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

Jonathan Edwards said:
I think it means that what we have seen in the ME world is going on throughout psychiatry and all the pigs with their snouts in the trough are just about to tip the swill all over themselves.
Click to expand...

:D

Speculation about what really drives them is strangely fascinating. It reminded me that this group wanted to make medicine less biological and more psychosocial, but maybe that's just ideology at the service of financial interests.

They assumed all this "knowledge" about psychogenic disorders, somatization, secondary gains, illness beliefs determining disability, etc was true and then tried to come up with ways to use it treat people. First was ME, then MUS. It turns out that it doesn't work well, if at all. That they use methodology likely to yield false positives is a problem but this all started with their belief that it was somehow psychosomatic (Wessely's paper in 1989). If we applied high standards of evidence to the body of knowledge about "psychosomatic" conditions, how much would be left? Probably not much.
 
Last edited:
I thought this thread deserved a picture of a sinking weasel, but sadly the internet let me down.

The remainder of this post has nothing to do with this thread.

In looking for the aforementioned picture, I came across this one, and thought it was hilarious :

i-want-a-closed-casket-funeral-but-towards-the-end-have-the-organist-continue-to-play-pop-goes-the-weasel-until-everyone-is-staring-at-my-coffin-in-solent-horrified-anticipation-1472305150.png


Sorry for the interruption...
 
Arnie Pye said:
I thought this thread deserved a picture of a sinking weasel, but sadly the internet let me down.
Click to expand...

...the M29C Water Weasel was the amphibious version, with buoyancy cells in the bow and stern as well as twin rudders. M29C could not operate in other than inland waterway conditions, so its use in surf or rough water was very limited but was used in the Pacific theatre.
Click to expand...

Mono%206303%20Weasel.JPG
 
Trish said:
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...

I think this might be related to the following, i.e the problems people with depression have with Wessely and co

I was contacted by a patient group in Scotland after the petition, they had a petition going on at the same time which focusses on drug dependence and withdrawal issues associated with prescribed drugs such as benzodiazepines + antidepressants. Basically people were having horrible side-effects from taking these “safe medications” prescribed by their doctors. There is more information in the background info in their petition: http://www.parliament.scot/gettinginvolved/petitions/PE01600-PE01699/PE01651_BackgroundInfo.aspx

Here is information on this from the British Medical Association who state:
“Prescribing of psychoactive drugs is a major clinical activity and a key therapeutic tool for influencing the health of patients. But often their use can lead to a patient becoming dependent or suffering withdrawal symptoms.
In the absence of robust data, we do not know the true scale and extent of the problem across the UK. However, the evidence and insight presented to us by many charity and support groups shows that it is substantial.”: https://www.bma.org.uk/collective-v...th/prescribed-drugs-dependence-and-withdrawal

About a hundred people have submitted patient testimonies to the Scottish Parliament, which can be read here: http://www.parliament.scot/GettingInvolved/Petitions/PE01651

I’ve been told that patients’ concerns are frequently dismissed and they are being diagnosed with somatic/functional disorders or Medically Unexplained Syndrome (MUS). The PACE trial (certainly in Scotland) is being used as evidence for MUS, and for their symptoms being ignored.

The researchers who the Scottish patient group have mentioned are causing them trouble may sound familiar, so far they’ve talked about Wessely, Chalder, Carson and Stone (the last two will be more familiar to Scottish folks, they’re our roadblock for ME progress here).
 
It is so simple - eMails from a business account are never private! (Unless they're encoded.) Even if private things are written. This is such a cheap excuse, it sounds so sandpit-like, "Nooo, you are so mean - baaah!" :barefeet:

Edit: Just thought about it - even if a business mail is encoded it probably won't be considered private...
 
Emsho said:
Basically people were having horrible side-effects from taking these “safe medications” prescribed by their doctors
Click to expand...
Yes, this is something doctors don't like to talk about. After reading some papers and professional information (provided by the drug company and downloadable from its homepage) I ended on forums where people talked about their experiences with psychopharmaceuticals, I knew I shall never take something like that. The stories were just horrible.
 
Sink ... ?

https://www.bmj.com/content/358/bmj.j4305
“Every time we have a mental health awareness week my spirits sink,” says Wessely, who in July [2017] became the first psychiatrist to be president of the Royal Society of Medicine. “We don’t need people to be more aware. We can’t deal with the ones who already are aware.”
Click to expand...
Maybe with his sign off as "Sink" he was expressing further despair at yet more transparency putting the rights of patients before the 'rights' of his own patience?
 
