"Time for Unrest": ME article by Nathalie Wright

chrisb said:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/20602098_Management_of_chronic_post-viral_fatigue_syndrome
Click to expand...

This is the exact quote from the above 1989 discussion paper:
“Many sufferers have been told that 'physical and mental exertion is to be avoided' (ME Action Cam- paign factshet, 198).This may be correct in some cases, but there is as yet no way that these cases can be identified.”
Click to expand...

There are some other remarkable statements in this paper.

In the section titled “Sickness Benefits” Simon Wessely et al write:
“At present individual cases should be treated on their merits, but it is reasonable to expect a patient to cooperate with treatment before being labelled as chronically disabled”
Click to expand...

In other words, this paper seems to be saying that ME patients should be subjected to treatments, which the authors concede may be harmful, before they can be labelled as chronically disabled, and therefore entitled to benefits and disability aids. That is an astonishing admission.

It also appears to contradict what Simon Wessely himself referred to as the “core principles of the law and medical eithics” in his 2015 op-Ed article in the Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/comment...-people-mental-health-problems-work-treatment):
“Threatening to remove benefits if people do not agree to treatment puts doctors (and indeed all health professionals) in conflict with core principles of the law and medical ethics. Furthermore, it could have serious unintended consequences.

Linking benefits to treatment sounds suspiciously like a coercive measure to “incentivise” people who would not otherwise have had treatment to accept it. And if so, it is legally problematic. The people affected by this policy may turn up to receive the treatment in question and therefore seem to be consenting to it. But consent to treatment must be free from undue influence, otherwise it is legally meaningless.”
Click to expand...

At the end the discussion paper Simon Wessely et al state:
“Patients may be subjected to such methods as total exclusion diets, colonic lavages, chronic antibiotic therapy and removal of dental filings. Some of these are potentially dangerous, such as severe purgation which can lead to hypokalaemia. It is a doctor's duty to protect the patient from such exploitation, which may be medically and financially harmful. The willingness to try such untested treatments should be viewed as a reflection of the patients desperate need for help.”
Click to expand...
And yet, they appear to advocate coercing patients into trying their treatments, which they admit are both unproven and potentially harmful.

[Edited to correct typo.]
 
Last edited:
Robert 1973 said:
It also appears to contradict what Simon Wessely himself
Click to expand...

Wessely will not survive a comprehensive collation and cross-referencing of his own words and work.

--------------------

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/20602098_Management_of_chronic_post-viral_fatigue_syndrome

Note the date on that paper, 1989.

Don't you just love the certainty of his prescriptions for management, from the very start of his career, and long before there was a solid body of research to back his approach. Indeed, long before there was any research on it.

The truth is that he started with a very fixed and definite, and totally unjustified view, refused to hear any evidence or arguments to the contrary, and has desperately tried to justify this incompetence, arrogance, and cruelty ever since, and increasingly failed.
 
Trish said:
@Andy, your link just takes me to Medium, not to the article. I found the article via twitter, but now can't post the link either. Here's a tweet with the link in it.
Click to expand...

If you click on the white text in my link it takes you to the article, on the black "Medium" text, it takes you to the Medium homepage, or at least it does for me. Does it work that way for anybody else?
 
I was thinking that Wessely's response could do with a response itself... at some point.

http://www.simonwessely.com/Downloads/Response to Natatlie Wright.pdf

It's so weak maybe it's not worth it?

What's kind of amazing to me is that he started his response like this:

"A recent article by Natalie Wright in the Independent (Jan 6th, 2018) has made the suggestion that I don’t care about people with CFS/ME..."

Where did it make that suggestion? Why would anyone care whether he 'cared' or not? The article was about the hardships faced by those with CFS/ME, partly as a result of his work. Given the role he's played in the smears against patients raising concerns about the PACE trial, I think it's pretty hard for him to now play the '...but my intentions were good' card, but regardless, even people trying to be 'caring' can do real harm where they're insufficiently cautious.

omboJIf.gif
 
Last edited:
It most certainly is all about him. In his mind anyway.

It's only now that he claims to have been misquoted by some DWP official when saying that giving benefits to pwME just lead to dependency.

Where was this correction over the last 2 decades when very ill people in dire financial straits were left without help?

Eta - it's only when he suddenly realizes it's going to affect him and make him look bad.
 
Skycloud said:
perhaps it reveals that he thinks it's all about him and not pwme
Click to expand...

He even took the care to write Natalie's name correctly. That's how much he cares.
That's how much care and attention and good faith went into the reply.

"Natatlie". How very Freudian Simon.

I would highly advise anyone NOT to download any information from his site. Only download information that comes from a source you TRUST. I would advise against even visiting his site.
Code: 
https://pastebin.com/ADQWBfKM
has a copy of the document, so that seems a more secure place to read it, for the curious.
 
Psychological recovery or recovery model or the recovery approach to mental disorder or substance dependence emphasizes and supports a person's potential for recovery. ... blah, blah, blah
Click to expand...
Could they have gotten any more buzzwords in there if they had tried? :rolleyes:

S. Wessely said:
I cannot believe that is the intention of the Department, if only on grounds of cost!
&
I also believe that it is a decision that the Department will come to regret, since it seems likely the result will be an ever increasing stream of claims for permanent benefits in people who might otherwise have has a chance of recovery.
Click to expand...
Follow the money!

Jonathan Edwards said:
Why not make all psychiatric diseases neurological?
Click to expand...
Really Jonathan Edwards, what are you thinking? How would psychiatrist make any money then?
 
Esther12 said:
I was thinking that Wessely's response could do with a response itself... at some point.

http://www.simonwessely.com/Downloads/Response to Natatlie Wright.pdf

It's so weak maybe it's not worth it?

What's kind of amazing to me is that he started his response like this:

"A recent article by Natalie Wright in the Independent (Jan 6th, 2018) has made the suggestion that I don’t care about people with CFS/ME..."

Where did it make that suggestion? Why would anyone care whether he 'cared' or not? The article was about the hardships faced by those with CFS/ME, partly as a result of his work. Given the role he's played in the smears against patients raising concerns about the PACE trial, I think it's pretty hard for him to now play the '...but my intentions were good' card, but regardless, even people trying to be 'caring' can do real harm where they're insufficiently cautious.

omboJIf.gif
Click to expand...


Maybe he is feeling a bit lonely and ignored these days? Jen is in the spotlight, and now he is old news.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom