BMJ letter from LongCovid doctors.

upload_2020-9-17_14-43-5.png

It is if you insist on applying it to the wrong f'ing illness, where even the flawed notion of of "establishing a regular baseline" can push people into PEM or relapse, and can end up going back to much worse than square one. I think he is on the back foot here.

upload_2020-9-17_14-47-29.png

By whose definition of "successful" wonder. Peerage?
 
Barry said:
Did doctors who were sufferers not have a lot to contribute back then? Did they not have a unique perspective back then?
Click to expand...
After my FT letter, I received an email from a scientist who told me that he was “attacked” by the KCL psychiatrists et al at a Royal Society of Medicine meeting in the 1980s. They claimed that his data could not be trusted because he was diagnosed with post-viral fatigue syndrome and he had vested interest in a positive outcome.

Patients have a vested interest in the truth, not a positive outcome. Researchers with financial and professional conflicts of interests are the ones with vested interests in positive outcomes. And yet it is the latter which have prevailed for 30 years.

The scientist in question has had ME for 40 years and is very unwell. His treatment by Wessely et al clearly still hurts very deeply.
 
Robert 1973 said:
After my FT letter, I received an email from a scientist who told me that he was “attacked” by the KCL psychiatrists et al at a Royal Society of Medicine meeting in the 1980s. They claimed that his data could not be trusted because he was diagnosed with post-viral fatigue syndrome and he had vested interest in a positive outcome.

Patients have a vested interest in the truth, not a positive outcome. Researchers with financial and professional conflicts of interests are the ones with vested interests in positive outcomes. And yet it is the latter which have prevailed for 30 years.

The scientist in question has had ME for 40 years and is very unwell. His treatment by Wessely et al clearly still hurts very deeply.
Click to expand...
NICE themselves clarify this:

https://www.nice.org.uk/Media/Defau...rocedures/declaration-of-interests-policy.pdf
NICE said:
For the avoidance of doubt, a person living with a disease or condition relevant to the matter under discussion, or who has a family member in that position, is not seen as an interest and this does not need to be declared.
Click to expand...
 
Wessley:
"Yes. “Pushing through” is not part of GET. It is about establishing a regular baseline and then gradually increasing without incurring severe PEM and thus going back to square one. CBT is about activity not exercise per se. Neither are about getting fit".

If he was very 'knowledgeable' and 'successful' in his approach as he claims, he would understand after 30 years of practice that a baseline can NOT be achieved early on in PVFS or ME. It can take years, and sometimes there is no baseline- period.
 
Kalliope said:
Click to expand...

Worth reading in its entirety. Wessely is seriously trying to completely rewrite what he did and said, pretending he didn't do the things he aggressively pursued for decades.

He has to engage because credible physicians like Garner are involved and he does not come off well outside of his usual mutual admiration society. He keeps saying "I didn't say X" and then someone simply replies with his own words saying exactly X. Then he said "what I meant is not X" them someone simply replies with his own words saying exactly that.

But worse is that in this thread he is pretending he never considered ME/CFS to be a mental health issue. The sheer magnitude of this gaslighting could serve as an astronomical standard candle. He bears incredible responsibility for the NHS explicitly classifying ME under mental health and his minions did the same at Cochrane. He publishes his own work under it and his most recent "review" of a single CFS clinic service is tagged under mental health and somatization.

He spent decades of his career removing ME as a medical entity, promoting an alternative psychology BS placing it firmly under mental health, this is his most significant effort. And here is literally gaslighting that he never did that, never did what he actually, seriously, accepted awards for doing.

The dishonesty is completely off the scales here. Incredible. He and his peers were so certain they had "won" that they said the quiet parts loud so many times, most of them are even published on his own website, and here he is seriously pretending he never did and said what he loudly said and proudly did for decades.

Incredible. This level of dishonesty is completely incompatible with medical practice. Even by politician standards it would be over the top. Wessely is a charlatan and a fraud, guilty of serious research misconduct and clinical malpractice. He should seriously shut up here but he can't, he has to hear the sound of his voice making noise because he is so used to never being held accountable for anything he says.
 
