Preprint: The Rise And Fall Of The Wessely School, 2021, Marks

Peter Trewhitt said:
I am looking forward to reading the article in full, but wonder if there is a danger in using phrases like the ‘Wessely School’ as it suggested a stronger coherence of thought amongst the BPS advocates than actually exists.

Are we in danger of doing what the members of the Wessely School regularly resort to, setting up a straw man argument to knock down? Obviously challenging the Wessely belief system is necessary, but may not be sufficient to successfully challenge the BPS approach to ME. I have great respect for the scholarship of those here tracing the roots and development of the theories underpinning the BPS approach, but I suspect what ties it together is not an adherence to any specific theoretical model, but rather an blind adherence to CBT and exercise, with a readiness to disbelieve/disrespect their patients/client group.

Taking out the core Wessely ‘beliefs’ is important, but this alone will not stop them, as illustrated by their response to the draft NICE guidelines, seeking to hang onto CBT and exercise under different guises.
Click to expand...
I agree with you, Peter. I don't think its helpful to personify the muddy thinking and glib ideology that characterises psychological approaches to medical illness. The precursors to this ideology are many, and they are spread wide over both space and time, with some of the original roots going back to Freud. Saying one man is the author of this ideology is like saying that Hitler was responsible for Nazism. That sort of claim entirely misses the real underlying problem.

Did I just lose the argument by mentioning Nazis?
 
Yes. (In reply to Woolie) Wessely and Sharpe simply operated in a system in which they had studied and spent their early careers. They became the public face of the movement because they did make all their sources clear. Perhaps being in the middle of it all they were themselves unclear about the influences.

Would they have been so eager to make use of the Imboden model if they had known that Imboden referred to it as "conversion reaction" - which presumably gives a link to Freud? They suggested Pilowsky as a model but then never again referred to him, although he seems to have been central to the two strands of Illness Behaviour represented by, on the one hand Waddell/Aylward and, on the other ,those who attended the conferences, such as Eisenberg, Kleinman, Mechanic and Cott. But even that strand seems to have early links back to the Maudsley.

What is surprising is that it is all so difficult to disentangle. I thought it was journalists who did not reveal their sources.
 
Agree that making one person the icon of a much more systemic failure is not the way to go.

Which in no way reduces the culpability of any such person in creating that failure.

I think 'psychosocial school' or similar is the best all round label. Accurate and neutral. The psychosocial school can hardly object to it, given their central claim is the significance of psychosocial factors in health.
 
But is there a psychosocial school, or are there psychosocial schools?

The Waddell/Aylward school seems to differ from the Cott school, which seems to be the one with which SW was more closely aligned originally. However the two never seem to acknowledge each others existence, despite both having Pilowsky as a leading character. Waddell seems to be full-blown Pilowsky, adopting his definition and questionnaire In the other school Pilowsky may have been the original organiser, but his views came in for fundamental criticism.

More research is needed
 
Peter Trewhitt said:
I am looking forward to reading the article in full, but wonder if there is a danger in using phrases like the ‘Wessely School’ as it suggested a stronger coherence of thought amongst the BPS advocates than actually exists.
Click to expand...

Woolie said:
I agree with you, Peter. I don't think its helpful to personify the muddy thinking and glib ideology that characterises psychological approaches to medical illness.
Click to expand...

Sean said:
Agree that making one person the icon of a much more systemic failure is not the way to go.

Which in no way reduces the culpability of any such person in creating that failure.

I think 'psychosocial school' or similar is the best all round label. Accurate and neutral. The psychosocial school can hardly object to it, given their central claim is the significance of psychosocial factors in health.
Click to expand...
I agree that it might be wise to use a non-personal term, particularly in the title, without understating the role that any individuals have played.

BPS activists might object to omitting “bio” from psychosocial, thus presenting them the with opportunity to misrepresent criticism (despite the fact that it is probably a more accurate description of the school of thought without the prefix). I would probably refer to the “biopsychosocial” (BPS) school, although it would be hard to argue that the BPS school has fallen yet.
 
Below is not the biopsychosocial code of ethics, but rather the British Psychological Society code of ethics.

Nonetheless, the non-adherence to a code of conduct likely similar to this one, by some BPS investigators, has caused immeasurable harm to millions with ME.



PSYCHOLOGY TOPICS
BPS Code of Ethics
Share on FacebookShare on TwitterShare on LinkedinShare on GoogleShare by email
The BPS Code of Ethics is a document produced by the British Psychological Society, which details the general principles that apply to the use of human participants in all research contexts. It focuses on four major principles: respect, competence, responsibility and integrity. (the last 4 words, my bolding)


https://www.tutor2u.net/psychology/topics/bps-code-of-ethics
 
However, it is my understanding the origins of the BPS Model are ancient, imbedded in human nature.
Starting in our early origins; eg., the concepts of possession by evil spirits, magic etc.

The human desires for power, prestige and wealth at any cost, are also ancient.
 
@DFM can't read to nitpick or give substantive criticism for health reasons, but efforts like this are highly appreciated.

to me a key point is that this historical event constitutes a mass human rights violation, per se.

works like yours will help document the mass human rights violation for the international human rights community.

i agree with those who suggest generalizing the name while continuing to name names in the text.
 
Last edited:
Sean said:
I think 'psychosocial school' or similar is the best all round label.
Click to expand...
Which goes back to the 1930s if I recall correctly, though at some point it was called something else, maybe psychobiology? Earlier it had other names. There are so many strands and threads in the origins that even a highly influential person like Wessely is not entirely the source of the problem.

Early versions of these ideas saw removal of all teeth and colons to cure supposed psychiatric problems, I think pre-1920.. It excused all sorts of excesses. I no longer recall many of the details, I would have to go back and reread stuff. Early to mid last century, going to as late at the 80s in some cases, biopsychosocial explanations were still being used for heart disease and cancer, and not just for adjunctive therapies. A few years back I was reading an account by a modern psychiatrist who claimed that yes, MS was physical, but it was also psychological/psychiatric. This style of thinking, the entire framework, is pernicious.

To me the core problem is a deeply entrenched issue with in-/adequate scientific methodology, in which unsubstantiated hypotheses can be made to look promising. This is reinforced by rhetoric and eminence to pursuade, in political style, rather than data and good experimental design with adequate analysis. Psychiatry without science isn't even a social science, as many in the social sciences are well aware of biases and at least try to account for them.
 
Andy said:
Abstract

The Wessely School’s (WS) approach to medically unexplained symptoms, myalgic encephalomyelitis and chronic fatigue syndrome (MUS/MECFS) is critically reviewed using scientific criteria. Based on the ‘Biopsychosocial Model’, the WS proposes that patients’ dysfunctional beliefs, deconditioning and attentional biases cause illness, disrupt therapies, and lead to preventable deaths. The evidence reviewed here suggests that none of the WS hypotheses is empirically supported. The lack of robust supportive evidence, fallacious causal assumptions, inappropriate and harmful therapies, broken scientific principles, repeated methodological flaws and unwillingness to share data all give the appearance of cargo cult science. The WS approach needs to be replaced by an evidence-based, biologically-grounded, scientific approach to MUS/MECFS.

https://psyarxiv.com/jpzaw/

Blog post from David Marks repeating the abstract, https://davidfmarks.com/2021/06/10/the-rise-and-fall-of-the-wessely-school/
Click to expand...

Hi Andy.
I can't seem to find a link to this anywhere. Not one that works anyhow.
Any ideas? Has it been removed?

If someone can send me a link, that would be great. Ta.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom