Intimidation of PACE critics or critics of other Psychosocial research

Yes the magic happened.

 

Didn't MS tell countless people to actually read the trial?
Would that be spam, gaslighting, deflection, spotlighting all of the above?

 

Wessely has been very skillfully manipulating people for a long time.


https://forums.phoenixrising.me/threads/illustrations-of-threats-issued-by-simon-wessely.11631/

 

New thread started, i'll try to figure out how to start a parallel article on MEPedia if there are enough examples
https://www.s4me.info/threads/pace-self-owns.8264/

 

?????

When will people learn that stuff sent over the internet is not a private communication?

 

and Wessely's wife last year demeaning by accusations of "bullying"


https://twitter.com/user/status/1052683718509375489

 

That's probably technical correct. Making a complaint about someone isn't necessarily the same as attempting them to get fired. Think it would be best to don't make overly assumptions, or overstating things.

That has the potential to blow up in our face, I'm afraid :-/

 

@inox https://twitter.com/user/status/1098156393159376896



Technically correct but I doubt it will blow up in anyones face but his. Sharpe seems to have a very sensitive ego.

 

I love the journalists response to Wessely:

"An interesting development then occurred: on 11th October 2003 Wessely wrote to a journalist who had published articles on ME/CFS, asking the journalists opinion about Dr Cooks article: This was published in The Scotsman on Monday. Do you think this is fair comment? I dont think I need to tell you my feelings. This seems to be rapidly spiralling out of control. Your views / advice?

The journalist replied to Wessely, saying: You are obviously a hate figure (and) it might be interesting to enquire as to whether hate figures have any responsibility for the way they are perceived. The inescapable take-home message (that has been reinforced by newspaper headlines) is that this condition has a large psychological component, that these people are imagining it, making it up, being hysterical, suffering from neurasthenia etc. And that is not only seen as downgrading the reality of their condition but also has practical implications as far as benefits go. Whilst I take your point that you have looked into the physiological side and found nothing, it does seem to be the case that a number of other equally erudite / careful scientists have looked there and found something that they do think is significant. I have to admit that when you set that body of work against the conclusion of the MRC that the biological area was not worth major funding, it is hard to escape the conclusion that you and the MRC are not taking the biological side seriously and that you do regard this as a psychological condition. You may say that you do take on board the biological aspect but the inescapable fact is that you are getting 2 million plus to research more aspects of the psychological side, a degree of funding that is not matched in any way by the funding from the MRC going to the biological side. The public perception of what is going on is that your actions on the issue of definition have tended to reinforce the psychosocial basis of the disorder rather than the biological one, which is at the heart of the reason why you have been so vilified. My opinion is that you would not improve anything by attempting to take any legal or other steps you would be further seen as a major establishment figure attempting to silence / muzzle some poor powerless and chronically ill patients. A very simple step to change the perception of your position would be for you to give encouragement for a similarly sized grant to the one you have recently received, to look into some of the biological factors. It seems rather unlikely that there is something about CFS patients that makes them especially hostile and unreasonable, as opposed to people suffering from heart disease or multiple sclerosis (which) means the level of disagreement over CFS must reflect some underlying issue. I'm sure there is a lot of psychiatric literature on how denying another persons reality triggers all sorts of deep hostile responses."

 

One can see why they needed to set up the SMC to correct false impressions and independence of mind.

 

https://twitter.com/user/status/1098328714163695616

 

Here's a post with the full text of that article, originally posted in The Scotsman, that Wessley campaigned (successfully) to have removed.

Not sure about its significance or I would've just inserted it into the MEpedia article.

And Wessley's reply:

Wessley did do some biomedical research initially, but has not for some time.

 

Wow. Which journalist said that?

 

Ugh. What a vile person.

At least the record is permanent. It will take years for people to take a look into his sabotage but it's well preserved, fortunately he is so full of himself that his own website will be a big part of his own personal archive of doom, thanks to the Internet Archive.

 

Just so everyone is aware. California where @dave30th works is a state that has "employment at will" which means that an employee can leave their job, or an employer can fire someone with no notice and no reason.

It is quite common for employees to be terminated and "asked" to leave the building immediately.

 

That is such a fantastic letter. Well worth exposing to 2019's new audience.

 

Anger (and fear) are natural responses to trauma. Especially toward the perpetrators causing the trauma.

All psychiatrists, especially Wessely, know that invalidated trauma, deepens trauma.

Intentionally causing trauma is a sign of a sociopath.

 

I remember Keith Geraghty had another story of intimidation by S or W with his employers but I’m not able to find it on PR.