30 parliamentarians from all parties calling for NICE to revise their guidelines on depression

Lucibee said:
Is that a fair summary? Or have I misunderstood as well?
Click to expand...

No idea but it does seem amazing how many times Wessely can just be bang smack in the middle of a controversy and just be saying, "nothing to see here".

There's this, ME, Camelford, GWI, it goes on and on.

No coincidence either that in all those issues there's so much confusion and secrecy thrown into the mix somehow.

Wessely and Gerada always seem to have these extremely powerful positions with a big trail of dubious stuff going on around them, its just amazing, I think I'll just call them Bill and Hillary from now on.
 
Last edited:
Lucibee said:
Is that a fair summary? Or have I misunderstood as well?
Click to expand...

That begins to make some sense of it all, yes.
At bottom it seems maybe that the psychiatric fraternity have to face up to the fact that quality of evidence is not just a matter of following some recipes. It is very complicated. And I have an increasing feeling that the standard trial format may not be the best way to get certain types of information. The only problem is that a better format would currently be considered unethical.

The other possibility of course is that all psychiatric headed notepaper already has Simon Wessely's signature facsimilied at the bottom.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom