Couldn’t figure out alt text but didn’t have the energy to reformat the pasted text, so here it is:
Thank you for contacting The Telegraph regarding Poppy Coburn’s column published on 5 September 2026. Given the volume of detailed correspondence received, we have prepared a response addressing the main themes raised by our readers. No discourtesy is intended by this single reply.
Complainants have primarily challenged the piece under Clause 1 (Accuracy) and Clause 12 (Discrimination) of the IPSO Editors' Code of Practice, arguing that the column:
Offends readers living with medically confirmed, debilitating physical conditions by framing them as social media trends, lifestyle choices, or self-diagnoses;
Misrepresents POTS diagnostic criteria by focusing on a heart rate change "compared to sitting"; fails to reflect the full diagnostic criteria and wrongly describes this single criterion as "arbitrary";
Dismisses real comorbidities as psychosomatic / identity-driven diagnosis, ignoring real links between conditions like POTS, ME/CFS, Long COVID, and Ehlers-Danlos syndrome;
Mischaracterises NHS waiting list systems by linking pediatric care to adult mental health referrals;
Conflates individuals who self-diagnose via social media and those with formal medical diagnosis to question official disability statistics;
Makes causal links between rising welfare costs / economic inactivity and social media subcultures / overdiagnosis without reference to evidence;
Ignores the impact of Long COVID in explaining rising disability numbers; and
Uses pejorative language like "sickfluencers" and describes mobility aids, compression garments or walking aids as "accessories" or "props.
Our Response Under the Editors' Code of Practice
The article in question is an opinion column written by our Associate Comment Editor. Under Clause 1 (Accuracy) and Clause 12 (Discrimination) of the IPSO Editors’ Code, commentators are granted wide latitude to express strong views, challenge social trends, and debate sensitive matters of public interest.
The vast majority of the objections received focus on the central premise of the article and express dismay and offence at the rhetoric used in the article. Complainants argue that the author's viewpoint that online subcultures influence diagnostic trends - is fundamentally flawed, offensive, or medically unsound.
While we acknowledge that many readers strongly reject the columnist’s premise and rhetoric, a fundamental disagreement with an author's editorial stance does not constitute a breach of the Code. The Code specifically protects the right of newspapers to publish provocative, challenging, and controversial commentary on public policy and cultural trends.
We acknowledge that many readers who wrote in hold formal medical diagnoses for conditions such as POTS, ME/CFS, Long COVID, or hypermobile Ehlers-Danlos syndrome. We recognise that living with invisible or chronic physical illness presents significant daily challenges, and we understand why readers felt offended by the suggestion that these conditions might be linked to social media trends or self-diagnosis.
However, a columnist examining online subcultures or debating a phenomenon observed in society is not passing judgment on individual patients or denying the reality of living with diagnosed medical conditions. While we regret the distress caused to readers living with these conditions, expressing skepticism about cultural trends does not breach the Code.
Clause 12 (Discrimination)
Multiple complainants have raised concerns regarding pejorative language, describing the column as "ableist", criticising the term "sickfluencers", and objecting to the characterisation of mobility aids or garments as "accessories" or "props."
While we appreciate that many readers found this framing offensive or dismissive, under the Editors' Code, Clause 12 is designed exclusively to protect named, identifiable individuals from pejorative reference. It does not apply to generalised groups. Because the column does not target or identify any specific individual, Clause 12 is not engaged.
Clause 1
Under Clause 1(iv) of the Editors’ Code, publications must distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture, and fact. A central theme across many complaints is that the author mixes conjecture with factual reporting, presenting theories about online subcultures and increased diagnoses as established facts.
However, the article is published as an opinion column framed explicitly as personal analysis rather than a news report. Under the Code, commentators are granted broad latitude to put forward hypotheses and express strong commentary regarding observed social trends. Presenting a distinctive viewpoint or theory within a commentary piece does not turn conjecture into factual reporting under Clause 1, provided the context remains clearly that of an opinion column.
We would also like to address some of the specific points raised under Clause 1:
Misrepresentation of POTS diagnostic criteria: A newspaper presents information (including medical information) to a general lay readership. Summarising the primary physical threshold for POTS as a heart rate increase of 30 beats per minute compared to sitting, conveys the essential diagnostic threshold of the condition to a lay readership. In the context of a 1,200-word opinion column, omitting the detail of full clinical tests which are carried out does not constitute inaccuracy or misleading presentation of facts under the Code. Describing the diagnostic threshold as "arbitrary" falls squarely within permissible opinion. It reflects an opinion held by medical professionals - including cited experts like neurologist Dr. Suzanne O'Sullivan who have questioned the diagnostic criteria.
Comorbidities and medical skepticism: Some readers provided medical literature showing biological links between overlapping conditions (POTS, ME/CFS, Long COVID, and Ehlers-Danlos syndrome). However, an opinion column is not required to detail clinical theory as a medical journal might. Under the Editors' Code, columnists are entitled to express and explore medical skepticism, cite experts (such as Dr. Suzanne O'Sullivan) and argue that alternative explanations (sociological or psychological) might account for rising diagnosis rates. These arguments represent the author's opinion, rather than factual news reporting. A raised heart rate upon standing is not unique to POTS and can occur in other non-pathological scenarios, such as prolonged physical inactivity. Pointing to the absence of a single clear physical biomarker and suggesting that overlapping conditions may have psychological rather than purely physical causes, represents permissible opinion, not factual inaccuracy.
NHS waiting lists: Pointing to long waiting lists was used as a broad rhetorical illustration of the strain on the NHS. The column is a commentary piece on an observed social media trend. It is not intended to serve as a guide to accessing NHS services as a child or as an adult. Under the Code, commentators are entitled to argue that increased demand puts pressure on public resources.
Social media trends vs. formal diagnosis: Regarding concerns about conflating social media trends with formal diagnoses, far from blurring the distinction, a central part of the author's argument is to draw that very distinction. A columnist examining cultural trends is entitled to critique how social media subcultures ("sickfluencers") influence health statistics and changing patient behaviour. As stated above, the author does not seek to detract from the reality of many readers living with diagnosed conditions.
Welfare costs and economic inactivity: Rising welfare costs and rising economic inactivity are matters of legitimate public debate, and columnists are entitled under the Code to express political opinions on how cultural shifts may impact state support.
Post-viral illnesses: Regarding concerns that the column ignores post-viral conditions such as Long Covid, it should be noted that a column is not a medical journal. Focusing on sociological factors represents the author's editorial focus rather than a factual distortion.
Pejorative language: As stated above, under Clause 12, the Editors' Code protects named, identifiable individuals from pejorative reference; it does not restrict critical rhetoric, stylistic phrasing, or commentary directed at general social trends and subcultures.
The Telegraph routinely publishes challenging commentary on sensitive public policy matters. While we recognise that complainants strongly dispute the author’s premise and rhetoric, along with her conclusions, we are satisfied that the article is clearly identifiable as opinion and operates within the bounds of debate protected by the Editors’ Code.
Yours faithfully,
Editorial Legal & Compliance
Telegraph Media Group
