Who can you trust on online health forums?

The perils of "Münchausen by internet".

For all the benefits that search engines and online support groups have brought to patients – especially in an era of shrinking health budgets and stretched front-line services – the collision of health care and social media has highlighted a number of thorny issues. The internet is notoriously patchy as a source of health advice, for a start, with nervous users often vulnerable to "cyberchondria", the kind of hysteria that can transform an innocent mole into a malignant tumour or a minor rash into a life-threatening bout of meningitis.

Among the more pernicious phenomena that put today's online patients at risk is a pattern of behaviour known as "Münchausen by internet" (MBI), an online variant of Münchausen syndrome. Where old-fashioned, non-digital Münchausen sufferers feign illnesses in hospitals and GP's offices, MBI involves posting faked stories on internet support forums in an attempt to elicit sympathy and support from other users.

MBI, a term coined by the US psychiatrist Marc Feldman but still unrecognised by the latest Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV), has gained widespread media attention through a series of high-profile cases, one of the most recent being that of a teenage girl who, it was revealed last November, adopted the fictitious persona of a mother caring for her cancer-stricken daughter, stringing along the Macmillan cancer support forum for more than two years before the deception finally unravelled.

MBI falls into the hazy nether-region between the wider culture of online trolling and a genuine psychiatric condition. Whether a user lying on health forums is motivated by simple malice or deeper psychiatric issues, the fact remains that it's a lot easier to mislead a supportive online community than a doctor and the consequences are more serious. Whereas doctors are equipped to deal with hypochondriacs and fakers, people who post on forums are often patients themselves and considerably more vulnerable to abuses of trust.

What's more, the vast, faceless mass of anonymous online communities makes it incredibly difficult to pick out the fakers from their genuine counterparts. Barring the use of plagiarism software to spot suspicious patterns or bolstering privacy settings, which seems to defeat the purpose of public forums, the best defence is a sharp-eyed community, with specialists also calling for formal recognition of MBI as a pattern of behaviour and a more proactive social media stance from health-care authorities. Unfortunately, the internet seems to be throwing up issues such as MBI faster than anyone is equipped to address them. In the meantime, the best advice for health forum users will remain depressingly basic: tread carefully and carry a big grain of salt.

The article can be read in full here. Chris Lo is a senior technology writer for the NRI Digital network.

Web of deceit: internet users can be vulnerable to "cyberchondria". Photograph: Daniel Berehulak/Getty Images

 

Chris Lo is a senior technology writer for the NRI Digital network.

Getty.
Show Hide image

Andy Burnham and Sadiq Khan are both slippery self-mythologisers – so why do we rate one more than the other?

Their obsessions with their childhoods have both become punchlines; but one of these jokes, it feels to me, is told with a lot more affection than the other.

Andy Burnham is a man whose policies and opinions seem to owe more to political expediency than they do to belief. He bangs on to the point of tedium about his own class, background and interests. As a result he’s widely seen as an unprincipled flip-flopper.

Sadiq Khan is a man whose policies and opinions seem to owe more to political expediency than they do to belief. He bangs on to the point of tedium about his own class, background and interests. As a result he’s the hugely popular mayor of London, the voice of those who’d be proud to think of themselves as the metropolitan liberal elite, and is even talked of as a possible future leader of the Labour party.

Oh, and also they were both born in 1970. So that’s a thing they have in common, too.

Why it is this approach to politics should have worked so much better for the mayor of London than the would-be mayor of Manchester is something I’ve been trying to work out for a while. There are definite parallels between Burnham’s attempts to present himself as a normal northern bloke who likes normal things like football, and Sadiq’s endless reminders that he’s a sarf London geezer whose dad drove a bus. They’ve both become punchlines; but one of these jokes, it feels to me, is told with a lot more affection than the other.

And yes, Burnham apparent tendency to switch sides, on everything from NHS privatisation to the 2015 welfare vote to the leadership of Jeremy Corbyn, has given him a reputation for slipperiness. But Sadiq’s core campaign pledge was to freeze London transport fares; everyone said it was nonsense, and true to form it was, and you’d be hard pressed to find an observer who thought this an atypical lapse on the mayor’s part. (Khan, too, has switched sides on the matter of Jeremy Corbyn.)

 And yet, he seems to get away with this, in a way that Burnham doesn’t. His low-level duplicity is factored in, and it’s hard to judge him for it because, well, it’s just what he’s like, isn’t it? For a long time, the Tory leadership’s line on London’s last mayor was “Boris is Boris”, meaning, look, we don’t trust him either, but what you gonna do? Well: Sadiq is Sadiq.

Even the names we refer to them by suggest that one of these two guys is viewed very differently from the other. I’ve instinctively slipped into referring to the mayor of London by his first name: he’s always Sadiq, not Khan, just as his predecessors were Boris and Ken. But, despite Eoin Clarke’s brief attempt to promote his 2015 leadership campaign with a twitter feed called “Labour Andy”, Burnham is still Burnham: formal, not familiar. 

I’ve a few theories to explain all this, though I’ve no idea which is correct. For a while I’ve assumed it’s about sincerity. When Sadiq Khan mentions his dad’s bus for the 257th time in a day, he does it with a wink to the audience, making a crack about the fact he won’t stop going on about it. That way, the message gets through to the punters at home who are only half listening, but the bored lobby hacks who’ve heard this routine two dozen times before feel they’re in the joke.

Burnham, it seems to me, lacks this lightness of touch: when he won’t stop banging on about the fact he grew up in the north, it feels uncomfortably like he means it. And to take yourself seriously in politics is sometimes to invite others to make jokes at your expense.

Then again, perhaps the problem is that Burnham isn’t quite sincere enough. Sadiq Khan genuinely is the son of a bus-driving immigrant: he may keep going on about it, but it is at least true. Burnham’s “just a northern lad” narrative is true, too, but excludes some crucial facts: that he went to Cambridge, and was working in Parliament aged 24. Perhaps that shouldn’t change how we interpret his story; but I fear, nonetheless, it does.

Maybe that’s not it, though: maybe I’m just another London media snob. Because Burnham did grow up at the disadvantaged end of the country, a region where, for too many people, chasing opportunities means leaving. The idea London is a city where the son of a bus driver can become mayor flatters our metropolitan self-image; the idea that a northerner who wants to build a career in politics has to head south at the earliest opportunity does the opposite. 

So if we roll our eyes when Burnham talks about the north, perhaps that reflects badly on us, not him: the opposite of northern chippiness is southern snobbery.

There’s one last possibility for why we may rate Sadiq Khan more highly than Andy Burnham: Sadiq Khan won. We can titter a little at the jokes and the fibs but he is, nonetheless, mayor of London. Andy Burnham is just the bloke who lost two Labour leadership campaigns.

At least – for now. In six weeks time, he’s highly likely to the first mayor of Greater Manchester. Slipperiness is not the worst quality in a mayor; and so much of the job will be about banging the drum for the city, and the region, that Burnham’s tendency to wear his northernness on his sleeve will be a positive boon.

Sadiq Khan’s stature has grown because the fact he became London’s mayor seems to say something, about the kind of city London is and the kind we want it to be. Perhaps, after May, Andy Burnham can do the same for the north – and the north can do the same for Andy Burnham.

Jonn Elledge edits the New Statesman's sister site CityMetric, and writes for the NS about subjects including politics, history and Daniel Hannan. You can find him on Twitter or Facebook.