EzzieD
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
Oh, gawd...
Why? It's utterly bizarre, why is he even considered a 'scientist', never mind an outstanding one? Surely there must be many more deserving candidates for such an accolade.
-
New Forum Software Installed (Still a few issues but reopening the forum) More details.
Who is Simon Wessely?
Why? It's utterly bizarre, why is he even considered a 'scientist', never mind an outstanding one? Surely there must be many more deserving candidates for such an accolade.
Oooh an even more altogether eminently eminent Eminence
Presumably he’ll be getting out the magic suit for the parade
Presumably he’ll be getting out the magic suit for the parade
Richard Feynman eventually quietly resigned his membership of the equivalent institution in the USA, the National Academy of Sciences. Didn't believe he had done anything to deserve it, and that it was just a mutual appreciation society mostly concerned with deciding who could be a member of their exclusive club.
Just saying.
Just saying.
EzzieD
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
Wish I could like that post 100 times. Feynman = wonderful. They rarely make 'em like that anymore, that rare combination of brilliant and humble. Can't help wondering how baffled he might be at Wessely being considered a 'scientist' and his continual awards and prestigious positions for doing - what, exactly?
Barry
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
Yes, it makes you think that folk like SW don't get these "eminence badges" just by getting on and doing what they should to actually earn them. It is a dead certainty - in my mind - that he gets them by angling very strongly for them, and brown-nosing at every chance he gets. If there was a science of self serving, then he would deserve the highest possible award; I have no time for him and his like.
EzzieD
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
Methinks you've hit the nail squarely on the head. Every tedious and self-aggrandising interview, lecture or opinion piece I've read of his over the decades has reinforced my opinion along those lines.
Aha, that's what speciality he's a 'scientist' in, then! Mystery solved!
He always reminds me of Widmerpool in Anthony Powell's Dance to the Music of Time. How long till it's Lord Wessely?
That picture of Wessely is from the 2011 SMC manipulated propaganda campaign. Strange that they would use a decade old photo.
Chronic fatigue syndrome researchers face death threats from militants | ME / Chronic fatigue syndrome | The Guardian
Scientists investigating ME get 'death threats' for investigating psychological causes | Daily Mail Online
It is conveniently archived here along with the subsequent regurgitations.
The "harassment" campaign - references | Science for ME (s4me.info)
I'm not sure the article that had "terrorists" in the headline or the one that said things are worse in the US is listed there. It's hard to keep track of such a blizzard of BS.
But a decade later it is still affecting our world as Jennie Spotila just documented.
The Death Threat Myth Exposed | Occupy M.E. (occupyme.net)
Last edited:
Do any of you know any more about this story? From Byron Hyde's facebook. Quite a disturbing read:
"“Several years ago I was lecturing in British Columbia. Dr [Simon] Wessely was speaking and he gave a thoroughly enjoyable lecture on M.E. and CFS. He had the hundreds of staff physicians laughing themselves silly over the invented griefs of the M.E. and CFS patients who according to Dr Wessely had no physical illness what-so-ever but a lot of misguided imagination. I was appalled at his sheer effectiveness, the amazing control he had over the minds of the staid physician. His message was very clear and very simple. If I can paraphrase him: “M.E. and CFS are non-existent illnesses with no pathology what-so-ever. There is no reason why they all cannot return to work tomorrow.
The next morning I left by car with my crew and arrived in Kelowna British Columbia that afternoon. We were staying at a patient’s house who had severe M.E. with dysautanomia and was for all purposes bed ridden or house bound most of the day. That morning she had received a phone call from her insurance company in Toronto. (Toronto is approximately 2742 miles from Vancouver). The insurance call was as follows and again I paraphrase:
“Physicians at a University of British Columbia have demonstrated that there is no pathological or physiological basis for M.E. or CFS. Your disability benefits have been stopped as of this month. You will have to pay back the funds we have sent you previously. We will contact you shortly with the exact amount you owe us”.
That night I spoke to several patients or their spouses who came up to me and told me they had received the same message. They were in understandable fear.
