Discussion in 'Other health news and research' started by Melanie, Jul 14, 2018.
Transparency: Revision of NICE guidance on Depression
He believes his own publicity
He’s got the biggest importance, huge
I didn't read the whole thing but I read enough.
Simon is really not a fan of transparency of any sort.
And the whole long yadda yadda about ettiquette, the niceties, the amiable mutual respect.
I think that's all that really matters to the man. The polite form must be upheld never mind Rome is burning.
My interest was piqued when a panicky Sir Simon wrote:
"No peter don’t add to your blog This is private chit chat You have not asked my permission and I don’t grant it"
But then I was hooked when he wrote:
"does not need to be transparent and there is no public or legal right to make it transparent"
An entertaining and illuminating peak into the mind of Sir Simon.
I think this part is worth quoting in full. Many of you will recognise SW's style of (non-)engagement sophistry, and be pleased to see that others are increasingly seeing through it too:
I've got some sympathy for Wessely here, which is odd. It can be hard to judge an exchange like this without knowing more about how these people had interacted previously. Wessely's word games are pretty consistently annoying though, so it's fun to see him called out on them.
It is a bit odd @Esther12. I have no sympathy. He did this to me. He assumes that he has a right to lean on people while claiming that the leaning is confidential personal communication. He is only too happy to denigrate other people on the internet himself.
A masterclass in classic Wessely techniques.
Attempting to shut down coversation:
Must dash / I'm busy / don't have time:
"This isn't you James" (first noticed being used against James Coyne a few years ago I think):
Nothing to see here, move along:
Deliberate vagueness about facts whilst being careful not to actually deny them:
Of course there was a meeting, and his wife is listed as attending.
Wessely really is a few-tricks pony, and happily more and more people are becoming aware of it (and growing tired of it):
I agree with all the above. Simon Wessely does not come across well. His behaviour in this correspondence is completely unprofessional.
The thing that interests me that he is on the side of a group complaining about the poor quality of evidence NICE has used in forming its guideline for depression. Stresses the importance of correct use of statistics, and using long term follow up evidence - on that basis he should be fighting with us against the use of PACE to support GET/CBT, since, on his own argument, it misused statistics, and at long term follow up was a null trial - but of course that's different...
What do you think Sink means by this “...that i am worried that the provision of talking therapies is becoming too monolithic...”?
That's precisely what I thought, honestly....pot, kettle, black.
I have made a comment.
Can anyone summarize what this is about?
I can't see any comments - I assume it's awaiting approval by the blog owner. Care to share it here?
I suspect this is about making sure psychiatrists get a decent slice of the talking treatments pie. I'm guessing he's worried that prescriptions for certain specific types of therapy only (e.g., short-term CBT), will disadvantage some psychiatrists who offer more out-there stuff, like psychodynamic psychotherapy.
I've just been to the blog and couldn't see any comments either, but then I tried clicking on 'Leave a Comment' just on the off-chance, and then all the comments showed up, so give that a try!
It's a blog by a consultant psychiatrist, Peter Gordon.
He had some communication by e-mail with Simon Wessely about a letter Simon had signed to NICE asking for review of the NICE guidelines on depression, among other things objecting to the use of short studies with no long term follow up and incorrect use of statistics to inform the present guidelines.
He did an FOI to get the correspondence between NICE and Simon's group, which he publishes here.
He had some e-mails with SW about it, which he told Simon he would post on his blog after they'd been written. Simon did a silly strop about them being private communications and was generally childishly unprofessional about it.
That works for me, click on "Leave a Comment" and you can read all the comments. I wonder if the site owner would like the comments to be more visible than that and needs to change a setting?
Thanks for the advice, I've now read the comments. Excellent comment @Jonathan Edwards.
Great video at the top of the comments section, this guy is really onto Wessely. Guest appearance from a concerned Ben Goldman - plus a debate in which I heard Sir Simon's voice for the first time. I assumed he'd sound posher, and was surprised to hear him speak like the dodgy geezer he really is. All part of the matey bonhomie thing I suppose.
Separate names with a comma.