If a 4-year old gets cancer, that’s very unlikely to be psychosomatic.
Fron what I understood, it’s because the kid is living their best life without being overly affected by socialization.
Now, if it happens to be a woman in her 40‘s, working, with kids, stressed out, lots of responsibilities, and some sort of tummy cancer… oh boy!!
I have a friend whose friend died of colon cancer (if I remember correctly). She was in her 30s, married with 2 kids. She was told that her pain was anxiety. It was only investigated when it was too late. Being Indigenous on top of being a woman probably contributed to her not being believed.

Sadly, being a child doesn't protect Indigenous people in the slightest. A four-year old Inuk kid in Northern Québec died despite being brought to see health care workers multiple times.
 
I have a friend whose friend died of colon cancer (if I remember correctly). She was in her 30s, married with 2 kids. She was told that her pain was anxiety. It was only investigated when it was too late. Being Indigenous on top of being a woman probably contributed to her not being believed.
Similar story here. Friend who was indigenous, young, and female, compounded by her being a fairly shy unassertive person, had persistent gut pain and disrupted bowel movements written off as psychosomatic. Until somebody finally checked it objectively with some basic routine testing, and discovered late stage bowel cancer that killed in her mid-30s. That was only a bit over a decade ago.

Unbelievable it still happens in a country with an advanced modern health care system. But clearly it does.
 
Similar story here. Friend who was indigenous, young, and female, compounded by her being a fairly shy unassertive person, had persistent gut pain and disrupted bowel movements written off as psychosomatic. Until somebody finally checked it objectively with some basic routine testing, and discovered late stage bowel cancer that killed in her mid-30s. That was only a bit over a decade ago.

Unbelievable it still happens in a country with an advanced modern health care system. But clearly it does.
I’m sorry you also know someone who died this way.
 
Already plenty of comments:
A comment on Twitter mentions Gustave Le Bon as father of Wessely‘s wet dreams:



His ideas seem to be rooted in the 19th century, psychology of crowds.
Gustave Le Bon claimed that crowds are characterized by feminine characteristics. Unbelievable.​
…​
… according to Let Bon crowds are irrational, emotional, impulsive, they think in pictures etc.​
To apply that to illnesses in top of that is crazy.​


 
Google AI asserts that Wessely’s work directly cites LeBon, but in the links it provided on a fairly cursory scan I could not find a direct citation. Not even in his 2018 work “Protean nature of mass sociogenic illness: From possessed nuns to chemical and biological terrorism fears” with W E Bartholomew was there an explicit reference to LeBon, which is not to say he wasn’t influenced directly or indirectly by his work.

However I had not realised how many words Wessely has given forth on the topic of what used to be called ‘mass hysteria’ without any real research underpinning. In this he follows LeBon and Freud in going from intelligent observation to complex literary fantasy.
 
I could not find a direct citation.
A good instinct.
I found a direct citation in:
Mass hysteria: two syndromes?, 1987, Wessely
Wessely, Simon

Synopsis​

On the basis of a literature review it is concluded that mass hysteria can be divided into two syndromes.
One form, to be called ‘mass anxiety hysteria’, consists of episodes of acute anxiety, occurring mainly in schoolchildren.
Prior tension is absent and the rapid spread is by visual contact.
Treatment consists of separating the participants and the prognosis is good.
The second form, to be called ‘mass motor hysteria’, consists of abnormalities in motor behaviour.
It occurs in any age group and prior tension is present.
Initial cases can be identified and the spread is gradual.
Treatment should be directed towards the underlying stressors but the outbreak may be prolonged.
In mass anxiety hysteria the abnormality is confined to group interactions; in mass motor hysteria abnormal personalities and environments are implicated.

PDF | Web | DOI | Psychological Medicine | Paywall but PDF available

THE SPREAD OF MASS HYSTERIA

It has often been assumed that the spread of all forms of collective behaviour can be accounted for by a single mechanism.
The unitary approach to group behaviour began with Le Bon (1895), who saw the crowd as more than the sum of the behaviours that could be expected of its constituents.
He suggested that a synergistic crowd psychology, with concepts differing from those of individual psychology, was required.
Later writers proposed that group reality replaces external reality, and the group isolation prevents adequate verification of perceived threats (Festinger, 1950; Gruenberg, 1957).
Numbers bestow anonymity, decrease the restraints on the individual and lessen the risks of unwelcome consequences. Pressure to conform to deviant behaviour and the desire to remain a group member is itself a stressor encouraging participation (Asch, 1956; Couch, 1970).
This occurred during the Salem witch trials, when the varied conducts of the affected girls gradually
coalesced into the uniform adoption of 'dia-bolical' behaviour (Spanos & Gottlieb, 1979).
The pressures intrinsic to any group encourage the exhibition of similar behaviours, no matter how bizarre, in order to adapt to the 'emergent norm' (Gehlen, 1977; Turner & Killian, 1957).
Once started it is difficult to abandon - ' those participating in an outbreak of collective behaviour do not stand back and wonder how something can be done in a different fashion' (Couch, 1968).
A different approach involves the tempting analogy between the spread of mass hysteria and the spread of an infectious disease.
 
