neurophusion
Established Member (Voting Rights)
More evidence that Wessely was wrong about the health effects following 9/11 being mass psychogenic illness:
Last edited:
Who is Simon Wessely?
Chandelier
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
I didn’t know that.
The best source that I could find:
World Trade Centre syndrome
We are healthier than ever - but fear is making us ill.
www.spiked-online.com
Our reactions to the anthrax episode cannot be seen in isolation, or without reference to our general views of health, illness and risk.
Similarly, the emergence of ‘World Trade Syndrome’, a vague collection of symptoms among the residents of Lower Manhattan, blamed on various ‘toxins’ released after the collapse of the Twin Towers, only makes sense in the context of a seemingly endless list of other mysterious symptoms and syndromes that are blamed on similar toxic disasters.
…
We only have ourselves to blame for allowing this to happen. Anthraxiety and World Trade Centre Syndrome are the latest consequences of an ideology that tells us that our physical environment is responsible for most of our bodily discomforts and ills.
We have created a climate in which a maverick, disgruntled individual can bring a society to its knees by adding anthrax to a letter.
Lou B Lou
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
'Protean nature of mass sociogenic illness'
'From possessed nuns to chemical and biological terrorism fears'
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 January 2018
Robert E. Bartholomew and Simon Wessely
www.cambridge.org
Wessely, Bartholomew:
'From possessed nuns to chemical and biological terrorism fears'
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 January 2018
Robert E. Bartholomew and Simon Wessely
Protean nature of mass sociogenic illness | The British Journal of Psychiatry | Cambridge Core
Protean nature of mass sociogenic illness - Volume 180 Issue 4
www.cambridge.org
(Reference PricePrice, 2001)
Wessely, Bartholomew:
Last edited:
Chandelier
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
Omg, thank you.
I didn’t expect a paper to be more explicitly wrong than an article.
Jesus, that’s pure evil. So many absolutely ungrounded statements.'Protean nature of mass sociogenic illness'
'From possessed nuns to chemical and biological terrorism fears'
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 January 2018
Robert E. Bartholomew and Simon Wessely
Protean nature of mass sociogenic illness | The British Journal of Psychiatry | Cambridge Core
Protean nature of mass sociogenic illness - Volume 180 Issue 4
(Reference PricePrice, 2001)
Joan Crawford
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
"Many others who live and work near ground zero in lower Manhattan are reporting similar symptoms (shortness of breath, chest pressure and pain, coughing and general anxiety), despite the New York Health Department's continuous monitoring of airborne contaminants by city, state and federal agencies, which continue to indicate contaminant levels below that which poses a public health threat' (Reference PricePrice, 2001).'"'Protean nature of mass sociogenic illness'
'From possessed nuns to chemical and biological terrorism fears'
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 January 2018
Robert E. Bartholomew and Simon Wessely
Protean nature of mass sociogenic illness | The British Journal of Psychiatry | Cambridge Core
Protean nature of mass sociogenic illness - Volume 180 Issue 4
(Reference PricePrice, 2001)
In essence Simon demands objective data and evidence for symptoms. Then proposes an answer with no basis is objective reality other than a belief in mass psychogenic illness.
Talk about double standards.
Widely heald ones which absolve those in power from acknowledging the need for action and resources. Accepted unquestioningly with psychological ease.
And brazen as hell about it.
Which is why I have no respect whatsoever for them.
Chandelier
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
Reminds me of the last time I tried to understand how a practioner in psychosomatics thinks about cancer, mind you, a medical doctor.
So, first you have to understand that there are cancers and then there are cancers.
Next, age is a huge factor in identifying psychosomatic cancers.
And probably gender, but we didn’t get there explicitly.
The only example I got out of them:
If a 4-year old gets cancer, that’s very unlikely to be psychosomatic.
Fron what I understood, it’s because the kid is living their best life without being overly affected by socialization.
Now, if it happens to be a woman in her 40‘s, working, with kids, stressed out, lots of responsibilities, and some sort of tummy cancer… oh boy!!
What I took from that conversation is that there isn’t a black and white algorithm.
Instead, who gets to be blamed for having cancer depends on the giftedness of the blamer in judging-magic.
It’s all very dynamic, lots of variables, mad mind juggling skills mandatory, and it’s always important to stay flexible in case new information comes in.
Only idiots would say, yes, it’s definitely psychosomatic.
The pro knows how to calmly nod with the head and start to ask questions like: "Well, what do you think?"
Anyway, that was many years ago and I‘m sure that this profession has progressed at an blazingly fast pace in the meantime… oh, wait:
Reliability of psychiatric diagnoses in the 21st century, 2026, Boberg et al.
