2012 Letter to the Independent on harassment of researchers

Hutan

Moderator
Staff member
IoS letters, emails & online postings (2 December 2012)
https://www.independent.co.uk/voice...-online-postings-2-december-2012-8373777.html

Chronic Fatigue Syndrome/ME is a debilitating condition affecting some 1 per cent of the UK population (“ME: bitterest row yet in a long saga”, 25 November). We believe this serious illness needs improved treatments and care, and that research is central to making this happen.

However, researchers in the field have been the target of a campaign to undermine their work and professional credibility. This harassment risks undermining research in the field, preventing the development of new treatments and discouraging specialist clinicians from entering the field. We fear that this may have resulted in patients not receiving the best treatments or care – staying ill for longer and not being able to live their life to its full potential.

So it is with sadness that we read in The Independent on Sunday reports of false allegations made against Simon Wessely - one of the few UK clinicians with a specialist interest in treating CFS/ME and someone who has done pioneering research in the field. Ironically, it was because of accusations like this that Professor Wessely received the award in the first place.

Professor Peter White, Professor of Psychological Medicine, Queen Mary University of London

Professor Michael Sharpe, Professor of Psychological Medicine, University of Oxford

Dr Esther Crawley, Reader in Child Health, University of Bristol

Professor Stephen Holgate CBE, MRC Clinical Professor of Immunopharmacology, University of Southampton


Professor Rona Moss-Morris, Head of Health Psychology, King’s College London

Dr Charlotte Feinmann, Reader , UCL

Professor Hugo Critchley, Chair in Psychiatry, Brighton and Sussex Medical School

Dr Brian Angus, Reader in Infectious Diseases, Nuffield Department of Medicine, University of oxford

Dr Steven Reid, Clinical Director for Psychological Medicine, Central and North West London NHS Foundation Trust

Professor Patrick Doherty, Professor of Rehabilitation, York St John University


Professor Paul Little, Professor of Primary Care Research, University of Southampton

Dr Maurice Murphy, HIV Consultant, Barts Health NHS Trust

Professor Tim Peto, Consultant in Infectious Diseases and General Medicine, Nuffield Department of Medicine, University of Oxford

Professor Sir Mansel Aylward, Chair, Public Health Wales, Cardiff University

Dr Alastair Miller, Consultant Physician, Royal Liverpool University Hospital

Professor Diane Cox, Professor of Occupational Therapy, University of Cumbria

Professor Jonathan Sterne, Professor of Medical Statistics and Epidemiology, University of Bristol

Dr Margaret May, Reader in Medical Statistics, University of Bristol

Professor George Davey-Smith, Professor of Clinical Epidemiology, University of Bristol

Dr Jade Thai, Senior Research Fellow, University of Bristol

Dr Gabrielle Murphy, Clinical Lead Physician, Fatigue Service, Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust

Dr Hazel O'Dowd, Consultant Clinical Psychologist and CFS/ME Team Leader, Frenchay Hospital Bristol


Dr Brian Marien, Director, Positive Health

Professor Willie Hamilton, Professor of Primary Care Diagnostics, University of Exeter

Dr Selwyn Richards, Consultant Rheumatologist, Poole Hospital NHS Trust

Professor Alison Wearden, Professor of Health Psychology, University of Manchester

Professor Trudie Chalder, Department of Psychological Medicine, King’s College London.
 
We believe this serious illness needs improved treatments and care, and that biomedical research is central to making this happen.

However, biomedical researchers in the field have been the target of a campaign to undermine their work and professional credibility. This harassment risks undermining research in the field, preventing the development of new treatments and discouraging specialist clinicians from entering the field. We fear that this may have resulted in patients not receiving the best treatments or care – staying ill for longer and not being able to live their life to its full potential.

Signed, everyone else.
 
:)

Signed, everyone else.
(everyone except Paul Garner, who seems to have been a bit late coming to the full-on BPS party, and Simon Wessely, who could hardly have signed that 2012 letter saying how wonderful and brave he is, that's what he has acolytes for.)

Edit - oh, probably a few others too - see the Anomalies paper. Maybe the Independent had a limit on how many signatures could be attached to a letter.
 
Last edited:
Interesting. Given some sort of three-line-whip I imagine was involved for those with the career aspirations most dependent, I'm struck at how short and geographically clustered/niche the list of 26 people is actually. A lot of Bristol, Oxford and King's with a few from niche depts of Southampon, Sussex, Manchester, Cardiff. Worth noting the massive psychology departments that are present at many other large universities, certainly back then, don't feature?
 