What is important about this story is that at that meeting it was only Dr Wessely who was speaking out against M.E. and CFS and how were the insurance companies in Toronto and elsewhere able to obtain this information and get back to the patients within a 24 hour period if Simon Wessely was not working for the insurance industry. I understand that it was also the insurance industry who paid for Dr Wessely’s trip to Vancouver.”
― Byron Hyde
Dr Byron Hyde’s Publications https://www.facebook.com/Dr-Byron-Hydes-Publications-100209395280161
Nightingale Foundation https://www.nightingale.ca/our-founder
Source: Dr Byron Hyde's Publications - Innlegg | Facebook
"“Several years ago I was lecturing in British Columbia. Dr [Simon] Wessely was speaking and he gave a thoroughly enjoyable lecture on M.E. and CFS. He had the hundreds of staff physicians laughing themselves silly over the invented griefs of the M.E. and CFS patients who according to Dr Wessely had no physical illness what-so-ever but a lot of misguided imagination. I was appalled at his sheer effectiveness, the amazing control he had over the minds of the staid physician. His message was very clear and very simple. If I can paraphrase him: “M.E. and CFS are non-existent illnesses with no pathology what-so-ever. There is no reason why they all cannot return to work tomorrow.
The next morning I left by car with my crew and arrived in Kelowna British Columbia that afternoon. We were staying at a patient’s house who had severe M.E. with dysautanomia and was for all purposes bed ridden or house bound most of the day. That morning she had received a phone call from her insurance company in Toronto. (Toronto is approximately 2742 miles from Vancouver). The insurance call was as follows and again I paraphrase:
“Physicians at a University of British Columbia have demonstrated that there is no pathological or physiological basis for M.E. or CFS. Your disability benefits have been stopped as of this month. You will have to pay back the funds we have sent you previously. We will contact you shortly with the exact amount you owe us”.
That night I spoke to several patients or their spouses who came up to me and told me they had received the same message. They were in understandable fear.
What is important about this story is that at that meeting it was only Dr Wessely who was speaking out against M.E. and CFS and how were the insurance companies in Toronto and elsewhere able to obtain this information and get back to the patients within a 24 hour period if Simon Wessely was not working for the insurance industry. I understand that it was also the insurance industry who paid for Dr Wessely’s trip to Vancouver.”
― Byron Hyde
Dr Byron Hyde’s Publications https://www.facebook.com/Dr-Byron-Hydes-Publications-100209395280161
Nightingale Foundation https://www.nightingale.ca/our-founder
Source: Dr Byron Hyde's Publications - Innlegg | Facebook
Barry
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
Previously noted in this post:
https://www.s4me.info/threads/are-w...-them-in-a-good-light.8648/page-2#post-153246
Good, this story should be told multiple places on this forum. It's too important to be missed.
Would love to know some more about this event. Are there any other doctors we know about that attended this event or similar events? I don't doubt the veracity of Dr. Hyde's claims, but it would probably seem more trustworthy to outsiders if others could share their similar stories? So that it's just not one persons interpretation of one event, but to show that this was actually how he operated at the time.
I have for some time wondered whether I should respond to the post about the Canada lecture, and on balance think it worthwhile to do so.
There seem to be be some problems inherent in the story. Why did BH withhold details of the date and year, the nature of the conference, the name of the insurance company (from which we could have investigated whether it was a subsidiary of a UK company) and the outcome of the matter?
Clearly the phone calls could not have been a consequence of a lecture the previous evening. The reclaiming of allegedly overpaid money would appear to be a potentially complex legal issue. Assuming that this was not the work of some overzealous file manager off on a frolic of their own, throwing this in as a potential bargaining ploy, the matter must have been in hand for some months. Legal department approval would have had to be obtained and the matter signed off at, presumably, the level of departmental head and director responsible.
What could be the motive in potentially outing the supposed advisor? Would not the better plan be to keep any link hidden? Why would one make the phone calls on that day when it is not made clear that the matter was "time critical".
Toronto and Hamilton had plenty of people of a BPS disposition.
If it was intended that this "teaser" should be taken seriously, more information should have been volunteered.
There seem to be be some problems inherent in the story. Why did BH withhold details of the date and year, the nature of the conference, the name of the insurance company (from which we could have investigated whether it was a subsidiary of a UK company) and the outcome of the matter?
