-
Notice: S4ME will have a short interruption of service on May 30. More information here.
Who is Simon Wessely?
"<Redacted> and some PACE authors" is some funny attempt at censoring.
Basically this joke from the Simpsons:
"For privacy's sake, let's call her Lisa S. No, that's too obvious. Let's say L. Simpson".
Jonathan Edwards
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
I hadn't noticed that. You are right, just like the Simpson's - "Some PACE authors and that other guy whose name we know is always redacted"
Nightsong
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
While his behind-the-scenes involvement with NICE would not surprise me I do not think the redactions are SW specific. If you look at e.g. the second consultation responses document on this page (link) there are other names redacted as well - there seems to have been a general policy of redacting the names of individuals that appear in submissions to NICE.
(Incidentally, some of the redactions were not properly performed, and the text is still present in the document & extractable from 'underneath' the black overlay.)
(Incidentally, some of the redactions were not properly performed, and the text is still present in the document & extractable from 'underneath' the black overlay.)
Honestly, I think we sufficiently crossed the line that it should be assumed that Wessely and his gang systematically interfere in ways that are completely antithetical to ethical professional conduct, and that he likely interfered with every single one of them unless proven otherwise. It's certainly consistent with everything we've seen. He has the means and the motivation, and the evidence suggests so.
And it is met with total indifference from those in power when exposed, because they support it, are part of it, showing that the problem is not with the offenders but with a system that effectively protects and encourages corruption when they feel they are right about it, even when the whole thing has long been fully debunked. This is supposed to work on the same principle as the law applying equally to everyone, because if it doesn't when it goes your way, it certainly can screw you over when it doesn't. The impacts are far-reaching.
But since the profession is openly hostile to us, it's all accepted. This is an "us vs them" thing and they protect their "us", even if their whole mission is to protect patients, the "them" in this divide. This scandal will need to be fully exposed because this is exactly the opposite of what those systems are supposed to do. It will need major reforms to every single part of the machine because it is effectively every single part of the system that has failed at every single opportunity. Corruption only ever breeds more corruption.
And it is met with total indifference from those in power when exposed, because they support it, are part of it, showing that the problem is not with the offenders but with a system that effectively protects and encourages corruption when they feel they are right about it, even when the whole thing has long been fully debunked. This is supposed to work on the same principle as the law applying equally to everyone, because if it doesn't when it goes your way, it certainly can screw you over when it doesn't. The impacts are far-reaching.
But since the profession is openly hostile to us, it's all accepted. This is an "us vs them" thing and they protect their "us", even if their whole mission is to protect patients, the "them" in this divide. This scandal will need to be fully exposed because this is exactly the opposite of what those systems are supposed to do. It will need major reforms to every single part of the machine because it is effectively every single part of the system that has failed at every single opportunity. Corruption only ever breeds more corruption.
Last edited by a moderator:
Robert 1973
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
Not sure if this has already been shared (if so please delete) but I thought it was important to add the information about the legal threats that SW is reported to have sent to Emily Mendenhall.
From another thread:
From another thread:
Last edited:
Wessely, in a New Scientist interview in 2009:
How successful is your treatment of CFS?
Roughly a third of people completely recover and a third show good improvement. About a third we can't do much for.
JellyBabyKid
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
Why?
If it's all thoughts and deconditioning, why doesn't this treatment work for everybody? Aren't you immediately invalidating your own argument?
I suspect he would say the ones they can't do anything for are the ones who are too wedded to our belief the illness is real. He would accuse us of not complying with the treatment, or not wanting to get better, or having deluded beliefs we're still ill, or some other excuse. It makes no sense. So many of us got sicker by trying to exercise. If we'd been deconditioned we would have got fitter, not sicker.
MrMagoo
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
I remember that quote, being used as the argument that it’s not worth trying GET and CBT because the chances of working were less than a third.
Thanks Simon, way to big up your own research.
JellyBabyKid
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
Ah. Of course; I should have realised; it's the patient's fault
Adam pwme
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
“Wessely is widely regarded by people with ME/CFS as having popularised the idea that ME/CFS is primarily psychological rather than physical.”
From a submission criticising the government’s ADHD/autism “overdiagnosis” review:
yourpartyvoices.substack.com
From a submission criticising the government’s ADHD/autism “overdiagnosis” review:
From the Classroom to the Assessment Room - How the System Fails Disabled People at Every Turn
Why Your Party Voices submitted formal evidence to two government consultations - and what we said
yourpartyvoices.substack.com
I don't think that's accurate. He did a lot of the heavy lifting but it was already a popular idea and this was likely to happen even if he had never existed. One thing you can't fail to notice with psychosomatic ideology is how totally interchangeable the people involved are, no one has actually done anything unique, or even particular, that thousands of random replacements couldn't have done identically. You don't get the kind of media coverage he got by pushing an idea that people aren't ready, almost desperate, to accept.
If it wasn't him, it would have been someone else. Not that this removes blame from his actions, but he didn't popularize it so much as rode on a rising wave and mostly happened to have more political than medical skills, allowing him to push the idea a bit further, maybe a bit quicker than it would have. But the wave would have happened regardless.
LC has changed my perspective on a lot of this. The people who did are obviously guilty of disastrous wrongdoing, but everything they did was popular, had the full support of the systems of medicine and would have happened anyway. It's not as if there is a shortage of people who would have gladly taken the role he did.
Even Freud, who invented a lot of this nonsense, only has so much blame to go on. So many people love this fantasy fluff and took it further, while much of his ideas have barely actually changed from the days he made it up. At its core, this is still the same belief in the conversion disorder, and in conversion therapy as the answer. The labels and rituals may have changed, mostly to be maximally deceitful, but the modern concepts are still at least 95% identical to what Freud was rambling about. About the only thing that really changed is letting go of the weird sex stuff, the rest is pretty much identical today. No one person can do that. It takes entire systems to want it. And the systems of medicine badly, so very badly, want this, and are fine with most of it being delusional fantasy, because they want it that bad.
If it wasn't him, it would have been someone else. Not that this removes blame from his actions, but he didn't popularize it so much as rode on a rising wave and mostly happened to have more political than medical skills, allowing him to push the idea a bit further, maybe a bit quicker than it would have. But the wave would have happened regardless.
LC has changed my perspective on a lot of this. The people who did are obviously guilty of disastrous wrongdoing, but everything they did was popular, had the full support of the systems of medicine and would have happened anyway. It's not as if there is a shortage of people who would have gladly taken the role he did.
Even Freud, who invented a lot of this nonsense, only has so much blame to go on. So many people love this fantasy fluff and took it further, while much of his ideas have barely actually changed from the days he made it up. At its core, this is still the same belief in the conversion disorder, and in conversion therapy as the answer. The labels and rituals may have changed, mostly to be maximally deceitful, but the modern concepts are still at least 95% identical to what Freud was rambling about. About the only thing that really changed is letting go of the weird sex stuff, the rest is pretty much identical today. No one person can do that. It takes entire systems to want it. And the systems of medicine badly, so very badly, want this, and are fine with most of it being delusional fantasy, because they want it that bad.
Last edited:
MrMagoo
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
It’s true to say that is how the ME community regards him, though.
He has been involved in psychologising ME since the 80s, and advocated for it strongly, from his position in the field.
Sadly, in the right circumstances there are many people who would do what (insert villain here) did, but that’s immaterial because he is the one who did what he did. History will not judge him kindly.
