RSM The NHS at 70 Podcast: Episode 8: Prof Sir Simon Wessely - The Challenges for Mental Health

The people I speak to who found CFS clinics helpful all talk about the 'being believed' bit, but report thinking that the 'treatment' is pretty useless. I find this quite frustrating, as the spin/quackery promoted by those running these clinics has played such a vital role in harming social attitudes to ME/CFS and leaving patients feeling a desire to 'be believed'.

Within the ME/CFS diagnosis there's such a huge variety of patients, that I'd expect some would be helped by PACE style CBT/GET. There's that weird 'recovery norge' group. Here's an anecdote from 'de monitor':

https://translate.google.com/transl...na-controversiele-gedragstherapie&prev=search

 

Maybe you're right. I mean there are rational explanations how that may work without resorting to deconditioning/false beliefs psychobabble.

Simply letting yourself be relaxed and have hope may reduce stress levels quite a bit, especially for someone who previously was depressed and stressed out because her body doesn't work and can't even care for her child, which is perfectly natural, of course and I'm not judging.

We know that PEM is something that also follows emotional exertions, albeit to a lesser extent than physical, but if you give a year for your body to rest and do very gentle exercise, especially if you're not in a very bad place yet.. Who knows. Maybe that actually work sometimes.

'Recovery norge' is an interesting page. I've read a few stories via translator and some of them sound believable. Even our twitter 'friend' @cfs_research (aka David Jameson) has posted his story there. The problem with those recoveries for me is not so much if they're real or not, but that the people who have supposedly recovered, become very biased and believe that anyone can recover, just like many of us here believe the opposite. And the recoverers are only too happy to spread their propaganda, despite the fact that on the whole ME scale, their stories are uncommon.

 

It sounded like he was still running his CFS clinic. It’s a pity he’s so little interested outside his own field to actually attend one of the UK CFS research conferences isn’t it? He’d be then up to date with the emerging science, including neuroscience you’d think he’d have interest in.

 

And doctors seems only too happy to listen to them (particularly the national center of excellence for CFS/ME). It's so comfy to have one's approach confirmed.

 

I think there was something in Blair' s conversion to Catholicism ,- if not already there will Wessley folliw suit.
How many Hail Mary' s would it take?

Apologies to any devout practising Catholics who may take this comment the wrong way

 

A few years ago now, there was a report in the New Scientist about research that showed physical signs in GWS. As usual SW, as leading authority, was asked his thoughts and pooh, poohed physical disease. When the researcher was asked to comment she said, "Simon who?" And it was printed that way so I don't think the journalist liked him

On another forum, a guy who was seen at Wessley's clinic said he had wanted to talk to him but every time he got close SW nipped inside a room. This patient was a leather clad biker who felt our Simon was definitely afraid of him.

Following SW's career from the outset, he is obviously superficially charming and will say whatever is useful to him at the time. No depth, no empathy , no conscience.

 

Listened to first part, and he talks of the stigma of being a psychiatrist when he was first qualified and how neurologists were saying to him 'why psychiatry? you are too good to be a psychiatrist'.
As @Cinders66 said, he never misses an opportunity to blow own trumpet.

 

I think it may be a reflection of an inability to understand the psychology of normal social interaction. People always say things like that to flatter their chums. Especially if they know their chum likes being flattered.

 

This one? https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www....6609-us-in-u-turn-over-gulf-war-syndrome/amp/

He doesn't come off well. His whole empire is down to pleasing insurers and governments.

 

From that article:
"The UK government still insists there is no link. But American researchers claim the studies the British are relying on were not designed in a way that would uncover the syndrome."

"Wessely’s group uncovered clusters of symptoms but concluded that they did not qualify as unique syndromes. Haley says this was because the study did not ask about 12 of the 23 symptoms he found were crucial, and did include five others that he says obscured the pattern."

"Wessely favours psychological explanations for Gulf war illnesses. The only thing that could have affected so many different people, he says, was stress".

so more questionnaires, bad design, pre-determined conclusions.

 

The Q on chronic fatigue syndrome comes 13 mins in: 1) Is it real? 2) Is it more psychological than physical?

Pure waffling & evasive response from Wessely and no acknowledgement that NICE GL being scrapped as we speak. I noted a lukewarm, half-hearted acknowledgment that in past he & his colleagues 'weren't attuned to some of the feelings' of opposition & 'could have done better'. I also noted term of ME never used, only CFS.

I didn't listen beyond 20 mins.

 

I think wessely wanted to make a mark rather than necessarily help people. Thats probably why the blank page of the CFS problem was attractive.

Those two questions are very revealing as to how much the UK medical establishment has really changed. The MRC article was a welcome reveal of their fundamental positions. We have the royal college of GPs claiming the current NICE guidelines are too medical.
We think we are in this new era for ME now, mainly because of the change in America whereas I think U.K., whilst it’s had a shift away from total skeptism or behavioral approach in some quarters , hasn't had the u turn we require. Can you imagine a high end USA interview of Francis Collins starting does CFS exist and is it more psychological?

Wessely did throw in the ME term a bit later instead of CFS which surprised me, it sounded casual but from a man who doesn’t believe in the term or recognise the criteria etc I think it was to cover our illness with what he’d said earlier ie keep ME & CFS interchangeable and ME as grey area and behavioral as the CFS simon really studies and treats.

It’s pretty galling he’s still allowed to treat CFS patients given he doesn’t keep up with the science, or pretends it’s all unknown. I note he skimmed over gulf war that he said had similarities to us and jumped into PTSD. He should have remained purely involved in psychiatry. I heard he started at university doing art or history of art, how harmless he could have been. He went into psychiatry because the psychiatry lecturers listened To his thoughts and opinions.

 

Yes, I thought the same, what a ridiculous question from RSM - is CFS real? (I replied here before much earlier today but my formatting was all higgledy so just deleted and am reposting.)