Who is Simon Wessely?

Who is Wessely? A chameleon.... who changes his rhetoric to suit the occasion or the audience. A real establishment behind the scenes man. With equally ambitious wife, has resulted in disservice to an enormous number of patients; whether that be ME or Gulf War Veterans or those poisoned at Camelford. He tried to influence the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution in 2004 via the Advisory Committee on Pesticides chaired by his crony David Coggon..... influenced both RCPCH paediatric report on ME and screened the York Review for same. This in turn was used amended for NICE in 2007... Also pulling strings within the MRC over ME research bids .... according to Stephen Holgate.... He is a flippant delivery in his lectures and the most ginormous ego......
 
Last edited:
Hip said:
But that is the history of ME/CFS, which is also an important story to tell. Wessely is the father of the "all in the mind" view of ME/CFS, and he played a fundamental role in turning ME/CFS into a condition that, from around the 1990s onwards, most medics started viewing as psychogenic.

Before Simon Wessely entered the ME/CFS field in the late 1980s, ME/CFS was generally considered biologically caused, after it came to prominence after the 1955 Royal Free outbreak. (There was the small issue of those dubious dilettantes McEvedy and Beard throwing out an unevidenced idea in the 1970s that the Royal Free ME/CFS outbreak was mass hysteria, but that idea was soon refuted).

But Wessely and his band of Wessely School psychiatrists, plus a few likeminded people abroad (no more than a dozen or so people in total), single-handedly persuaded the much of the world to adopt the (erroneous) view that ME/CFS is an "all in the mind" condition, in spite of offering no evidence for this.

So these dozen or so dubious psychiatrists masterminded almost complete control of the whole field of ME/CFS, affecting 17 million ME/CFS patients worldwide. It's an extraordinary phenomenon where just a just a dozen academics can take dominion over a medical field without offering any scientific evidence.

You cannot really understand the Wessely phenomenon without examining Wessely's uncanny ability to manipulate opinion and persuade the medical profession of his unevidenced ideas. Admittedly the Wessely School were working in cahoots with the disability insurance industry, in whose financial interests it was to make ME/CFS look like a psychologically caused condition. So the Wessely School had some help. Nevertheless, it is remarkable how just a dozen psychiatrists could radically change perceptions on ME/CFS, and recast this disease into a psychogenic condition.
Click to expand...

I find the few numbers of people who initially invested in this and got it rolling encouraging. But the snowball effect have been devastating. Don’t know how the situation actually is by May 2019? Progress is made, but the pseudoscience seems so incredibly deeply rooted.

It is just bizarre how a little group of psychiatrists without documenting their claims can control a field for such a long time. That says a lot of what may happen if medicine in large loose interest, like for the last 40 years and how a non-scientific approach, not really asking the though questions, not really demanding evidence. That paves the way for pseudoscience as acceptable, finding its way to important documents, into the organizations and so on. Wessley and co have had an open door and they have played it brilliant. If it just was a game.. Not saying that this have been easy in any way for the environment outside (the general and medical) to get a grip of and necessarily do so much about, but the timeline here. Decades..!?
 
Hip said:
But that is the history of ME/CFS, which is also an important story to tell. Wessely is the father of the "all in the mind" view of ME/CFS, and he played a fundamental role in turning ME/CFS into a condition that, from around the 1990s onwards, most medics started viewing as psychogenic.
Click to expand...

I don't think he is the father of the "all in the mind" view. He's certainly an important Perpetuator though, which amazingly he has done by proclaiming on many, many occasions that he doesn't believe it's "all in the mind". Many medics (neurologists, virologists, epidemiologists) viewed it as psychogenic long before the 1990s. Medicine hates uncertainty and things that can't be treated, so having a box to put things in when you don't know the answer means that some kind of psychogenic categorisation was inevitable. It's the easy default - and only those who want to be credited with lazy thinking should take any credit for it.
 
His first paper was called "New Wine in Old Bottles" and he said that ME was the modern name for neurasthenia. His university website said that neurasthenia had faded since Victorian times but reemerged in the 80's. The epidemics were completely ignored.

The neurasthenia link brought in the chronic fatigue link. Before that, ME was seen as a disease where exertion made symptoms worse. In effect exercise was to ME what pollen is to hay fever. Most of our problems have been caused or exacerbated by making it about fatigue, a common problem with no specificity.

