Simon Wessely Didn't Want His e-Mail On A Blog - Here It Is on Hole Ousia

I didn't read the whole thing but I read enough.

Simon is really not a fan of transparency of any sort.

And the whole long yadda yadda about ettiquette, the niceties, the amiable mutual respect.
I think that's all that really matters to the man. The polite form must be upheld never mind Rome is burning.
 
My interest was piqued when a panicky Sir Simon wrote:

"No peter don’t add to your blog This is private chit chat You have not asked my permission and I don’t grant it"

But then I was hooked when he wrote:

"does not need to be transparent and there is no public or legal right to make it transparent"

An entertaining and illuminating peak into the mind of Sir Simon.
 
I think this part is worth quoting in full. Many of you will recognise SW's style of (non-)engagement sophistry, and be pleased to see that others are increasingly seeing through it too:

Dear Simon,
You use the word “subvert”. That is not a word that I would ever use. The words I used were transparency and openness. As for the “smoking gun” or “shooting foxes” (how you began one of your previous communications to me) I dislike military metaphors and I really have no wish for “combat”. We are all simply trying to bring about health and wellbeing. I wrote to you seeking transparency of a process and you, in your very powerful position, turned this away from the subject and into communications that robustly and repeatedly questioned my probity.

The language you use Simon is both interesting and revealing: “reeking of the smell of Big Pharma”. Why say this? My writings demonstrate that I am interested in ethics of healthcare and the potential for any interventions (social, psychological, pharmacological, whatever) to bring about benefits or harms. You seem to wish to understand me from a position of misplaced medical antisyzygy. My concern is that you do this deliberately. It is a feature of many of your responses.

I note your view (noting also that you are President of the Royal Society of Medicine): “ how it came about does not need to be transparent and there is no public or legal right to make it transparent, as I am sure you know.” And then you say “there is no story here”. These statements seem contradictory and reveal that your view of transparency should be all that matters.

I agree that this is a “daft thing to fall out about”. But I have not fallen out with you. I was simply disappointed that you were not able to be open and transparent about the process of my enquiry about NICE. I understand your irritation, but this is not about you Simon, at least that was not why I wrote to you as an NHS doctor about a matter that may affect any patient.

You say “I think anyone else would classify as a private e mail, written by you as a private citizen to me as a private citizen.” No. I repeat this was a professional e-mail from my professional address to your professional address about a PUBLIC matter. I believe that you are wrong in “thinking” that “anyone else would classify it as a private e-mail”.

I have seen this line, or similar, used by you number of times to a number of correspondents: “So if you were perhaps to change tack a little, realise that actually being polite and courteous is not such a bad thing, even if a little old fashioned but there is nothing wrong in that”. It seems that other correspondents have also been worried about this statement which carries your assertion that this applies to others and not to you.
Click to expand...
 
I've got some sympathy for Wessely here, which is odd. It can be hard to judge an exchange like this without knowing more about how these people had interacted previously. Wessely's word games are pretty consistently annoying though, so it's fun to see him called out on them.
 
Esther12 said:
I've got some sympathy for Wessely here, which is odd. It can be hard to judge an exchange like this without knowing more about how these people had interacted previously. Wessely's word games are pretty consistently annoying though, so it's fun to see him called out on them.
Click to expand...

It is a bit odd @Esther12. I have no sympathy. He did this to me. He assumes that he has a right to lean on people while claiming that the leaning is confidential personal communication. He is only too happy to denigrate other people on the internet himself.
 
A masterclass in classic Wessely techniques.

Attempting to shut down coversation:

Let’s not prolong this correspondence peter
Click to expand...

Must dash / I'm busy / don't have time:

But you wont get it for a while now because believe it or not I am off to do my afternoon clinic
Click to expand...

"This isn't you James" (first noticed being used against James Coyne a few years ago I think):

you and I have always corresponded perfectly amicably in the past with genuine courtesy and mutual respect
Click to expand...

Nothing to see here, move along:

And as I say, there is no story here anyway
Click to expand...

Deliberate vagueness about facts whilst being careful not to actually deny them:

B I have never attended a meeting of any group I don’t have the time
C I don’t am afraid agree that if there was a group and if there was a meeting and if there were any minutes from that , that you have any right to see any of those
Click to expand...

Of course there was a meeting, and his wife is listed as attending.

Wessely really is a few-tricks pony, and happily more and more people are becoming aware of it (and growing tired of it):

The language you use Simon is both interesting and revealing: “reeking of the smell of Big Pharma”. Why say this? My writings demonstrate that I am interested in ethics of healthcare and the potential for any interventions (social, psychological, pharmacological, whatever) to bring about benefits or harms. You seem to wish to understand me from a position of misplaced medical antisyzygy. My concern is that you do this deliberately. It is a feature of many of your responses.

...

I have seen this line, or similar, used by you number of times to a number of correspondents: “So if you were perhaps to change tack a little, realise that actually being polite and courteous is not such a bad thing, even if a little old fashioned but there is nothing wrong in that”. It seems that other correspondents have also been worried about this statement which carries your assertion that this applies to others and not to you.

Simon, I am concerned about your outlook, your use of language and your memory. I am sorry that you struggled to get most of the letters of your Christian name correct. Forgive me for misunderstanding that “Sink” was not your name.
Click to expand...
 
I agree with all the above. Simon Wessely does not come across well. His behaviour in this correspondence is completely unprofessional.

The thing that interests me that he is on the side of a group complaining about the poor quality of evidence NICE has used in forming its guideline for depression. Stresses the importance of correct use of statistics, and using long term follow up evidence - on that basis he should be fighting with us against the use of PACE to support GET/CBT, since, on his own argument, it misused statistics, and at long term follow up was a null trial - but of course that's different...
 
Trish said:
I agree with all the above. Simon Wessely does not come across well. His behaviour in this correspondence is completely unprofessional.

The thing that interests me that he is on the side of a group complaining about the poor quality of evidence NICE has used in forming its guideline for depression. Stresses the importance of correct use of statistics, and using long term follow up evidence - on that basis he should be fighting with us against the use of PACE to support GET/CBT, since, on his own argument, it misused statistics, and at long term follow up was a null trial - but of course that's different...
Click to expand...

That's precisely what I thought, honestly....pot, kettle, black.
 
Lidia said:
What do you think Sink means by this “...that i am worried that the provision of talking therapies is becoming too monolithic...”?
Click to expand...
I suspect this is about making sure psychiatrists get a decent slice of the talking treatments pie. I'm guessing he's worried that prescriptions for certain specific types of therapy only (e.g., short-term CBT), will disadvantage some psychiatrists who offer more out-there stuff, like psychodynamic psychotherapy.
 
strategist said:
Can anyone summarize what this is about?
Click to expand...
It's a blog by a consultant psychiatrist, Peter Gordon.

He had some communication by e-mail with Simon Wessely about a letter Simon had signed to NICE asking for review of the NICE guidelines on depression, among other things objecting to the use of short studies with no long term follow up and incorrect use of statistics to inform the present guidelines.

He did an FOI to get the correspondence between NICE and Simon's group, which he publishes here.

He had some e-mails with SW about it, which he told Simon he would post on his blog after they'd been written. Simon did a silly strop about them being private communications and was generally childishly unprofessional about it.
 
EzzieD said:
I've just been to the blog and couldn't see any comments either, but then I tried clicking on 'Leave a Comment' just on the off-chance, and then all the comments showed up, so give that a try!
Click to expand...
That works for me, click on "Leave a Comment" and you can read all the comments. I wonder if the site owner would like the comments to be more visible than that and needs to change a setting?
 
Great video at the top of the comments section, this guy is really onto Wessely. Guest appearance from a concerned Ben Goldman - plus a debate in which I heard Sir Simon's voice for the first time. I assumed he'd sound posher, and was surprised to hear him speak like the dodgy geezer he really is. All part of the matey bonhomie thing I suppose.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom