1. Guest, the 'News in Brief' for the week beginning 3rd May 2021 is here.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Welcome! To read the Core Purpose and Values of our forum, click here.
    Dismiss Notice

BMJ letter from LongCovid doctors.

Discussion in 'Epidemics (including Covid-19)' started by obeat, Sep 15, 2020.

  1. Barry

    Barry Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    6,770
    Likes Received:
    45,776
    upload_2020-9-17_14-43-5.png

    It is if you insist on applying it to the wrong f'ing illness, where even the flawed notion of of "establishing a regular baseline" can push people into PEM or relapse, and can end up going back to much worse than square one. I think he is on the back foot here.

    upload_2020-9-17_14-47-29.png

    By whose definition of "successful" wonder. Peerage?
     
    EzzieD, Wits_End, sebaaa and 8 others like this.
  2. chrisb

    chrisb Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    3,307
    Likes Received:
    22,947
    It would make a difference that it was written 32 years ago, but only if, in the meantime, the error had been acknowledged.
     
  3. Robert 1973

    Robert 1973 Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    756
    Likes Received:
    10,396
    Location:
    UK
    After my FT letter, I received an email from a scientist who told me that he was “attacked” by the KCL psychiatrists et al at a Royal Society of Medicine meeting in the 1980s. They claimed that his data could not be trusted because he was diagnosed with post-viral fatigue syndrome and he had vested interest in a positive outcome.

    Patients have a vested interest in the truth, not a positive outcome. Researchers with financial and professional conflicts of interests are the ones with vested interests in positive outcomes. And yet it is the latter which have prevailed for 30 years.

    The scientist in question has had ME for 40 years and is very unwell. His treatment by Wessely et al clearly still hurts very deeply.
     
  4. Barry

    Barry Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    6,770
    Likes Received:
    45,776
    NICE themselves clarify this:

    https://www.nice.org.uk/Media/Defau...rocedures/declaration-of-interests-policy.pdf
     
  5. MSEsperanza

    MSEsperanza Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    1,551
    Likes Received:
    11,186
    Location:
    betwixt and between

    Code:
    https://twitter.com/RobertHMcMullen/status/1306572870261321734
    Excellent question -- I hope I won't miss SW's answer.
     
  6. Mij

    Mij Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    4,488
    Likes Received:
    23,465
    Wessley:
    "Yes. “Pushing through” is not part of GET. It is about establishing a regular baseline and then gradually increasing without incurring severe PEM and thus going back to square one. CBT is about activity not exercise per se. Neither are about getting fit".

    If he was very 'knowledgeable' and 'successful' in his approach as he claims, he would understand after 30 years of practice that a baseline can NOT be achieved early on in PVFS or ME. It can take years, and sometimes there is no baseline- period.
     
  7. Snow Leopard

    Snow Leopard Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    2,763
    Likes Received:
    19,127
    Location:
    Australia
    Successful as in, the patients stopped coming back. ;)
     
  8. MeSci

    MeSci Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    3,034
    Likes Received:
    16,540
    Location:
    Cornwall, UK
    I don't quite understand this - a person is not seen as an interest?
     
  9. rvallee

    rvallee Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    6,172
    Likes Received:
    50,131
    Location:
    Canada
    Worth reading in its entirety. Wessely is seriously trying to completely rewrite what he did and said, pretending he didn't do the things he aggressively pursued for decades.

    He has to engage because credible physicians like Garner are involved and he does not come off well outside of his usual mutual admiration society. He keeps saying "I didn't say X" and then someone simply replies with his own words saying exactly X. Then he said "what I meant is not X" them someone simply replies with his own words saying exactly that.

    But worse is that in this thread he is pretending he never considered ME/CFS to be a mental health issue. The sheer magnitude of this gaslighting could serve as an astronomical standard candle. He bears incredible responsibility for the NHS explicitly classifying ME under mental health and his minions did the same at Cochrane. He publishes his own work under it and his most recent "review" of a single CFS clinic service is tagged under mental health and somatization.

