Can I voice some doubts without being browbeaten into silence, please?<p>First, it seems the main health complaints of the husband, excess vitamin D and hypercalcemia (excess Ca, calcium) are both unrelated to the wife's spiking of his drinking water with potassium (according to their conversation towards the end) which instead can cause <i>hyperkalemia</i> (excess K, potassium). Wikipedia tells me that hypercalcemia is a symptom of sarcoidosis, which the husband suffered from in 2018, early in the events described in the post so it can be explained without recourse to poisoning, certainly not with potassium. Excess vitamin D is hard to explain, especially in Sweden (!) but it's hard to see how it could be caused by taking potassium.<p><i>Hyperkalemia</i> is a dangerous condition that could be fatal for a man with heart and kidney problems, like the author, but I can't find it mentioned anywhere in the post, or in the images of clinical notes. This suggests to me that whatever substance the wife was spiking the husband's water with (e.g. KCl, potassium chloride, a table salt alternative that can very easily be bought on and offline) it was not enough to cause any detectable change in blood tests etc. Consequently it doesn't seem like it could have anything to do with the husband's health complaints.<p>Which were many and varied and described in minute detail, complete with a plethora of images of medical devices and material. This is the second reason that I'm doubtful about the husband's account. On the one hand it's written as if by an aspiring writer of crime novels, with a dramatic inversion of real time events, starting from the arrest of the wife and not making it quite clear what is going on until the very end and the discussion between the pair. On the other hand, most of the medical conditions described seem to have nothing to do with the spiking of the husband's water with potassium, so why are they given so much space? The husband seems to be blaming the wife for everything that is going wrong with his health, but how many of those medical issues are symptoms of sarcoidosis, which he suffers from?<p>The style of writing makes it very hard for me to trust the author is giving a straight and honest account of events from his point of view. If the purpose of the post is to give a clear account of what the husband believes happened then it falls far short of the clarity that would be achieved by a straightforward telling of events in the order in which they happened and without details of no obvious relevance. There can be many reasons for publishing that kind of text on the internet, such as plain bad taste, but among the many explanations is, indeed, "Factitious disorder imposed on self" (a.k.a. Munchausen Syndrome) or in any case a very strong desire to present oneself as a victim of nefarious actions, for psychological reasons.<p>In any case what I have just read is a dramatic telling of a story from the point of view of a person that is clearly in ill health. I have no idea what happened, to whom, and for what reasons, let alone whether this was really an instance of deliberate poisoning. The dialogue between the pair towards the end makes both spouses look a bit unhinged. The situation is far from normal and drawing any conclusion is very hard.