Last edited:
I found the following from Margaret Williams whilst searching for what this letter has termed as 'false allegations' but history has now taught me in this means I could actually be looking for anything: http://www.margaretwilliams.me/2012/arise-sir-simon.pdf

I'm not sure that I'm any the wiser in this particular question, but I guess that's the point of the PR

However, If all correct this article goes onto some highly fascinating notes about his approach to Gulf War Syndrome:

It can hardly be forgotten that Wessely has denied the very existence of a Gulf War Syndrome: in their official report published in The Lancet (Health of UK servicemen who served in Persian Gulf War; Catherine Unwin, Anthony David, Simon Wessely et al; Lancet 16 January 1999:353:169-178), the authors claimed they found an association with the “belief” of exposure to a chemical attack, but they failed to identify a specific illness among Gulf War veterans and concluded that there is no such thing as Gulf War Syndrome. In an accompanying supportive article, the late Stephen Straus was categoric: “The cumulative studies now confirm that there is no unique Gulf War syndrome”.

Thirteen years later, acknowledging his honour, Wessely says: “There may not be a distinct illness -- Gulf War Syndrome is a misnomer—Rather it’s an illness or health effect” (Military health expert knighted: 28th December 2012: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-20850694). Wessely’s comment must be seen in the light of the fact that “illness” is now deemed by some to be a “behaviour” and in order to be afforded legitimacy, one must have a “disease” (The Scientific and Conceptual Basis of Incapacity Benefits (TSO, 2005) written by Gordon Waddell and Mansel Aylward; published by the Department for Work and Pensions).

Nine months after Wessely et al published their negative findings in The Lancet, a two-year study carried out by Dr Beatrice Golomb for the US Defense Department did not support their conclusions. On 20th October 1999 at 2.20am it was announced on the BBC World Service that, as a result of the Golomb study, the Pentagon had released a statement confirming that it had changed its policy....

On his own admission, in his official study of Gulf War veterans, Wessely performed no clinical examination or laboratory investigations. He worked only from a self-report questionnaire sent only to selected veterans, yet he confidently concluded that there is no such thing as Gulf War Syndrome and the MOD accepted his findings.

In 1999, statistics showed that in the US, 9,000 Gulf War deployed personnel were dead (and these were previously fit and healthy young men) and that there were 230,000 medical cases. From the UK alone, 53,000 troops were involved in the Gulf War but it was not known how many were ill or dead because the only epidemiological study on UK veterans was the one done by Wessely et al which failed to identify a specific Gulf War Syndrome.

A review of all the epidemiological data by Lea Steele for the Research Advisory Committee on Gulf War Veterans’ illness in Washington DC published on 17th November 2008 found between 25 – 30% of deployed and prepared-for-deployment veterans were sick. In the UK this equates to 13,000 to 16,000 veterans. Many of these have died and the remainder live with unacknowledged chronic multi-system conditions with deleterious health and social effects on wives and children.

My bolding - sorry but I couldn't help but note the whiff of familiarity in this from e.g. BPSm's current suggestion that the 'recovery anecdotes from those who say they have recovered' should be focused on via Recovery Norge/Norway etc.

I just can't help but think how can someone think that is a contribution to epidemiology? Sounds rather familiar of seeming to focus on not investigating or getting to the bottom of and almost avoiding the ability for anything to be found?
 
Last edited:
Chronic Fatigue Syndrome/ME ME/CFS is a debilitating condition affecting some 1 per cent 0.4% of the UK population (“ME: bitterest row yet in a long saga”, 25 November). We believe this serious illness needs improved treatments and care, and that research is central to making this happen.

However, some misguided and prejudiced researchers in the field have been the target instigators of a campaign to undermine their work and professional patients' credibility. This harassment risks undermining research in the field patients' health, preventing the development of new treatments and discouraging ethical and competent specialist clinicians from entering the field. We fear that this may have resulted in patients not receiving the best treatments or care – staying ill for longer and not being able to live their life to its full potential.

So it is with sadness that we read in The Independent on Sunday reports of false allegations made against a prize being awarded to Simon Wessely - one of the few too many UK clinicians with a specialist interest in treating CFS/ME ME/CFS with ineffective and harmful treatment and someone who has done pioneering unscientific research in the field. Ironically, it was because of accusations against patients like this that Professor Wessely received the award in the first place.
 
On his own admission, in his official study of Gulf War veterans, Wessely performed no clinical examination or laboratory investigations.

Just following in the grand tradition of psychosomatics. See Beard & McEvedy, 1970 (a & b).
 
Simon Wessely - one of the few UK clinicians with a specialist interest in treating CFS/ME and someone who has done pioneering research in the field
He has? Because he made a few comments about his research some years ago, can't remember where, and he didn't have anything to mention other than he thought it was depression, then realized it isn't, even though this is what most MDs believe, and that they renamed it CFS, which is one of the worst thing to have happened. Which is obviously neither pioneering nor an accomplishment. And now I guess they're going with syndromes, plural. Or whatever.

Not only didn't he pioneer anything, he didn't actually contribute anything. I know this is an old letter, but even Wessely can't name an actual accomplishment. Which is normal since there has been zero progress thanks to ideologues like Wessely. Although now with Long Covid it's clear that the problems are far deeper and in the whole profession.
 
Back
Top Bottom