Mind, Madness and Power - Simon Wessely and others

Evergreen said:
It will be interesting to see what happens over time - my hope is that some who previously embraced CBT will change their views in light of the reappraisal of the evidence happening now, although I wouldn't expect those in the core to change their views. I'm thinking more of, for example, GPs who used to refer their patients for CBT or GET who just decide not to any more, or, more hopefully, the odd CBT therapist who decides to drop the whole increasing activity/faulty illness beliefs bit and switch to what they would do with other chronic diseases.
Click to expand...

I think we need a complete paradigm shift. And I think we aim for that.
The older I get the more I realise things are possible if you put your mind to it.
So I am joining those having a go.
 
Webdog said:
Have you tried Graded Elimination of Tabs (GET)?
Click to expand...
This should be practiced together with Cognitive Browser Therapy to eliminate the false illness beliefs behind tab hoarding, including the idea of "brain fog", where you imagine that your brain is not functioning properly and that you have memory and comprehension problems, and fear that closing tabs will result in things being lost forever.

Secondary gains that Cognitive Browser Therapy helps eliminate include keeping track of stuff and learning new things.

On successful completion of Graded Elimination Therapy and Cognitive Browser Therapy you will believe that you can remember everything, have closed all your tabs but one, and you will rate yourself as normally cognitively functional.

Because these therapies only change your psychology and not your physiology, you will in fact still have brain fog, and will not remember what we have done to you. Or, at least, that's the plan.
 
I don't know whether Wessley is a sociopath, narcisist or whatever, and I'm not sure I'd want to use those terms because I'm reluctant to validate the psychs' habit of making up labels and applying them liberally. The thing that bothers me most about Wessely is that he isn't a scientist. And he's in the bloody way, grinning at me with his smug little face.
 
Barry said:
He doesn't have to believe it, just convince others to believe it - hopefully starting to unravel now. For some people personal ambitions trump truth and altruism by a seriously large margin. As the guy from Cambridge Analytica said on hidden camera the other day: It doesn't have to be the truth, people just have to believe it is true.
Click to expand...

Absolutely, when I watched the Cambridge Analytica undercover report that comment about people just having to believe something is true immediately made me think of PACE trial and all the negative portrayals of pwME that have appeared in media around PACE.
 
Jonathan Edwards said:
I think we need a complete paradigm shift. And I think we aim for that.
The older I get the more I realise things are possible if you put your mind to it.
So I am joining those having a go.
Click to expand...

Evergreen said:
Excellent! I'll take a paradigm shift, and I agree that that is what is needed. Thanks for being one of those aiming high. :thumbup:
Click to expand...

I concur. And we need more catalysts to facilitate that shift sooner then later.

Controlling the message, as we have seen for decades, is crucial.

Creating compelling and/or provocative media, and not relying on paid or earned media, as we have seen with Unrest, seems to be a good option for our context.
 
Esther12 said:
This video has been a tab in my browser since it first came out. I've never got around to watching it. I've now got about 300 tabs, and really need to start closing more of them.
Click to expand...
I generally follow the advice of Oscar Wilde on this, and forward the articles to someone else to read (secretly hoping they'll reply with a neat synopsis).

"I always pass on good advice. It is the only thing to do with it. It is never of any use to oneself." ~Oscar Wilde

Or, I stash the useful informations in Evernote, probably, never to be looked at again, but feels productive.
 
Wonder how much he gets paid for these talks(?)

One for the diary (;)) if you are in London.

"
Ernest Jones Lecture
04/25/2018 19:30

open to public
Organizer: Institute of Psychoanalysis
Venue: University College London
Gower St, Fitzrovia
WC1E 6HA London
United Kingdom

This year our speaker is Professor Sir Simon Wessely, Professor of Psychological Medicine and Regius Professor of Psychiatry at King’s College London and a Consultant Liaison Psychiatrist at King’s College and the Maudsley Hospitals. He is also past President of the Royal College of Psychiatrists.

His doctorate is in epidemiology, and he has over 700 original publications, with an emphasis on the boundaries of medicine and psychiatry, unexplained symptoms and syndromes, population reactions to adversity, military health, epidemiology and others. He has co-authored books on chronic fatigue syndrome, randomised controlled trials and a history of military psychiatry. Professor Wessely is also President of the Royal Society of Medicine."

https://www.theviennapsychoanalyst.at/index.php?eid=24&citysearch=London&jahr_k=2017&monat_k=09
 
TiredSam said:
I don't know whether Wessley is a sociopath, narcisist or whatever, and I'm not sure I'd want to use those terms because I'm reluctant to validate the psychs' habit of making up labels and applying them liberally.
Click to expand...
You're absolutely right. One could and maybe should use other discriptions for his behavior. But the impression remains: no empathy, having only his own good in mind, not caring about others, viewing oneself as perfect and without fault and as supreme etc.

One could define "Psychopath" or "Sociopath" as an "abbreviation" for this kind of behavior in contrast to calling this a "psychological disorder" (in fact, I admit that's what I do), which somehow makes the impression the person can not be made responsible for its behavior to which I disagree.
 
More Wessely stuff:

UNCORRECTED TRANSCRIPT OF ORAL EVIDENCE To be published as HC 422-iii

House of COMMONS
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE

TAKEN BEFORE
HEALTH COMMITTEE

THE ELECTRONIC PATIENT RECORD

thursday 7 jUNE 2007

DR MARK WALPORT, PROFESSOR CAROL DEZATEUX and
PROFESSOR SIMON WESSELY

MR PATRICK O'CONNELL, MR ALAN SHACKMAN and
PROFESSOR NAOMI FULOP

Evidence heard in Public Questions 333 - 498

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmselect/cmhealth/uc422-iii/uc42202.htm
 
"
Thursday, May 05, 2011
More heat in the debate about psychiatry

A review in Psychiatric Services is reluctant to recommend Richard Bentall's book Doctoring the Mind because it is said to be "incendiary and devisive". The reviewers are frightened that the book exaggerates issues for service users.

I'm not sure who's doing the exaggerating. Richard is said to suggest that there is a long-standing battle for supremacy between psychologists, "who are educated and trained to understand people and the human experience and to provide healing therapy", and psychiatrists, who are "indoctrinated with the medical model, have unwittingly carried Nazi-era notions of the genetic origins of psychosis into the present and are intent on pumping people full of as much useless, dangerous medicine as possible while simultaneously avoiding any conversation"."

http://criticalpsychiatry.blogspot.com/2011/05/review-in-american-journal-of.html
 
Sly Saint said:
I'm not sure who's doing the exaggerating. Richard is said to suggest that there is a long-standing battle for supremacy between psychologists, "who are educated and trained to understand people and the human experience and to provide healing therapy", and psychiatrists, who are "indoctrinated with the medical model, have unwittingly carried Nazi-era notions of the genetic origins of psychosis into the present and are intent on pumping people full of as much useless, dangerous medicine as possible while simultaneously avoiding any conversation"."
Click to expand...
Now there's a real example of Godwin's Law!

As you can see, Bentall rejects the biological view, even when it comes to serious mental illnesses like psychosis and advocates for a social-psychological model.I spent a while looking through his group's recent manifesto on psychology (remember, that huge 100+ page document? I can't remember what it was called). And I thought it was dogmatic and dangerous.

I have a lot of issues with psychiatry, but I think this group's approach is just as dogmatic and dangerous.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top