Didn't someone - Wessely, possibly Sharpe, recently use the fact he had ME and therefore a conflict of interest against someone? Possibly Keith Geraghty?

I'm pretty sure I didn't imagine that so, no it's not just something that was said a long time ago, it was a tactic used to avoid addressing salient points raised in a document written within the last year or so.
 
Barry said:
View attachment 12021

Why does it make any difference when it was written? Did doctors who were sufferers not have a lot to contribute back then? Did they not have a unique perspective back then? "We wrote this 32 year ago" seems a defence that is indefensible; it was just as stupid to say it then as it would be now. SW's comment therefore seems a tacit acknowledgement they were wrong to say it 32 years ago.
Click to expand...
Also he would totally have said that were it not for COVID. This is what he thinks. This is what he wrote and stood by for decades until he had to face with the fact that it was complete BS.
 
Invisible Woman said:
Didn't someone - Wessely, possibly Sharpe, recently use the fact he had ME and therefore a conflict of interest against someone? Possibly Keith Geraghty?

I'm pretty sure I didn't imagine that so, no it's not just something that was said a long time ago, it was a tactic used to avoid addressing salient points raised in a document written within the last year or so.
Click to expand...


It was Professors White, Chalder and Sharpe, Co-principal investigators of the PACE trial.

There is a copy of the text of their letter on the James Coyne blog site.
 
Wessely blocked me years ago. Can someone post the full thread here, or at least Wessely's? I can see all the responses and comments--just not what he's tweeted. Anyone reading the descriptions of CBT and GET in PACE, or took a look at the manuals, would know Wessely is lying his ass off, or is delusional.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
dave30th said:
Wessely blocked me years ago. Can someone post the full thread here, or at least Wessely's? I can see all the responses and comments--just not what he's tweeted. Anyone reading the descriptions of CBT and GET in PACE, or took a look at the manuals, would know Wessely is lying his ass off, or is delusional.
Click to expand...

I don't understand Twitter but I thought when you've logged out it shouldn't matter whether someone blocked you, i.e. you then should see also the tweets by the person that blocked you?

(I don't have an account and can see all Tweets that are linked here.)

Hope others will be able to help.
 
Last edited:
MSEsperanza said:
I don't understand Twitter but I thought when you've logged out it shouldn't matter whether someone blocked you, i.e. you then should see also the tweets by the person that blocked you?

(I don't have an account and can see all Tweets that are linked here.)

Hope others will be able to help.
Click to expand...


Yes, if you log out you can read the Tweets of someone who has blocked you. Or set up a second anon account and add it to your existing account (via "Add an existing account") and then you can switch quickly back and forth between the two accounts.
 
rvallee said:
But worse is that in this thread he is pretending he never considered ME/CFS to be a mental health issue. The sheer magnitude of this gaslighting could serve as an astronomical standard candle.
Click to expand...

I hope you'll consider anonymously tweeting some of your spectacular turns of phrase in the direction of Sir Simon Himself, @rvallee – if nothing else, it would really cheer up some of the ME folk who're reading his recantations open mouthed and incoherent! :laugh:
 
Dx Revision Watch said:
Yes, if you log out you can read the Tweets of someone who has blocked you. Or set up a second anon account and add it to your existing account (via "Add an existing account") and then you can switch quickly back and forth between the two accounts.
Click to expand...

I know there's a way but it seems difficult to me. Even reading the directions how to do it triggers some anxiety.
 
Mij said:
Wessley:
"Yes. “Pushing through” is not part of GET. It is about establishing a regular baseline and then gradually increasing without incurring severe PEM and thus going back to square one. CBT is about activity not exercise per se. Neither are about getting fit".

If he was very 'knowledgeable' and 'successful' in his approach as he claims, he would understand after 30 years of practice that a baseline can NOT be achieved early on in PVFS or ME. It can take years, and sometimes there is no baseline- period.
Click to expand...

And if he really knew anything about ME – let alone grammatical logic – he'd understand that increasing a baseline is a contradiction in terms.

People can't improve their fitness to any significant degree. It's literally part of the definition of ME.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom