"Time for Unrest": ME article by Nathalie Wright

This is the exact quote from the above 1989 discussion paper:

There are some other remarkable statements in this paper.

In the section titled “Sickness Benefits” Simon Wessely et al write:

In other words, this paper seems to be saying that ME patients should be subjected to treatments, which the authors concede may be harmful, before they can be labelled as chronically disabled, and therefore entitled to benefits and disability aids. That is an astonishing admission.

It also appears to contradict what Simon Wessely himself referred to as the “core principles of the law and medical eithics” in his 2015 op-Ed article in the Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/comment...-people-mental-health-problems-work-treatment):

At the end the discussion paper Simon Wessely et al state:

And yet, they appear to advocate coercing patients into trying their treatments, which they admit are both unproven and potentially harmful.

[Edited to correct typo.]

 

Jen's Twitter reaction to this article has been turned into an article

 

If you click on the white text in my link it takes you to the article, on the black "Medium" text, it takes you to the Medium homepage, or at least it does for me. Does it work that way for anybody else?

 

Spotted on Reddit,

an audio version is available

 

I was thinking that Wessely's response could do with a response itself... at some point.

http://www.simonwessely.com/Downloads/Response to Natatlie Wright.pdf

It's so weak maybe it's not worth it?

What's kind of amazing to me is that he started his response like this:

"A recent article by Natalie Wright in the Independent (Jan 6th, 2018) has made the suggestion that I don’t care about people with CFS/ME..."

Where did it make that suggestion? Why would anyone care whether he 'cared' or not? The article was about the hardships faced by those with CFS/ME, partly as a result of his work. Given the role he's played in the smears against patients raising concerns about the PACE trial, I think it's pretty hard for him to now play the '...but my intentions were good' card, but regardless, even people trying to be 'caring' can do real harm where they're insufficiently cautious.

 

PS: Up to 13k shares now, but looks like it's slowed up a lot.

 

I'd be curious to know how that compares to other pieces of equal length ...

 

perhaps it reveals that he thinks it's all about him and not pwme

 

It most certainly is all about him. In his mind anyway.

It's only now that he claims to have been misquoted by some DWP official when saying that giving benefits to pwME just lead to dependency.

Where was this correction over the last 2 decades when very ill people in dire financial straits were left without help?

Eta - it's only when he suddenly realizes it's going to affect him and make him look bad.

 

He even took the care to write Natalie's name correctly. That's how much he cares.
That's how much care and attention and good faith went into the reply.

"Natatlie". How very Freudian Simon.

I would highly advise anyone NOT to download any information from his site. Only download information that comes from a source you TRUST. I would advise against even visiting his site.

Code:

https://pastebin.com/ADQWBfKM

has a copy of the document, so that seems a more secure place to read it, for the curious.

 

Psssst, you forgot the h in Nathalie

 

Thanks, I'll leave it as a testament to my getting things wrong

 

Could they have gotten any more buzzwords in there if they had tried?

Follow the money!

Really Jonathan Edwards, what are you thinking? How would psychiatrist make any money then?

 

Maybe he is feeling a bit lonely and ignored these days? Jen is in the spotlight, and now he is old news.

 

The Jackson Lab ME/CFS Centre blog has a brief plug for the article - https://jaxmecfs.com/2018/01/19/independent-time-for-unrest/