This is a deeply naïve question, but; why is there never any backlash or accountability when repeated hypotheses are debunked?

Is it really that it suits the prevailing authorities narrative? Surely there should be some sort of demand for accountability, when so many people have been affected across so many different conditions.

Long Covid Advocacy wrote an excellent series on this, but it just makes zero difference.

Edit to add: Wessely just seems to keep being given yet more roles, despite being repeatedly proved wrong - spectacularly wrong.

Is there any other field where this level of failure would warrant promotions and accolades?
 
Is there any other field where this level of failure would warrant promotions and accolades?
Apart from the US presidency you mean?
I hear that it’s quite normal for C-level executives to fail from one well-paid job to the next.

This is a deeply naïve question, but; why is there never any backlash or accountability when repeated hypotheses are debunked?
My naive hope is that a big backlash is currently building.
Now that the mayor of New York released the 9/11-files showing that Guiliani et al. lied to the public for 25 years.
If the spotlight that @Adam pwme shone on the connection between Wessely and 9/11 goes viral, that might have real consequences for Sir Judge-Alot.
Again, these are just my naive assumptions.
 
Apart from the US presidency you mean?
Good point!
I hear that it’s quite normal for C-level executives to fail from one well-paid job to the next.
I find it incomprehensible, as when I was a lower level worker bee hard work was expected but never rewarded, and the opposite seems to be true at upper levels; poor performance is consistently rewarded.

The problem is, it's not just an abstract thing; lives are impacted.

Much like the water companies in the UK where they have paid themselves enormous bonuses while continuing to dump sewage in rivers and nothing seems to happen, despite much public anger.

Humans are utterly baffling at times.
 
The problem is, it's not just an abstract thing; lives are impacted.
Sadly so.
As long as the bully picks the right minority, it can work for a whole lifetime.
People are also pretty bad at remembering former atrocities.
Or do you remember the imposter Professor Bruno Bettelheim?

This psychoanalytical genius proclaimed that Refrigerator Mothers of autistic children were to blame for their kids‘ health.
And as we come to expect from BPS gurus, his scientific vigor was second to none:


… and his reporting rates of cure have been questioned, with critics stating that his patients were not actually autistic.​


You could replace autism with ME/CFS and it wouldn’t be that far off, would it?

Bettelheim was a prominent proponent of a psychogenic account of autism, which held that autism had origins in early childhood events or trauma acting on the child from the outside. For Bettelheim, the idea that outside forces cause individual behavior issues can be traced back to his earliest prominent article on the psychology of imprisoned persons.[67]Bettelheim believed that autism resulted when mothers withheld appropriate affection from their children and failed to make a good connection with them. Bettelheim popularized the Leo Kanner's term "refrigerator mother" to describe such allegedly distant mothers. Bettelheim also blamed absent or weak fathers.[citation needed]


Jordynn Jack writes that Bettelheim's ideas gained currency and became popular in large part because society already tended to blame a mother first and foremost for her child's difficulties.[68] As Lisa D. Benaron describes in her book Autism, "Although it now seems beyond comprehension that anyone would believe that autism is caused by deep-seated issues arising in early childhood relationships, virtually every psychiatric condition was attributed to parent-child relationships in the 1940s and 1950s, when Freudian psychoanalytic theory was in its heyday."[69]


Bettelheim adapted and transformed the Orthogenic School at the University of Chicagoas a residential treatment milieu for such children, who he felt would benefit from a "parentectomy". This marked the apex of autism viewed as a disorder of parenting.[66][70]


One of his most famous books, The Empty Fortress (1967), contains a complex and detailed explanation of this dynamic in psychoanalytical and psychological terms. These views were disputed at the time by mothers of autistic children and by researchers.[71] He derived his thinking from the qualitative investigation of clinical cases.[citation needed] He also related the world of autistic children to conditions in concentration camps.[citation needed]


Beginning in the 1960s and into the 1970s, "biogenesis", the idea that such conditions had an inner-organic or biological basis overtook psychogenesis,[72] and currently, Bettelheim's theories in which he attributes autism spectrum conditions to parenting style have been largely discredited, and his reporting rates of cure have been questioned, with critics stating that his patients were not actually autistic.[33][7][73] [Source]





 
Simon Wessely Being interviewed by Jim Al-Khalili on 'The Life Scientific' Broadcast on Radio 4, 2017:

Simon Wessely got away with disparaging 'Chronic fatigue Syndrome' (ME) patients by stating that when he was training at the National Neurological Hospital "I have to be honest and say - Nobody really liked them" ...

Can anyone imagine a psychiatrist publicly making that statement about any other patient group with (for example) a psychiatric diagnosis - such as OCD, Bi-Polar or Schizophrenia ??
"I have to be honest and say - Nobody really liked them"

Simon Wessely:
"And as I got a bit older I had a stroke of luck that I went to Queens Square, The National Hospital for Neurology and that was in this fantastic hospital, surrounded by neurologists, so there were only three psychiatrists, and that’s when I really started to get interested in research, and that’s where I got interested in “chronic fatigue syndrome.
And because these patients were being seen there. I have to be honest, and say nobody really liked them."