Clearly the phone calls could not have been a consequence of a lecture the previous evening. The reclaiming of allegedly overpaid money would appear to be a potentially complex legal issue. Assuming that this was not the work of some overzealous file manager off on a frolic of their own, throwing this in as a potential bargaining ploy, the matter must have been in hand for some months. Legal department approval would have had to be obtained and the matter signed off at, presumably, the level of departmental head and director responsible.
What could be the motive in potentially outing the supposed advisor? Would not the better plan be to keep any link hidden? Why would one make the phone calls on that day when it is not made clear that the matter was "time critical".
Toronto and Hamilton had plenty of people of a BPS disposition.
If it was intended that this "teaser" should be taken seriously, more information should have been volunteered.
Sly Saint
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
I haven't checked to see if these have been posted:
Lunch with
The Lancet
Simon Wessely 2007
The dangers of research into CFS/ME (from 2011 just after publication of PACE trial)
Hansard Jan 2004 House of Lords
eta: note to self, stop searching for stuff on Wessely.
Lunch with
The Lancet
Simon Wessely 2007
https://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140-6736(07)60802-2.pdf
The dangers of research into CFS/ME (from 2011 just after publication of PACE trial)
https://www.bmj.com/bmj/section-pdf/187262?path=/bmj/342/7812/Feature.full.pdf
Hansard Jan 2004 House of Lords
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200304/ldhansrd/vo040122/text/40122-12.htm
eta: note to self, stop searching for stuff on Wessely.
Last edited:
I think that Nigel Hawkes piece indicates the problem.
Without the hard evidence it can be claimed that the story about the lecture and the insurance company is merely a smear. It is perfectly possible to believe that X and Y are true but for the idea that X was the cause of Y to be absurd. That does not preclude the possibility that X and Y had some other connection; but it does not help if the hard facts are withheld.
Without the hard evidence it can be claimed that the story about the lecture and the insurance company is merely a smear. It is perfectly possible to believe that X and Y are true but for the idea that X was the cause of Y to be absurd. That does not preclude the possibility that X and Y had some other connection; but it does not help if the hard facts are withheld.
I get the impression that he is someone who reinvents the past to suit the current needs and for some of his papers he gets away with it because the way he writes is quite ambiguous (which in my mind is a failing in a scientist).
rvallee
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
The WHO actually invited one of the people most responsible for medicine being completely wrong about an old problem. Amazing, can't make this stuff up.
At least he didn't do his usual spiel, I guess that's getting too old for an audience that isn't ideologically captured, but still, this is like inviting Richard Horton and Andrew Wakefield on a panel about vaccines. The "and" is important, though, because somehow the person most responsible for anti-vaccination is still respected on every topic. Because clearly evidence and merit are all a matter of arbitrary interpretation.
I pretty much assume he does his usual sales pitch to friendly audiences, he always tailors his narrative to the audience.
At least he didn't do his usual spiel, I guess that's getting too old for an audience that isn't ideologically captured, but still, this is like inviting Richard Horton and Andrew Wakefield on a panel about vaccines. The "and" is important, though, because somehow the person most responsible for anti-vaccination is still respected on every topic. Because clearly evidence and merit are all a matter of arbitrary interpretation.
I pretty much assume he does his usual sales pitch to friendly audiences, he always tailors his narrative to the audience.
To revert to the question of SW's lecture on an unknown date and the suggestions of involvement with the Canadian insurance industry, this document provides much clearer evidence of the involvement of Arthur Cott of the Behavioural Medicine Centre at McMaster and Prisma Health.
IBC TO LAUNCH NEW HEALTH CARE GUIDE FOR CLAIMS PROFESSIONALS - Insurance-Canada.ca - Where Insurance & Technology Meet
This document from 2001 provides clear evidence of Cott working in collaboration with, inter alia, Royal Sun Alliance and AXA. This is why it would have been helpful to have the date of the incident to which Byron Hyde referred and the name of the insurance company involved.
The curious aspect of this is that SW acknowledged having worked with "PRISMA" at about this time. It is not known whether it was the same organisation, a related or associated organisation, or whether it was wholly unrelated. It does however appear to be an unfortunate coincidence.