He was also chief medical officer or something like that with responsibility for psychology with NATO. I read that he was called in to look at the psychological effects after 9/11 but heard no more about that.

I believe he was also involved in the defining of CFS in some way.

The investigations into physical problems were done in a cynical manner designed to dismiss them rather than looking for answers which would help patients. Those of us who lived through those days know exactly what he is and has done for us.
 
His first paper was actually this one: Postviral fatigue syndrome: time for a new approach.

But this was after Holmes et al. had coined and defined "chronic fatigue syndrome". They were merely transfering and cementing the damage that had already been done in the US, which SW actually acknowledges in his "New Wine in Old Bottles" rehash.

What will happen to ME? Again the American example is instructive. The current renaissance of chronic fatigue began in the USA, with a series of reports from reputable investigators of a link between chronic Epstein-Barr infection and chronic fatigue, resulting in intense media and patient interest. However, after more careful research the same investigators who had raised the possibility were the first to suggest that the link accounts for only a small minority of those with chronic fatigue (Straus, 1988; Schooley, 1988; Swartz, 1988). Little evidence could be found of any relationship between clinical symptoms and laboratory findings, or between clinical recovery and the resolution of any serological or immunological abnormalities, even in patients specifically selected for serological abnormalities (Straus, 1988; Schooley, 1988; Kruesi et al. 1989). Instead, Lane's view (1906) of an interaction between susceptibility to psychiatric illness and infection is among the most promising of current lines of enquiry (Imboden et al. 1961; Straus, 1988; Katz & Andiman, 1988; Swartz, 1988; Wessely, 1989; White, 1989 c). It remains to be seen whether the same process happens in the UK...
Click to expand...
 
Lucibee said:
I don't think he is the father of the "all in the mind" view. He's certainly an important Perpetuator though, which amazingly he has done by proclaiming on many, many occasions that he doesn't believe it's "all in the mind".
Click to expand...

Yes, that's true, Wessely did not invent the idea of psychogenic illness, but I read an article years ago which explained the history, and that Simon Wessely single handedly resurrected the notion of psychogenic illness from its then moribund state.

I can't find the article now (it may have been one of Margaret Williams or Prof Malcolm Hoopers's articles), but it explained that the concept of psychogenic illness had died a natural death, I expect essentially because idea was untenable, due to lack of evidence.

However, Wessely in his early career revived it, and gave it fresh life, and this is the reason that not only ME/CFS was recast as psychogenic, but also other diseases such as interstitial cystitis, irritable bowel syndrome, fibromyalgia, chronic pelvic pain, etc.

Not to mention his application of psychogenic ideas to the Camelford water poisoning incident in 1988, and to Gulf War Illness, which is epidemiologically linked to organophosphate poisoning. His ideas were always very handy if ever you wanted to make a disease or poisoning incident disappear.

In this way, Wessely seemed to (perhaps inadvertently) become the medical equivalent of a mafia hitman: if you needed a disease or incident "disappeared" then you just needed to hire Wessely.

The disability insurance industry certainly found the services and ideas of Wessely and colleagues very useful in the 1980s, when there was a 5-fold or more increase in the incidence of ME/CFS (by these insurance companys' own claim statistics), and insurance companies such as UNUM could have become bankrupt had it not been for the "disease disappearance services" of Wessely and colleagues.

A Prof Malcolm Hooper article talks about this: Magical Medicine: How to Make a Disease Disappear.
 
Last edited:
I like the fact that he was the one who was asked about his opinion almost immediately after the nanoneedle, I mean is that a coincidence?
 
So many papers. Has anyone ever studied whether their is an inverse relationship between number of papers written and understanding of the nature of the problems.

EDIT. I did mean his first paper referring to ME. I bet he wishes he hadn't mentioned the Royal Free epidemic in a paper on hysteria.
 
Last edited:


Simon Wessely will be interviewing Ken Loach (who made the film 'I Daniel Blake'); I wonder if Ken Loach is aware of SWs role in the adoption, or should that be adaption, of BPS 'theory' that has lead to the atrocious treatment of sick and disabled people in the UK?
 
NelliePledge said:
Every time this thread pops up in the list my brain adds 2 extra words one of which is the :whistle: Sorry - you know I struggle to control my tendency to use expletives
Click to expand...
I never used to use expletives much, in thought or out loud. Until I started learning about the massive injustice done to ME patients by Wessely and co. for the 30 years I've had ME. Now, like you, those extra 2 words come to mind all too easily.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top