[Undertoad]

Originally Posted by Flint

Are you ƒucking kidding me?

This is what I learned from watching the video you posted: The doctors who have actually examined her believe she has dystonia. Then "some guy" on the news who hasn't examined her, but has seen some videos of her, thinks she might have this other condition.

Desiree followup:

Actually, Flint, according to the VAERS report, it turns out that the doctors who originally examined her listed dystonia as one of maybe 30 possible descriptions of her malady (along with "psychosomatic illness" as I posted earlier). But reviewing the Wikipedia entry on Desiree*, the first news item that ever occurred on her was in her local paper, in which they state:

Desiree has seen her primary care physician, physical therapists, speech therapists, neurologists, neuropsychologists, psychiatrists and a bevy of nurses.

Amazingly, it was her physical therapist who provided the clinical diagnosis: Dystonia.

Her physical therapist...! Not "doctors who have actually examined her".

If it isn't clear by now, part of my fascination with this case is really how information travels. What do people find relevant, what do they repeat? How do errors get introduced into the narrative, and do they ever correct themselves? When Flint wrote

Are you ƒucking kidding me?

This was a very motivational demand, and somehow it made me want to follow this through to the most bitter end, in tw-like fashion.

Why did Desiree repeat the diagnosis of dystonia given by her physical therapist, and not any of the scores of other possibilities given by actual physicians and specialists? I don't think she was ever faking, so I'd say we don't know. Maybe that was just the weird word she remembered. Maybe the physical therapist was more personal and convincing than the Johns Hopkins neuropsychologists.

Why did the newspaper say "Amazingly, it was her physical therapist" and not "Despite a bevy of possible explanations from specialists, Desiree chose her physical therapist's call as the right one"? Because reporters for small local dailies are often not the best journalists.

Why did Inside Edition press that as the narrative? Because Inside Edition is TV tabloidism and their goal is to quickly and cheaply develop exciting and controversial stories, not to dig for the truth. Did they make a follow-up call to Johns Hopkins? ƒuck no, that's the boring part! We don't need to understand the story, just to be alarmed by pretty girl who can only walk backwards. That's how you score ratings amongst the people who watch syndicated tabloid TV in early nighttime. A self-selecting audience of the gullible.

And my Google alert on DJ shows a handful of new bloggers every day, spreading the news that DJ is permanently disfigured, even though she's been all better now for a month.



*The DJ controversy entry is marked to be deleted as not relevant enough for Wikipedia. If it is removed, this thread will remain the most extensive and documented discussion on DJ on the net, from what I have seen.