Who is Simon Wessely?

'King's Centre for Military Health Research 15 Year Report - summary of our scientific work'
https://www.academia.edu/2386138/Ki..._Year_Report_-_summary_of_our_scientific_work

September 2010
Page 15:
' ..... We have suggested looking at Gulf War illness in a similar fashion to the way we think about illnesses such as CFS, irritable bowel syndrome and other unexplained syndromes, and to think more about why veterans are either staying ill or not getting better, putting to one side the vexed question of what started the problem in the first place”


KCMHR is led by Professor Simon Wessely who is the Vice Dean, Academic Psychiatry, Teaching and Training at the IoPPN and also heads the Department of Psychological Medicine, and Professor Christopher Dandeker in the Department of War Studies is co-director.
 
  • 10th July 2022

''COVER UP' Gulf war veterans set to take government to court in billion-pound legal battle over illnesses caused by their service'

'GULF war veterans are set to take the government to court in a billion-pound legal battle over illnesses caused by their service.

Ex-troops have launched the landmark group action after compiling evidence showing vaccines led to them suffering Gulf War illnesses.

Gulf war veterans are set to take the government to court in a billion-pound legal battle over illnesses caused by their service

Solicitor Hilary Meredith-Beckham – married to David Beckham’s Dad, Ted – is leading the High Court action on behalf of campaign group Justice for Veterans.

It comes after new evidence - including military medical records showing vaccines caused so-called Gulf War Syndrome - came to light.

Research shows troops from only five countries – the UK, USA, Canada, Australia and Denmark - of the 36-nation coalition opposing Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait suffered significant levels of illness.

Those countries all vaccinated their personnel when they arrived in the Gulf, meant to protect from chemical and biological weapons.

And Justice for Veterans founder Gavin Roberts, 52 – a Lance Corporal who saw frontline action in the 1991 conflict – accused governments of “delay, deny until they die” tactics.

Around 17,000 UK personnel – a third of the 51,000 who served - have suffered ailments including chronic fatigue, PTSD, joint pain, breathing problems, headaches, insomnia, mood swings and memory loss..... '

continues...


https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/19149230/gulf-war-veterans-government-court/
 
Last edited:
Many were vaccinated before they left for the gulf.
Many had vaccines that were not licensed here, but used in other countries, probably due to numbers involved. At the time there were rumours re squalene - I don't know how founded these were.

Some were vaccinated and never shipped out. One such person won a legal case years ago for pension rights as he had an illness which was attributed to vaccination - he never set foot in the gulf

There is an atrocious suicide rate in ex service personnel for a variety of reasons. The gulf war has an unenviable reputation of having more service personnel die in the 10 years or so afterwards than in the war itself . I do wonder how having an illness that is constantly denied would play into those figures.
 
V.R.T. said:
How likely do we think it is that as Black speculates, Wessely used his new position to block more funding for ME research? A lot of people were saying the position was merely symbolic when he was first appointed.
Click to expand...
I don't think anyone said it was symbolic - but it is pretty basic formal admin https://www.england.nhs.uk/publicat...rd-meeting-agenda-and-papers-2-february-2023/ I find Black's language unhelpfully hyperbolic. Wessely is the guy who, when everyone else hears there's a place on a Committee, stays in the room while everyone else goes down the pub.
 
V.R.T. said:
How likely do we think it is that as Black speculates, Wessely used his new position to block more funding for ME research? A lot of people were saying the position was merely symbolic when he was first appointed.
Click to expand...
Seeing the general state of things, and the abysmal quality of most of the research so far, I don't think they have to spend that much effort to get their way. The entire system is primed to accept any stuff like this. It's a tradition that was already strong the day they were born.

I thought the garbage-level pseudoscience these people put out was uniquely bad, but it's basically average. I don't doubt that there are many people in the system pushing it just as much as our BPS overlords. They may provide the right timely push here and there, but it likely barely changes the outcomes anymore.

It actually kind of removes some responsibility from them. For sure, if it hadn't been them, it would have been other people doing the same. The entire system is dysfunctional and incentivizes quackery.

When you look at the entire psychosomatic industry, it's just as awful all over the place. But even outside of it, most of the studies about LC have been complete garbage so far. The problem is everywhere.
 
Sean said:
I hope that is true.
Click to expand...

Me too. I also hope that they are looking carefully at conflict of interest protocols. And are exempting participation in decisions or discussions where this is relevant. ie which would mean anything that umbrellas to touch anything trying to encompass how those with ME/CFS will be 'treated' in broad sense of the word, such as MUS/FND and the lot type stuff.

If these are in place, including defining who he could be seen as 'having a relationship with' based on: have they done research together, written articles in support of each other, were mentors to, have links to the organisation of and so on then maybe it mightn't be 'right' but would be less of a concern. The below policy also states 'adversary'

And that says something doesn't it

Perhaps working on this is a worthwhile route forward?

and defining 'financial interest': which needs to include the overlap too where as a household there might be roles in certain companies etc.

along the lines of the new PLOS one policies: https://www.s4me.info/threads/new-p...os-publication-ethics-team.31947/#post-460889

the page which notes competing interests and has a list for financial and one for non-financial 'competing interests' here:
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom