Who is Simon Wessely?

Hey sorry @Trish. I was being flippant. I meant okay rather sarcastically compared to how bad it can get.


It troubles me that charities and media and medics alike mention Yuppie flu as if it’s the worst that was on offer. Also that it is referred to so often as a measure of progress. ‘We don’t say that now’ as proxy for ‘we are more compassionate’ or ‘less prejudiced’ because unfortunately that is simply not the case. It is said less often because 80s media terminology has naturally passed out of common usage.


I’ve actually lost count of number of people who’ve said to me “Oh yeah they call that Yuppie Flu, don’t they?” Always while wearing the biggest smirk imaginable. I can’t say I enjoyed the experience. But it was so predictable that it didn’t have the shocking or ambiguous quality of some comments. I prefer people to be directly hostile than sly or shy about it. Easier to avoid and I felt it was a sign of lower grade bullying a little easier to step around than most.


The hard stuff coming much more personally tailored and or from those with more power to directly destroy my life chances. Such people wouldn’t refer to me as a professional, even through spite or sarcasm


I don’t enjoy getting bullied on account of any negative stereotype. Still this one as intensionally nasty as is, wasn’t so sharp a cut. It’s just too ridiculous too dated too basic. I feel it is a derogatory term that gets too much attention at the expense of some of truly heartbreaking soul destroying stuff that’s been said about us by healthcare professionals.



But maybe if this attention is warranted, that is because it’s the go to insult for a certain generation in particular, but then it’s also been handed down through the decades and if someone wants to be hurtful but isn’t up on the latest lingo they can always reach for this one as a fall back. So on that level perhaps it has wrought the most harm, by numbers alone. It certainly seems a cycle where it will die off then some “sympathetic” media broadcast or article will remind everyone what less sympathetic media used to called us, in the bad old days.



I don’t think it really exists because a YUP 80’s media terminology fragment is not really how people think of any of us. Not if we weren’t selling stocks and shares in the 80’s and then flaking out after too much coke. The only reason people say it is because they have heard it referred to as way that people with ME are spoken about that we don’t like or find upsetting. It is the malintention that is the only use for it, not the actual content. Whereas I feel some of the psycho medicalised assaults are not really addressed. And are much more harmful.


I have heard it argued that the Yuppie one shoulders a degree of responsibility for a lack of research and support because it caught public imagination. I don’t know. Though I think shit would have been flung at the wall until something stuck and it wouldn’t have taken too much effort to bring us down.


I suppose my fear is we finally move on from YF only to be consumed by the rather more niche in joke that is FND.

 

I find this emoji helpful sometimes when wanting to clarify a bit of sarcasm:

 

No not at all. I wasn’t clear first time. And you’re right of course it’s all awful.

I do have a particular distaste for the not quite mea culpa that will not die on this one. How almost everyone (though thinking now of Philip Hammond in particular..) can say “we’ve come so far remember when” at this point they sometimes say “we”, but pretty close to never “I” and more usually “they” “used to be very dismissive of this illness and call it YF”

Such a shame for all of us with ME that those BPS Drs making references to our bad treatment always and forever happening in the past don’t in any way address the fact that this dismissal is still very much in force. Enacted by them. Not newspaper headline writers back in the 80’s. Nope, these Drs consistently decade after decade discriminating against us. Feeling pretty pleased with themselves every time they invent or advance some new terminology for this purpose. No wonder they love referring to the one and only batch of poison that they aren’t known for concocting and at worst only borrowed from “they” who “used to say”

 

I usually find things when looking for something else. Which I fail to find.

I came across this in the Autumn 1989 MEA perspectives magazine,@p9. It is in the Research Round Up report by Stephanie Woodcock in a report on "Post viral fatigue syndrome and myalgic encephalomyelitis-areas of controversy. A one day conference recently held in London." It is worth including it here to show the extent to which fatigue was seen by SW as the overriding symptom.

