Who is Simon Wessely?

Last edited:
By using "they", was he dissociating himself from the decision? It would be intersting to know the source for the belief.

Later he says "On all measures we got the same results". He is elusive. Was he privy to the discussions leading to the changes?
 
Last edited:
Sly Saint said:
posting this to facilitate searching.
Quote from Simon Wessely in a Sranding up for Science debate concerning recovery in the PACE trial. (2017)
"“They changed the recovery measure because they realised they had gone too extreme and they would have the problem that nobody would recover.”

https://www.s4me.info/threads/indep...ed-by-hilda-bastian.13645/page-78#post-362451
Click to expand...
I know, this has done the rounds several times before, but it's like one of those standard jokes - you still can't help laughing at it every time you hear it.

The notion of "too extreme" is the usual double speak of course. Too extreme to allow fabrication of results is what it really amounted to.
 
Sly Saint said:
posting this to facilitate searching.
Quote from Simon Wessely in a Standing up for Science debate concerning recovery in the PACE trial. (2017)
"“They changed the recovery measure because they realised they had gone too extreme and they would have the problem that nobody would recover.”

https://www.s4me.info/threads/indep...ed-by-hilda-bastian.13645/page-78#post-362451
Click to expand...

If handled properly it is not unacceptable for researchers to say we got the design of our investigation wrong, and we believe that an alternative analysis of the data produces more interesting results, and then allowing other people to make their own mind on this.

However to play down the change to the extent it might be seen as trying to hide it, employing character assignation of anyone seeking to discuss this and to spend years and many thousands of pounds attempting to prevent any independent analysis of the data hardly seems to be part of a full and frank discussion of a correction of a minor design flaw.
 
strategist said:
In the late 80's he and a few others promoted the belief that CFS is a state of deconditioning and unhelpful illness beliefs. This had a catastrophic effect on patients. It also led to the development of CBT and GET. Nowadays Wessely likes to claim that he's retired from CFS research but he is a director at the Science Media Center that continues to defend these ideas, and also orchestrated a media campaign to smear patients critical of the PACE trial as violent militants.
Click to expand...

I wonder if Wesseley was a member of Living Marxism at some point, as we know, the SMC was set up by LM alumni, now Spiked, he is the same age as many of their key players as well.
 
Despite the long, tedious, and uncomfortable time sitting with nothing of any interest happening, despite all appearances, what has happened, is just not cricket.

But then SW Sir Prof doesn't strike me as someone with any interest in cricket, so that's probably all right, from his perspective.
 
Wonko said:
Despite the long, tedious, and uncomfortable time sitting with nothing of any interest happening, despite all appearances, what has happened, is just not cricket.

But then SW Sir Prof doesn't strike me as someone with any interest in cricket, so that's probably all right, from his perspective.
Click to expand...
To use another sporting analogy. Given what is happening here on several fronts it seems to be par for the course.
 
Wonko said:
Despite the long, tedious, and uncomfortable time sitting with nothing of any interest happening, despite all appearances, what has happened, is just not cricket.

But then SW Sir Prof doesn't strike me as someone with any interest in cricket, so that's probably all right, from his perspective.
Click to expand...

Sounds to me exactly like cricket. Major disappointment. Incompetent leadership. Lack of basic skills.
 
chrisb said:
Sounds to me exactly like cricket. Major disappointment. Incompetent leadership. Lack of basic skills.
Click to expand...
Yes, and the principle of walking when you know you’ve hit the ball has long since gone from the game. Adam Gilchrist was the last batsmen I remember who would always walk, and he was very much an exception to the rule. I love cricket but there is a great deal more dishonesty in the game than I would like.
 
Hadn't seen that one before. Seems that at the time they were just throwing stuff at the wall to see what sticks. Somehow this model completely ignores the symptoms as playing any role, since obviously a healthy person just functioning normally does not have those symptoms that... cause... failure... somehow. I guess that's another word that has a different meaning in their weird dictionary.

Ironically arguing behavioral conditioning, seriously grasping at straws, while elsewhere arguing for... deconditioning. Semantic coincidence here but still. The stupid, it really hurts. How does arguing junk like this not simply end a career in medicine?


wessely-chalder-bjgp-chronic-conditioning.jpg

Source
 
rvallee said:
Hadn't seen that one before. Seems that at the time they were just throwing stuff at the wall to see what sticks. Somehow this model completely ignores the symptoms as playing any role, since obviously a healthy person just functioning normally does not have those symptoms that... cause... failure... somehow. I guess that's another word that has a different meaning in their weird dictionary.

Ironically arguing behavioral conditioning, seriously grasping at straws, while elsewhere arguing for... deconditioning. Semantic coincidence here but still. The stupid, it really hurts. How does arguing junk like this not simply end a career in medicine?


View attachment 14839
Click to expand...
Have you found the original letter from Ho Yen to which SW was replying. It is very reveaing. He made all the points which we still make to this day. I thought I posted the link somewhere on the forum but doubt whether I could find it now.
 
rvallee said:
Hadn't seen that one before. Seems that at the time they were just throwing stuff at the wall to see what sticks. Somehow this model completely ignores the symptoms as playing any role, since obviously a healthy person just functioning normally does not have those symptoms that... cause... failure... somehow. I guess that's another word that has a different meaning in their weird dictionary.

Ironically arguing behavioral conditioning, seriously grasping at straws, while elsewhere arguing for... deconditioning. Semantic coincidence here but still. The stupid, it really hurts. How does arguing junk like this not simply end a career in medicine?


View attachment 14839

Source
Click to expand...

Wow I'd either not seen that or it had fallen out of my head. Thanks for posting. So, SW et al did/do think symptoms are maintained by conditioning. I suspect they might distance themselves from this now, had to have available to remind them what they did say, not what they thought they used to say
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top