Jonathan Edwards said:
I think it means that what we have seen in the ME world is going on throughout psychiatry and all the pigs with their snouts in the trough are just about to tip the swill all over themselves.
Click to expand...
Yes. A clique of empire builders seeing their dreams of empire crumbling before their eyes. Truth being the weapon they have no real defence against; bluster no longer working for them.
 
I just read Peter Gordon's letter to the Scottish Parliament here, and it gives some background to Gordon's concerns. They are largely about the overprescription of antidepressants and other psychoactive drugs in psychiatry and general medicine. He seems to be an advocate for more use of talking therapy and less of medication, especially in depression.

So his beef with Wessely is confusing, because Wessely does not seem heavily in bed with pharma, and he's obviously very into talking therapies, as evidenced by his huge personal investment in PACE. Perhaps Gordon thinks that in signing this letter to NICE, Wessely is pandering to the interests of psychiatrists more generally, hoping to give them greater freedom to prescribe what they want. And that might well be true, because Wessely is a political animal, and I guess, what serves psychiatrists also serves his own interests in being president of the RCP and his need to be a generally important person in UK medicine.

So the only issues that overlap with ours seem to involve Wessely's conduct as a person - his motivations (which are consistently political and have little to do with patient welfare) and the way in which he tries to control the narrative and manipulate people to get his own way.
 
Last edited:
Simon Wessely's letter requesting a fresh review seemed reasonable.
BMJ's news article not stating any of the reasons why the review was requested was odd and disappointing.
Peter Gordon's request for transparency seemed reasonable.
Simon Wessely's unwillingness to provide details was odd and disappointing.
Peter Gordon then posting the private email exchange is also strange and it is likely there was some sort of prior provocation between them before this current exchange.
 
The following message has now been posted below the blog by snow-leavis aka Peter Gordon who write the blog:

I note that there has been some discussion about my blog-post on:

https://www.s4me.info/threads/simon...n-a-blog-here-it-is-on-hole-ouisa.5001/page-2

I thought that it might be helpful to explain a little more backdrop. I have registered on ‘Science for ME’ but get this message “You have insufficient privileges to reply here”, so I am not currently able to reply directly.

The first thing I would like to confirm is that I do not have any “beef” with Prof Sir Simon Wessely. I simply do not share his views and approach to transparency. My interest has long been in over-medicalisation and the potential for any intervention (not just medications) to cause harm as well as benefits.

I have petitioned the Scottish Government for A Sunshine Act for Scotland. At the time Prof Sir Simon Wessely was President of the Royal College of Psychiatrists and we communicated about the College approach to transparency, which I felt was failing. I should say that I have never met Sir Simon Wessely though I did see him arrive at the International Congress in Edinburgh 2017 where I was peacefully protesting (re Sunshine Act).

‘Snow leopard” states: “Peter Gordon then posting the private email exchange is also strange and it is likely there was some sort of prior provocation between them before this current exchange”. This speculation is not correct. I shared this communication because I am of the view that transparency matters in science and in our approach to healthcare overall. Transparency about Medical Guidelines is most important, and a powerful individual, or indeed any powerful organisation should not strive to hide matters important to public health.

‘Woolie’ is correct: “I just read Peter Gordon’s letter to the Scottish Parliament here, and it gives some background to Gordon’s concerns. They are largely about the overprescription of antidepressants and other psychoactive drugs in psychiatry and general medicine.”

‘Woolie’ states: “So his beef with Wessely is confusing, because Wessely does not seem heavily in bed with pharma”. It is correct that Sir Simon Wessely has not been significantly involved with Pharma, however, in my opinion, in his position of power (as President of my College) he could have helped ensure far greater transparency than we have today. Sir Simon Wessely has shown various views on the place and role of big business in psychiatry and medicine generally

‘Emsho’ is absolutely correct that my concerns about this matter have a link with antidepressant dependence and withdrawal effects which can be severe and protracted.

‘Emsho’ continues “I’ve been told that patients’ concerns are frequently dismissed and they are being diagnosed with somatic/functional disorders or Medically Unexplained Syndrome (MUS). The PACE trial (certainly in Scotland) is being used as evidence for MUS, and for their symptoms being ignored.” This is indeed my concern and that of many others.

Both Sir Simon Wessely and his wife Prof Clare Gerada have consistently argued that dependence and withdrawal from antidepressants are generally minor and very short lived. This outlook is at odds with the prescribed harm community.

I hope this wee summary is helpful.

aye Peter
Click to expand...

Meanwhile I thought I would bring the blog to Mike Godwin’s attention:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom