Who is Simon Wessely?

Adam pwme said:
New from Margaret Williams

“Over the past few weeks, “Margaret Williams” (a pseudonym) has been working on a detailed exposé concerning Professor Sir Simon Wessely. Many of you will be familiar with her previous work, often co-authored with Professor Malcolm Hooper.

A small group of us has contributed to the research, verified sources, and corrected any factual errors throughout the drafting process.

The document is now complete and ready for circulation.

It is intended as a historical record for the ME community, charting the events that led to the systematic erasure, redefinition, and dismissal of ME as a psychosomatic condition. What emerges is a deeply troubling account—a history marked by apparent corruption, institutional failures, and scientific misrepresentation.

While this document serves as a vital reference, it is not an easy read. The implications are serious, and the evidence points to a longstanding and deliberate campaign to distort the truth.

Please share it as widely as possible while you still can. As many of you know, Sir Simon Wessely has a well-documented history of threatening legal action to suppress inconvenient facts. The public has a right to know, and time may be short before attempts are made to censor or discredit this material.”

document
https://forums.phoenixrising.me/attachments/me-wesselys-words-of-wisdom-final-draft-pdf.55739/

source
https://forums.phoenixrising.me/thr...-prof-sir-simon-wessely-on-me-patients.93394/
Click to expand...
I could only scan through today, is anyone able to point to which parts are new material here? as a lot seems familiar
 
Sean said:
MW's work is a mixed bag. Some excellent info and points and references in there. Best used selectively, and as source for other sources. Generally I would not cite them directly.

That said, I am grateful to them for their work. No doubt it is not fun to have to go through it all. Like all collation and cross-referencing, it can be very tedious and discouraging.
Click to expand...

Same, it's not the angle I would take, but I think each advocate needs to follow their own ends. I don't agree with the idea that every activist/advocate has to have the same ideas and points of view, there is room under a broad tent.
 
Yann04 said:
'Six new board members appointed to Advisory Council on National Records and Archives'

'Sir Simon Wessely
Click to expand...
I gather from a quick look at the links that this is the body that advises on what records government keeps, who has access to them and dealing with FOI requests. So Wessely is presumbably there to advise on what government and government funded body documents with a medical topic are available under FOI.
 
Just FYI generally: this is the text of something I wrote recently in response to a direct question on BlueSky:

This appointment [SW] may be unwelcome but is unlikely to affect specific FOI requests to The National Archives. FOI's are handled by the in-house team & appeals go to the Information Commissioner via an independent judicial process.

This is a general policy advisory role, not aimed at any specific area.

In recent years Simon has held several public appointments. Whilst this may be alarming to many in the #ME community, this is standard practice for someone of his age/background. He is usually recruited for his mental health expertise although, inevitably, ME always lurks uneasily in the shadows.

I always look for any signs of sinister activity. However, on the face of it, I don't see anything here at the moment. What I set out above is just the theoretical pathway of how it works. That doesn't necessarily mean the system can't be influenced/hijacked by nefarious players.

Of course, where Simon is concerned, we always need to be vigilant. However, I don't think we need to be alarmed by this appointment, just maintain a watching brief, as with his previous appointments at the JAC and NHSE - and generally.
 
Thank you very much for explaining, @Valerie Eliot Smith. I am somewhat reassured, though, as you say, where SW is involved, we never know.

My concern is probably more that SW continues to have his fingers in so many senior government advisory pies, and will therefore be at the forefront of the minds of government ministers looking for advice on other areas where he claims expertise, including ME/CFS.
 
Trish said:
Thank you very much for explaining, @Valerie Eliot Smith. I am somewhat reassured, though, as you say, where SW is involved, we never know.

My concern is probably more that SW continues to have his fingers in so many senior government advisory pies, and will therefore be at the forefront of the minds of government ministers looking for advice on other areas where he claims expertise, including ME/CFS.
Click to expand...
I agree, Trish, but, realistically, there's not much more we can do beyond remaining vigilant. We can never know what is discussed in private, informal situations anyway and that has always been the case.

I think that our biggest current challenge is from the likes of the authors of the recent horrendous BMJ Opinion piece. That is where the vanguard of the pushback brigade is now focused. However, the superb responses from those representing the real ME community have seriously dented its credibility.

ETA: By "real ME community", I mean those who have a genuine understanding of the illness and what it means to live with it at all levels of severity.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top