...Dr Simon Wessely was next to speak (see also above).* It would be incorrect to jump to the conclusion that Dr Wessely wishes to grab ME for the exclusive interest of his own discipline, psychiatry. Dr Wessely's main research interest is in applying epidemiological principles to psychiatry and thus he is interested in any known possible risk factors for diseases with psychiatric manifestations. These could be infectious, psychological or social.

Dr Wessely is just one amongst several workers who are noticing that the symptom array displayed by ME patients is so (sic) similar to that of various psychiatric disorders, most notably depression. He gave tha audience the facts and figures relatingto the occurrence of fatigue as a symptom. He quoted cases showing that it can occur after extremely serious cases of viral encephalitis and yet is also one of the commonest symptoms in depression. Dr Wessely asked the audience "Where does one draw the line. What constitutes a case of ME and what does not?" Another finding which seems to be emerging and which was commented on by several speakers, is the disproportionate number of ME sufferers who have a history of one or more episodes requiring psychiatric help at some time in their lives prior to developing ME. Dr Wessely reports this as an observation only. This finding has yet to receive an explanation.

*This is a reference to a report on Myalgic Encephalomyelitis- a warning: discussion paper. 1989

It does seem odd to write of SWs main interest being the application of epidemiological principles. He had just written the paper with David, Butler and Chalder recommending GET and incorporating CBT.

 

I'm curious about this as well. Why is this bound to be controversial? To whom? Who would find this offensive and for what reason is he alluding here? Us? Or is he known to be contrarian in general? Has to do with his dismissive attitudes with the pandemic?

https://twitter.com/user/status/1492548492018991108

 

Why, though?

https://twitter.com/user/status/1509501034548404227

 

I’m not on Twitter or Facebook.

Any chance of outline of this discussion?
I’m just hoping SW might have learnt something more than that old 2017 narrative about pwME?

 

Well it's not because he's camera shy .

 

My back is itching again.

 

It's disgraceful that others would take part in such conversations/events after everything that has happened. What is he doing for them?

 

In case anyone is wondering whether he may have influenced how the UK government handled the pandemic, it certainly appears so, and ongoing. It would be very important to have access what was said on the issue of Long Covid, how his advice over "mass hysteria" and "cultural illnesses" may have influenced the policy of denial, and how the silly nonsense making everything about fear Fear FEAR likely influenced policy as well. If governments are failing at public health matters because of imaginary issues, refusing to address real problems because they are anxious about delusional fantasies, there better be heavy accountability or it just keeps going.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1509491813828149254

 

I'm not fully sure what the implications of this are - can you tell me anything about what this means/what powers and situations this could be particular bad news for?

 

Judicial Appointments Commission

"The Judicial Appointments Commission selects candidates for judicial office in England and Wales, and for some tribunals with UK-wide powers.

History of the Judicial Appointments Commission

It is our statutory duty to select candidates on merit, who are of good character. We believe in a judiciary that reflects the diverse society it serves and we have a statutory duty to attract diverse applicants from a wide field. We work closely with a range of organisations to promote vacancies to all those who are eligible. Read more about our Diversity and Equality information.

Our organisation is made up of 15 Commissioners, supported by our Senior Leadership Team, Panel Members and around 90 staff."

I doubt that in a diverse(ish) panel of 15 that any one individual could have an impact on the somewhat conservative (in the non political sense) choices that are made in putting recommendations forward.

 

Choice quotes from Wessely about pushing people to exercise not always being the right thing to do...
https://www.economist.com/1843/2022...-the-best-way-to-rehabilitate-the-war-wounded

 

Is this "medical royalty" photo op conversation available online anywhere?

Utterly appalling and reflects poorly on the judgement and views of those who took part.

 

What with the ex-king of Spain and some of the Windsors, being royalty isn't necessarily something to be proud of these days!

 

Paywall, so can't read more than the first 2 paragraphs.