​

'Simon Wessely on Unexplained Medical Syndromes'
'Professor Sir Simon Wessely talks to Jim Al-Khalili about human resilience and human vulnerability and what psychiatry has to say about both.'


Transcript:




I concluded pretty early, after years of not being able to read, then at last being able to read and study online, reading numerous research papers, Editorials, and transcripts of Wessely's work - that Wessely Did Not Consider ME to be a psychiatric condition.

- Because he surely could not get away with disparaging and denigrating sufferers of any psychiatric condition, such as such as OCD, Bi-Polar or Schizophrenia, in the way he has done that to ME patients by stating publicly that: .... "I have to be honest, and say nobody really liked them."
.
 
Last edited:
Simon Wessely Being interviewed by Jim Al-Khalili on 'The Life Scientific' Broadcast on Radio 4, 2017:
Ugh. I remember listening to that. I used to enjoy listening to Al Kalili's program. It was a lightweight chat with an interesting range of scientists. I was totally shocked that he lapped up all Wessely said and even fed him lines so he could be horrible about us.
I never listened to the program again.
 
Ugh. I remember listening to that. I used to enjoy listening to Al Kalili's program. It was a lightweight chat with an interesting range of scientists. I was totally shocked that he lapped up all Wessely said and even fed him lines so he could be horrible about us.
I never listened to the program again.
Same. Made me wonder about other choices of interviewees.
 
Simon Wessely Being interviewed by Jim Al-Khalili on 'The Life Scientific' Broadcast on Radio 4, 2017:

Simon Wessely got away with disparaging 'Chronic fatigue Syndrome' (ME) patients by stating that when he was training at the National Neurological Hospital "I have to be honest and say - Nobody really liked them" ...

Can anyone imagine a psychiatrist publicly making that statement about any other patient group with (for example) a psychiatric diagnosis - such as OCD, Bi-Polar or Schizophrenia ??
"I have to be honest and say - Nobody really liked them"

Simon Wessely:

​

'Simon Wessely on Unexplained Medical Syndromes'
'Professor Sir Simon Wessely talks to Jim Al-Khalili about human resilience and human vulnerability and what psychiatry has to say about both.'


Transcript:




I concluded pretty early, after years of not being able to read, then at last being able to read and study online, reading numerous research papers, Editorials, and transcripts of Wessely's work - that Wessely Did Not Consider ME to be a psychiatric condition.

- Because he surely could not get away with disparaging and denigrating sufferers of any psychiatric condition, such as such as OCD, Bi-Polar or Schizophrenia, in the way he has done that to ME patients by stating publicly that: .... "I have to be honest, and say nobody really liked them."
.
I know it’s not always helpful to play the “imagine this other disease was said here” but wow can you imagine?
Can’t believe he decided to help the people nobody liked, the had to run scared from them. Would anyone like to join me in writing to the Pope regarding eventual canonisation, for the man is surely a saint!
 
Ugh. I remember listening to that. I used to enjoy listening to Al Kalili's program. It was a lightweight chat with an interesting range of scientists. I was totally shocked that he lapped up all Wessely said and even fed him lines so he could be horrible about us.
I never listened to the program again.
Can never respect or trust him again. He just let Wessely lead him by the nose. It was pathetic, and more than a little disturbing.

As many here will recall, the same thing happened here with Norman Swan on the Health Report when he conducted an appallingly weak, almost sycophantic interview with Richard Horton about PACE, not long after it was published.

Swan either did not know what the important questions were to ask, an excuse somebody with his qualifications and experience simply does not have, or he just didn't want to.
 
Last edited:

Research published in Leadership Quarterly in 2019 showed that across multiple studies, hiring managers consistently saw leadership potential in those who demonstrated inflated confidence in their skills. At the same time, this type of extreme hubris, which Chamorro-Premuzic says men exhibit more than women, often runs counter to actual competence. In social psychology circles, it’s known as the Dunning-Kruger effect.
“The frustrating thing is that we have known for four or five decades what attributes we should be selecting for… and yet we don't do it,” says Chamorro-Premuzic, who also serves as the chief talent scientist at the workforce solutions company ManpowerGroup. “We started focusing so much on style, extraversion, assertiveness, lean in, be confident, brand yourself, make eye contact, body language, that we forgot to focus on substance.”
And even if arrogance doesn’t win over a hiring manager, similarities in race, gender, self-presentation and personal experiences can increase a worker’s chances of success. Research published in the American Sociological Review says “cultural matching” can have a significant effect on applicants’ evaluations and “often outweighed concerns about absolute productivity”.
Once an individual is promoted, they become more visible to management, recruiters and other leaders; experience on a resumé begins to hold more value than actual performance outcome. And perhaps most importantly, once an employee is promoted, bosses become invested in that person’s success because it becomes a reflection of their own judgement. Failures are downplayed and losses are spun into wins. “It’s very easy to remain strategically ignorant about our mistakes,” says Chamorro-Premuzic.
As people continue to move up, he says we’re conditioned to believe that their positions are the result of merit – and rarely ask questions about how they got there.
 
Back
Top Bottom