that in Kowalski. But I mean, and, you know, from the standpoint of, you know, medical or psychological diagnoses, et cetera, you know, they've got a great case to make

and that's why we should stop relying on it. But I'm talking about, you know, discrediting a whole idea of medical child abuse in any of its forms, ever anywhere. Like, just leave us alone to take care of our kids the way we want. And, you know, we know the victims. You know, we know their stories and we know what's happened to them. And that'll be a terrible thing if they achieve that. And so, you know, one of the things I do specifically is focus on prevention because, you know, I don't want to be, I don't want to be mistaken as some sort of child kidnapper. I would much rather your child didn't have to be kidnapped.

And we can do that through prevention. Yeah, the other, I think another missing ingredient here, it's missing in court cases where defense attorney. try to represent the accused perpetrator. It's missing from these discussions in the media is sort of a lack of any consideration of what motive a physician would want, would have to want to find themselves in the middle of this kind of chaos and legal jeopardy and, you know, being abraded in the media, it just does make any sense at all. And, you know, in fact, the thing we worry about is that people are so even independent of all of this media stuff. You know, we are programmed to be disgusted by people who question whether sick people are really sick.

Sometimes when I give talks, I say, you know, imagine somebody you know who's, they're, they've told you they have cancer, that a relative has cancer, and saying to them, you know, I'm not buying it. You know, I ask them to actually think about saying those words to the face of somebody. And they can't imagine doing it. It makes you sick to your stomach just to think about it. And so this social contract we live in that a guy named Talcott Parsons way back only slightly before I was born described as the sick role. Identified what it means to be the sick person and what are the obligations and entitlements involved in being sick. But what are also the obligations of people in your social orbit? and a fundamental one is to accept the person's illness at face value and afford them, you know, the

forbearance, the kindness, the compassion, et cetera, that will contribute to them getting better and getting back into their roles in society. Sick role is supposed to be a temporary thing. But, you know, but because of that, sort of exemplified by that, is this idea that that, is this idea that no one wants to accuse somebody of faking. No one wants to see it. And, you know, part of my, part of my, sort of mission is just to get people to open their minds and look for it. That being suspicious, having a slightly suspicious mind early and often will save you from the kind of sinking feeling you have that makes you wait. You kind of smell smoke in your house, but it's really embarrassing if you call the fire department and there's really, it's really nothing. And so you wait and you wait and you

wait and you wait and next thing you know, your house is half on fire and the fire department is still 10 minutes away. The worse it gets, the more awful it is to criticize the parent and the less likely they are to do it. So that's the reality. But the portrayal in the media, is a bunch of child abuse pediatricians and other doctors who's sitting around waiting to kidnap your child. It's absurd. It's offensive. And, you know, it's disappointing that people consuming this media don't think critically about this and ask those sorts of questions. I'm really waiting on someone to answer the question that you just posed of like, what would motivate anyone to falsely accused parents of abuse.

Larger minds than mine will have to think about why in general we've become a culture of people who need an enemy. Scapecoting? It's like to keep us from marching on the billionaires. I mean, that's just my. It's, you know. Keep us all at each other's throat so that we don't look at who's really ruining everything. Why do we need enemies?

Why do we have to make And we're going to make enemies out of teachers and we're going to make enemies out of doctors and we're going to make enemies out of scientists and we're going to make enemies out of professors. Like the people on whom our continued progress as a society

utterly depend, basically. The only people who benefit from this kind of media coverage are child abusers and their defense attorneys. I'm not saying no one has ever been falsely accused of child abuse. I'm not saying no one has been badly treated by the system, but this critique does not lead us to anything helpful, right?

They've identified the wrong point of failure. There is no evidence that child abuse pediatricians are kidnapping children, separating families unnecessary, etc. So I do think that most people in this country share the value that children deserve to be safe in their homes and that they should not be subjected to abuse by their parents if that is happening. I think there is a small, unfortunately, very active minority that believes that whatever happens between parents and children should not be the purview of doctors or the state or anyone else. There is that faction. They are, and they are unfortunately like the Project 2025 of it all. But I think that most people agree that children should be safe in their homes. And so I think we just need to keep confronting them with the person

they should actually be sympathizing with, which is the child and which is the adult abuse, and the people who have suffered because of these actions and the inaction of systems to protect those children. Couldn't agree more. Well, Jim, thank you so much. Thank you so much to Dr. Jim Hamilton for joining us this week. As always, if you want to learn more about Munchausen by proxy or you need help, you can find that at Munchausensupport.com. And if you'd like to support that work, you can also donate there. And just to note that the prevention, does not have their Spotify comments enabled. So if you'd like to let them know your thoughts,

the place to do that is in their Apple reviews or by sending them an email at serials shows at NYTimes.com. And we'll be back next week, continuing our conversation on the preventionist with a very special guest. Frankly, I've been accused of the same thing by some of these same people. I don't apologize for being fairly zealous

in trying to protect children who I think are in serious danger. That's next time, on Nobody Should Believe Me. Nobody Should Believe Me is produced and hosted by me, Andrea Dunlop. Our editor is Greta Stromquist, and our senior producer is Mariah Gossett. Research and fact-checking by Aaron Ajay, administrative support from Nola Karmouche.

When Holiday Prep means cleaning every corner, reach for Pine Soul Original Pine. Pine Sole is the only one you need for multiple surfaces, cleaning floors, counters, stoves, toilets, and showers while killing 99.9% of germs. With long-lasting freshness and an iconic pine scent, it's sure to give you that fresh holiday feeling. Shop now and get your home holiday ready with Pine Soul. Use as directed.

At Desjardin Insurance, we put the care in taking care of business. your business to be exact. Our agents take the time to understand your company so you get the right coverage at the right price. Whether you rent out your building, represent a condo corporation, or own a cleaning company, we make insurance easy to understand so you can focus on the big stuff. Like your small business. Get insurance that's really big on care. Find an agent today at dejerdin.com slash business coverage.