55%, that’s more than 50%, which is 1/2 or a half…
That’s pretty good!
I mean, the meat is there in the soup.
It has become more of a psychological question regarding the reader than anything else at this point.
Do YOU consider this glass
You can be honest, we won’t judge you!
It's seriously difficult to be this wrong about anything. It takes special talent to achieve a singularity of failure. Because not only is he comically wrong many times over about the same thing, this is an issue at which he is a recognized expert.
It takes total system failure for this to happen. In the end power rules everything and everyone is driven by self-interest, and if harming millions is good business then it's just good business so it's nothing personal. Psychosomatic ideology sits on a throne of death and misery the likes of which few tyrants have achieved. Certainly none on their own.
Someone called him Professor Catastrophe. A fitting name. He also deserves the title of Professor Failure. It's not a unique title, it's a widely shared one. Can't really suggest they meet and greet on this basis, they pretty much already do.
It takes total system failure for this to happen. In the end power rules everything and everyone is driven by self-interest, and if harming millions is good business then it's just good business so it's nothing personal. Psychosomatic ideology sits on a throne of death and misery the likes of which few tyrants have achieved. Certainly none on their own.
Someone called him Professor Catastrophe. A fitting name. He also deserves the title of Professor Failure. It's not a unique title, it's a widely shared one. Can't really suggest they meet and greet on this basis, they pretty much already do.
Last edited:
Chandelier
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
Already plenty of comments:
Bluesky / XCancel:
Today marks 25 years since 9/11. 8 months after the attack, psychiatrist Simon Wessely argued that illness reported around Ground Zero was being wrongly attributed to environmental toxins, suggesting “World Trade Centre Syndrome” was driven by social and psychological factors.
Tens of thousands of people got sick, and many have died since then from illnesses...
MrMagoo
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
He does seem stuck in a loop of victim blaming and seeing psychological factors everywhere. He should try the Lightning Process. Or just write “stop!” On a paper, and read it every time he has a thought about psychogenic illnesses.
JellyBabyKid
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
You know how people who either don’t believe in or have met dodgy palm-readers or psychics say (or films portray) that they predate on their listeners responses to see if they get flickers when they say ‘someone old is talking to me about a trip you had together’ or ‘you’ve a big challenge you are currently trying to face’ hoping for ‘uncle John!’ Or ‘yes I’m doing my qualifying year atm’ come back as information
This stuff is reminiscent except with third party (rather than the individual themselves) replies probably ‘shaping’ and honing things to ‘what people want to buy/suck up/hear’, or maybe it is literal antagonism.
I mean it’s not science is it really in any stage or form, or common sense.
But getting away with ‘suck it and see’ accusations… so if it didn’t work with World Trade Sybdrome that enough people would have a bar of it giving him power and people not using it to diss those genuinely ill from it , then it seems to not land him in trouble like it should.
Basically boundary-testing the public and systems to see which vulnerable populations they’ll get on board with the same unevidenced nonsense that is laughed at and treated with outrage for others?
And those repeating something like that which does need to remembered as wholly inappropriate get the ‘shoot the messenger’ risk from those it targeted instead of the perpetrator because of the ‘be nice and don’t call out bad stuff’ bs certainly types have pushed as if that used to be the etiquette , when it’s very important people are held to account of their track record.
Last edited:
The parallel with Chernobyl is striking, but the experts who coined the term ‘radiation phobia’ to avoid having to deal with the after-effects of the disaster were funded by the Soviet government (or threatened, or both), and we can give them the benefit of the doubt that they were never entirely taken in by their own charade.
But in this case, SW clearly never ran the risk of being sent to a rural clinic in Kazakhstan if he didn’t come up with theories that suited the agenda, did he? He has no visible interest. Does he, then?
But in this case, SW clearly never ran the risk of being sent to a rural clinic in Kazakhstan if he didn’t come up with theories that suited the agenda, did he? He has no visible interest. Does he, then?
MrMagoo
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
He is “cold reading” society.
Except he keeps on getting debunked, and yet he still pontificates.
Last edited by a moderator:
Short version: I have no idea what I am talking about.
SugarSquared
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
Same screenshot was posted on r/cfs:Already plenty of comments:
Bluesky / XCancel:
Today marks 25 years since 9/11. 8 months after the attack, psychiatrist Simon Wessely argued that illness reported around Ground Zero was being wrongly attributed to environmental toxins, suggesting “World Trade Centre Syndrome” was driven by social and psychological factors.Tens of thousands of people got sick, and many have died since then from illnesses...
Seeing how much the government fought to cover this up despite fully knowing it was toxic makes me wonder how many other times this has happened and still happened. Climate change and covid come to mind. All for profit in the end, as it was with 9/11.