    He spent decades of his career removing ME as a medical entity, promoting an alternative psychology BS placing it firmly under mental health, this is his most significant effort. And here is literally gaslighting that he never did that, never did what he actually, seriously, accepted awards for doing.

    The dishonesty is completely off the scales here. Incredible. He and his peers were so certain they had "won" that they said the quiet parts loud so many times, most of them are even published on his own website, and here he is seriously pretending he never did and said what he loudly said and proudly did for decades.

    Incredible. This level of dishonesty is completely incompatible with medical practice. Even by politician standards it would be over the top. Wessely is a charlatan and a fraud, guilty of serious research misconduct and clinical malpractice. He should seriously shut up here but he can't, he has to hear the sound of his voice making noise because he is so used to never being held accountable for anything he says.
     
    TiredSam, seanpaul, Anna H and 27 others like this.
  10. rvallee

    rvallee Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    6,172
    Likes Received:
    50,131
    Location:
    Canada
    Indeed he does not.
     
    EzzieD, Sean, Barry and 4 others like this.
  11. Invisible Woman

    Invisible Woman Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    9,098
    Likes Received:
    53,219
    Didn't someone - Wessely, possibly Sharpe, recently use the fact he had ME and therefore a conflict of interest against someone? Possibly Keith Geraghty?

    I'm pretty sure I didn't imagine that so, no it's not just something that was said a long time ago, it was a tactic used to avoid addressing salient points raised in a document written within the last year or so.
     
  12. rvallee

    rvallee Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    6,172
    Likes Received:
    50,131
    Location:
    Canada
    Also he would totally have said that were it not for COVID. This is what he thinks. This is what he wrote and stood by for decades until he had to face with the fact that it was complete BS.
     
    Sean, Barry, Kitty and 2 others like this.
  13. Mij

    Mij Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    4,488
    Likes Received:
    23,465
    It's like reading SW gaslighting fortune cookie fails.
     
    EzzieD, sebaaa, Amw66 and 7 others like this.
  14. Dx Revision Watch

    Dx Revision Watch Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    1,870
    Likes Received:
    12,000

    It was Professors White, Chalder and Sharpe, Co-principal investigators of the PACE trial.

    There is a copy of the text of their letter on the James Coyne blog site.
     
  15. dave30th

    dave30th Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    1,300
    Likes Received:
    18,657
    Wessely blocked me years ago. Can someone post the full thread here, or at least Wessely's? I can see all the responses and comments--just not what he's tweeted. Anyone reading the descriptions of CBT and GET in PACE, or took a look at the manuals, would know Wessely is lying his ass off, or is delusional.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 20, 2020
  16. MSEsperanza

    MSEsperanza Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    1,551
    Likes Received:
    11,186
    Location:
    betwixt and between
    I don't understand Twitter but I thought when you've logged out it shouldn't matter whether someone blocked you, i.e. you then should see also the tweets by the person that blocked you?

    (I don't have an account and can see all Tweets that are linked here.)

    Hope others will be able to help.
     
    Last edited: Sep 17, 2020
  17. Dx Revision Watch

    Dx Revision Watch Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    1,870
    Likes Received:
    12,000

    Yes, if you log out you can read the Tweets of someone who has blocked you. Or set up a second anon account and add it to your existing account (via "Add an existing account") and then you can switch quickly back and forth between the two accounts.
     
  18. Kitty

    Kitty Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    1,820
    Likes Received:
    14,121
    I hope you'll consider anonymously tweeting some of your spectacular turns of phrase in the direction of Sir Simon Himself, @rvallee – if nothing else, it would really cheer up some of the ME folk who're reading his recantations open mouthed and incoherent! :laugh:
     
  19. dave30th

    dave30th Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    1,300
    Likes Received:
    18,657
    I know there's a way but it seems difficult to me. Even reading the directions how to do it triggers some anxiety.
     
  20. Kitty

    Kitty Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    1,820
    Likes Received:
    14,121
    And if he really knew anything about ME – let alone grammatical logic – he'd understand that increasing a baseline is a contradiction in terms.

    People can't improve their fitness to any significant degree. It's literally part of the definition of ME.
     
    Mithriel, MSEsperanza, Leila and 8 others like this.

Share This Page