06/09/2026
Poppy Coburn, we need to talk.
I’ve read beyond the headline, and this isn’t merely a piece saying “there may be overdiagnosis online.”
There are legitimate questions to have about social-media health content, commercialisation, self-diagnosis and dodgy practitioners.
BUT this article repeatedly collapses those questions into a narrative about young women collectively manufacturing illness, adopting disability as an identity and withdrawing from productive life.
And the particularly fu***ng obnoxious:
“were they not decked out in the accessories of their disease, it would be impossible to perceive the conditions…”
…is a spectacularly loaded way of talking about invisible disability.
The really galling thing is the acknowledgement that POTS, ME and other chronic illnesses can be genuine and disabling, and quotes the chair of POTS UK saying that patients are frequently told their symptoms are psychological.
Then Coburn basically says - yes, these illnesses exist… but look at all these women talking about them online, therefore perhaps the problem is the women 🤯
And the bit about people having multiple conditions being evidence of “bad luck” being too improbable is exceptionally poor reasoning. Comorbidity is absolutely NOT the bizarre statistical anomaly she presents it as.
Also: EDS. Coburn casually drops EDS into her list of fashionable acronyms and then uses the broader “sickfluencer” thesis to cast suspicion over the whole ecosystem. That’s going to land very differently when you’re talking about people with actual diagnosed connective-tissue disorders, autonomic dysfunction, chronic pain etc.
The article starts with a legitimate question - are people being misdiagnosed or exploited online? But then begins suggesting that the visibility of disabled women is itself evidence of a sickness culture, which is something else entirely.
That’s not neutral reporting. That’s framing.
Come and tell me what I got wrong… I’ll wait 🦓
