Simon Wessely wins prize for "Standing Up For Science."

[EllenGB]

Who is Ellen Goudsmit? She says in a letter posted at co-cure that although she does not agree with Simon Wessely's resarch, she urges the ME/CFS community to desist from asking for evidence of abuse against Simon Wessely.

I would post her letter, but she ends with this warning:

*** This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and solely for the information of the addressee. Any copying or disclosure to a third party is unauthorised and the sender is not responsible for any matter resulting from changes to the text made by a third party.


Earlier in the day I emailed to tell her I would like to see the evidence.

Just google my name and you can find the garbage. I can also send you by mail, a copy of the court decision. All that the hit campaign against SW did was to give him a gong. I'm all for focusing on the flaws in his and other people's arguments but not only were things ridiculously personal, some 'fact's were inaccurate and he was made out to be someone he is not.

 

[peggy-sue]

An interesting fact reported by the BBC news recently is that more soldiers who served in Afghanistan died from suicide after they got home than were killed in action.

I'm sure these were the same soldiers Wessely said were just suffering from "a few drink problems - no PSTD at all".
Still, good to hear he still got his award for the "help" he gave them.

I'm afraid, Ellen GB, I don't know anything about where you have come from, or your hiatus, I do know your name, but not your context, so please forgive me if I've said anything out of turn.
But I did find some of your statements (which I have already commented on here, ie emphasis on "fatigue" and your dislike of the concept of PEM) to be more than a little out of sync with what I percieve the definition of ME to be.

 

[Esther12]

I think that the BBC piece reported that there were more suicides amongst all military personnel (ie not just those who had engaged in combat), than those who lost their lives as a direct result of conflict.

re Wessely: I'm not too sure what a hate campaign is, but I think it's reasonable to hate Wessely.

 

[peggy-sue]

It was a report specifically on those coming home from Afghanistan, just in the last week or so, I read.
And no, you don't need to be in actual physical combat to be traumatised by the inhumanity and obscenity of war when involved with it.

 

[EllenGB]

Esther, Wessely does not deserve to be hated. His ideas on ME are appalling but to hate peopel on the basis of what you've read on the net? He's a nice guy. his patients like him. Never had a complaint to the GMC. It's just his revisionism that gets me. But if you write a lot, as he did, you get a lot published, youb eocme an expert in the eyes of colleagues. Lots of Gulf War vets I talked to didn't mind him at all. In his writing etc, he's been very critical of the lack of help for PTSD etc. He was also invovled wiht mass graves etc. He's done a lot which didn't make the net. If you only hear one side of the story, you can get a false picture. Which is not to say that I can think of a single thing on ME I agree with wessely about. I don't. He's entitled to his opinion. but the BMJ etc have ensured for years that those with a different views are not entitled to express theirs, except in letters. And that is unscientific. Why? No idea. Fiona Godlee clearly doesn't know what ME is.

 

[EllenGB]

Peggy-Sue, I have written soemthign about my background in the forum intridcing yourself. I was one of the specialists from the Ramsay time so know what ME is. not yet sure, like Prof. Jason, that it's the samke illness as CFS as CFs covers a multitude of ills. ME is one disease. Like MS. I am out of sync becasue I know the lit from 1930s and have seen how poor science crept in and the lack of diagnostic precision has almost turned CFS into a psychosomatic illness. PEM was nicely defined in a recent study using objective tests (Snell et al, just online). You can do a retest and the abnormalities become evident. One test doesn't. So my ideas are purely based on science. I don't like the Chalder Fatigue Scale because I see so many flaws. Nothing personal. Pure science. The issue has always been, do you consider all views or just those from a few individuals? I tend to read pretty much all. Then I make my mind up. that makes me an outsider but hey, that's science for you. Nitpicking. Like looking at definitions of recovery and realising it's only improvement.

 

[Firestormm]

Give me a shrink who can see outside of the box any day:

November 2011 Kate Benson
"Both Dr. Lipkin, who is a board certified neurologist, and Dr. Hornig, who is a board certified psychiatrist, stress that while they believe ME/CFS is a neuropsychiatric disorder because of the problems with concentration, memory and autonomic nervous system involvement, they do not consider it psychosomatic.
“It’s very difficult in my mind to make this a psychological disorder,” said Dr. Hornig,“We do patients a disservice if we focus solely on secondary phenomena of being disabled or being unable to carry on life to your capacity – that shouldn’t ever be viewed as being the primary problem.”"

 

[Esther12]

Esther, Wessely does not deserve to be hated. His ideas on ME are appalling but to hate peopel on the basis of what you've read on the net? He's a nice guy. his patients like him. Never had a complaint to the GMC. It's just his revisionism that gets me. But if you write a lot, as he did, you get a lot published, youb eocme an expert in the eyes of colleagues. Lots of Gulf War vets I talked to didn't mind him at all. In his writing etc, he's been very critical of the lack of help for PTSD etc. He was also invovled wiht mass graves etc. He's done a lot which didn't make the net. If you only hear one side of the story, you can get a false picture. Which is not to say that I can think of a single thing on ME I agree with wessely about. I don't. He's entitled to his opinion. but the BMJ etc have ensured for years that those with a different views are not entitled to express theirs, except in letters. And that is unscientific. Why? No idea. Fiona Godlee clearly doesn't know what ME is.

He behaves in a way which seems likeable and charming to a certain sort. This is not the same as being a nice guy.

My judgements of Wessely are founded on the papers of his I have read, the talks of his I have listened to, and the interviews he has given to the media. I've seen how much of the quackery that was inflicted upon me, and served to make my life so much more difficult, was a result of his work. I've seen the way that he has tried to portray himself as as an entirely innocent victim of unjustifiable persecution, without ever apologising for or even acknowledging the harm his work has done to patients.

There are some people who make false accusations about him, or who get misled by some of the out of context quotes that can float around (I've held my nose to 'defend' him occasionally), but what I have seen from other patients is that, generally, the more of his work they read, and the better informed that they become, the more they dislike him.

If he was wrong about CFS, then the way in which he leaped in and started making recommendations about how patients should be psychosocially managed without informed consent was repulsive, and set off much of the animosity which now surrounds CFS. The only way such an approach could have been morally acceptable was if he was certain he was right, based on overwhelming evidence which has certainly not yet been made public.

He is entitled to his opinion on CFS patients. People are entitled to their opinions on all minority groups. But often when people hold appalling opinions, particularly if they promote them from a position of authority, then it is reasonable to hate them for it.

 

[Esther12]

It was a report specifically on those coming home from Afghanistan, just in the last week or so, I read.
And no, you don't need to be in actual physical combat to be traumatised by the inhumanity and obscenity of war when involved with it.

There were a few pieces related to this story: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23259865

The suicide data was not just on those coming home from Afghanistan, but I think that there were concerns that this was not made clear.

 

[Undisclosed]

Esther, Wessely does not deserve to be hated. His ideas on ME are appalling but to hate peopel on the basis of what you've read on the net? He's a nice guy. his patients like him. Never had a complaint to the GMC. It's just his revisionism that gets me. But if you write a lot, as he did, you get a lot published, youb eocme an expert in the eyes of colleagues. Lots of Gulf War vets I talked to didn't mind him at all. In his writing etc, he's been very critical of the lack of help for PTSD etc. He was also invovled wiht mass graves etc. He's done a lot which didn't make the net. If you only hear one side of the story, you can get a false picture. Which is not to say that I can think of a single thing on ME I agree with wessely about. I don't. He's entitled to his opinion. but the BMJ etc have ensured for years that those with a different views are not entitled to express theirs, except in letters. And that is unscientific. Why? No idea. Fiona Godlee clearly doesn't know what ME is.

I think it would be true to say that each of us as individuals are entitled to like/dislike/adore/hate who we choose to based on our own observations, own experiences, own point of view etc. It's really not about what he deserves or doesn't deserve. He holds appalling ideas about ME and that's enough for most of us not to have a positive opinion of him.

 

[EllenGB]

Hating is a strong word. Hating ideas is ok. People you haven't met? Not sure. I've met him. Whatever happened to freedom of expression? He's selective, sure, but some patients are also very selective. Don't hate them. Remember, SW does not decide if his papers are published and he does not invite himself to confererences to give a speech. Others are responsible for that. He just uses the opportunities he has been given. Like I did, e.g. when offered task of editign InterAction. Even if I think of the gang of four who ruined my reputation as a ME specialist, I can't really hate them. It's more that I pity them and feel sorry for everyone who no longer has the benefit of my knowledge. I don't think I hate any particular person. Maybe that's old age and the menopause for you. given I'm severely illl, I know the effects of the psychologisation well, yet still, I can't hate Wessely. Or White. Or Sharpe (who did some mean things). Or the doctors who in the old days used to diagnose us as hysterics. Hate is too strong a word. For people. Hate sausages though.

 

[alex3619]

EllenGB , I largely agree with you about hate. For one thing it makes rational thinking hard. You could rewrite your last sentence to "Hate sausages thought" and it would still make sense: hate curtails rational thinking. Playing a hate game in this is playing to their strength, they can turn it against us.

Intense emotion does however have one useful outcome: it fuels the motivation for advocacy.

I also think those like SW and other extreme BPS proponents are embedded in a collection of cultural, economic and political systems that reward them, promote them, and protect them. That system may well be worthy of hate, but its not a person, nor even just a collection of people. That system needs to be overturned. The people within it are almost interchangeable parts: if SW retired then someone else would just fill that role in the system. The system goes on, and its what I oppose. We could succeed in advocating to end the involvement of everyone currently doing bad ME research (most of which is CFS research), and if we didn't touch the institutions and practices that promote it then nothing would have changed.

I read a lot of what you write a long time ago, but I forget most of it now. I have been involved in ME advocacy since about 1993, though not seriously till about 1997, and not online till 2000. So I recall that I held you in high regard back then, but not why. I welcome your involvement here, though of course that does not mean I will always agree with what you say. Disagreement to me, though, is about learning. When ideas are in conflict, its important to find out why. So different viewpoints are usually good. If I disagree a lot I usually wind up learning a lot.

 

[Valentijn]

Remember, SW does not decide if his papers are published and he does not invite himself to confererences to give a speech. Others are responsible for that. He just uses the opportunities he has been given.

He decides what to say to which audiences, and under which circumstances. The things he says which he expects patients to hear are the most moderate. But the things he has said privately to a committee, which were later revealed due to a FOI request, are quite a bit nastier, as are things said before we had access to everything on the internet:

Sickness benefits....At present individual [CFS] 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.
Wessely S, David A, Butler S, Chalder T. The Management of the Chronic Postviral Fatigue Syndrome. J Roy Coll General Practitioners 1989; 39: 26-29.

However, the simple combination of history, examination and basic tests will establish those who require further investigation. In the majority this simple screen will be normal, and over investigation should be avoided. Not only is it a waste of resources, it may not be in the patients' interest, and may reinforce maladaptive behaviour in a variety of ways.
Wessely S. Chronic Fatigue Syndrome. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 1991;54; 669-671.

As regards benefits:- it is important to avoid anything that suggests that disability is permanent, progressive, or unchanging. Benefits can often make patients worse.
The National Archives of the UK: Public Record Office (PRO) BN 141/1, October or November 1993 McGrath Summarizing Talk by Thomas and Wessely, pp 6-8, 10.

. . . the only determinant of outcome in this condition [CFS] is strength of belief in a solely physical cause. . . .
The National Archives of the UK: Public Record Office (PRO) BN 141/1, 1 October 1993 Wessely to Aylward, pp 17-18.

. . . the worst thing to do is to tell them to rest.
The National Archives of the UK: Public Record Office (PRO) BN 141/1, October or November 1993 McGrath Summarizing Talk by Thomas and Wessely, pp 6-8, 10.

Ideally a behavioural programme [for CFS patients] should be individually tailored, with agreed targets appropriate to the degree of initial disability. However, it is likely to involve the following features: . . . 7. No further visits to specialists or hospitals unless agreed with therapist.
Wessely S, David A, Butler S, Chalder T. The Management of the Chronic Postviral Fatigue Syndrome. J Roy Coll General Practitioners 1989; 39: 26-29.

The role of antidepressants remains uncertain but may be tried on a pragmatic basis. Other medications should be avoided.
Sharpe M, Chalder T, Palmer I, Wessely S. Assessment and management of chronic fatigue syndrome. General Hospital Psychiatry 1997:19:185-199

I don't care how pleasant he is in person - he advocates withholding biological investigation, treatment, and benefits for ME/CFS patients. Because of him and his ilk, many GPs, neurologists, CBT practitioners, governments, etc have read his opinions and a great deal of mistreatment of patients around the world has resulted.

He is either deliberately badly over-stating his theories, as they are based on nothing at all, or he is a complete idiot being allowed to play "scientist" at our expense.

I may not "hate" him, but that's only because he is not worth the emotional investment that would require. But I do despise him, and I think his impact upon ME patients has been vicious and shocking.

 

[Firestormm]

Nice post Ellen

With the proviso that I am unfamiliar with:

I still agree with Wessely's current view on ME.

Unless you are referring to what you wrote initially in this post i.e. him referring to neurologists etc? I haven't read anything relating to his 'current view on ME' but I'd be happy to of course.

 

[user9876]

Nice post Ellen

With the proviso that I am unfamiliar with:



Unless you are referring to what you wrote initially in this post i.e. him referring to neurologists etc? I haven't read anything relating to his 'current view on ME' but I'd be happy to of course.

He is still making vast over generalisations. I've noticed him tweeting saying a particular paper says something and I've read the paper and it doesn't make the point he is claiming or warns about the dangers of concluding that point.

he seems to hedge his bets or imply rather than state things when he writes. Having read a few of his papers I've been quite shocked by the standard I find it useful when reading to try to write down the logical argument in a semiformal style but in his writing there are huge gaps, unspecified assumptions and ill defined terms.

 

[EllenGB]

I do not agree with his views. Typo. Then reread post and thought it didn't contribute to the thread. Deleted it.

 

[EllenGB]

A lot of people, not only psychs, agree with SW's views. It seems wrong to focus on him when so many share the same view and I've read a lot worse (they think of a symptom and then develop it....). The emphasis on one man does not get us anywhere. Problem in the UK is that doctors don't get to read different views, except in letters' section. That's the core issue. But it's not 'on trend' to analyze it and deal with it. (I tried, complained to COPE etc.). This will need all groups to complain. When the major journals also publicise the organic evidence, the debate will change. And that's where calm, factual letters re stats do so well. Cohen's d and all that. Groups have not gone that way for over a decade. I suspect that is one reason why it all went pear shaped. Personalization instead of pinting out the killer arguments. Our CBT protocol is based on operant conditioning and there's no evidence of that. No evidence of link to deconditioning (now accepted) so they've changed to cognitive factors. If the study group are dominated by those with CFS due to stress, cognitive factors might well play a role and three hours chat on the phone will improve fatigue. Powell et al and others. But how many studies measure perceived stress to see if it's a confounder? Virtually none.

UK groups regard my analysis as wrong so don't consider it or the evidence. That is their choice but the current approach may not improve misunderstandings for a while as a result. The last ten years shows that what they are doing is not effective. So why not try something new? Dolphin has with success. If more used maths and killer arguments, we'd be better off, in my view. Finally, as we're being monitored, refs to hating people based on net gossip, essentially, will not look good. I now recall why I left fora. All that anger and hostility. I'm angry too so understand but anger does not have to lead to the personal 'attacks'. Despising goes too far in my view. Neil, please note.

 

[user9876]

A lot of people, not only psychs, agree with SW's views. It seems wrong to focus on him when so many share the same view and I've read a lot worse (they think of a symptom and then develop it....). The emphasis on one man does not get us anywhere. Problem in the UK is that doctors don't get to read different views, except in letters' section. That's the core issue. But it's not 'on trend' to analyze it and deal with it. (I tried, complained to COPE etc.).

I think alot of the current emphasis has been around critisising the many faults of PACE. Too me this seems the right thing to attack since it is their big trial and so very flawed. I noticed that Psychological Medicine who published the recovery paper is not a member of COPE.

And that's where calm, factual letters re stats do so well. Cohen's d and all that. Groups have not gone that way for over a decade.

Journals such as Psych Med still refuse to publish letters pointing out statistical errors.

I'm still amazed that so many papers and trials can be based on asking a (random) set of questions (over several different dimensions) and then just adding up scores. Then quoting the mean and SD. There are so many assumptions such as an assumed utility function and assumptions of linear spacing between answers. Does no one think through the structure of the things they are performing stats on?

Personalization instead of pinting out the killer arguments.

I think this reflects something in modern life. I remember watching a debate on newsnight. I think it was about climet change. There was a scientist trying to argue through the details of the theory but all the journalist was interested in reporting was the politics around the story. The problem is personalisation is easy and it is hard to explain a scientific argument so I've often felt there is a general move towards the personality rather than the science.

Our CBT protocol is based on operant conditioning and there's no evidence of that. No evidence of link to deconditioning (now accepted) so they've changed to cognitive factors. If the study group are dominated by those with CFS due to stress, cognitive factors might well play a role and three hours chat on the phone will improve fatigue. Powell et al and others. But how many studies measure perceived stress to see if it's a confounder? Virtually none.

UK groups regard my analysis as wrong so don't consider it or the evidence. That is their choice but the current approach may not improve misunderstandings for a while as a result. The last ten years shows that what they are doing is not effective. So why not try something new? Dolphin has with success. If more used maths and killer arguments, we'd be better off, in my view. Finally, as we're being monitored, refs to hating people based on net gossip, essentially, will not look good. I now recall why I left fora. All that anger and hostility. I'm angry too so understand but anger does not have to lead to the personal 'attacks'.

Its not clear to me who the groups being studied are; its easy to say they are looking at the wrong group but we don't really know. Looking at the PACE results though they have failed to make a case that they are seeing any real improvement. In their trial design they failed to control for different levels of expectation for different treatments and hence could simply be measuring a placebo effects as measured by self reported surveys. I think there was a study on placebo effects with Asthma where they found good self reported effects for placebo treatments but no physical effect.

We should remember that it is up to them to demonstrate good methodology. And up to journal reviewers and editors to check and critisise. Its worth pointing out that Prof Robin Murray is clearly happy with a recovery definition that overlaps a trial entry criteria since he is the editor of Psych Med. that published such a paper. I know academic reviewing is weak but its not normally that bad.

Despising goes too far in my view. Neil, please note.

Neil?

 

[EllenGB]

Our monitor.

 

[SilverbladeTE]

Problem with Wessely is not merely his M.E. "work", it's how he's also been involved in many other areas where his "Push" is always a blanket of soporific "mass hysteria" etc, and that over all shows what he really is: as Alex suggested, SW is a classic expression of economic/political claptrap that perverts our entire system and one of it's "button men".

Psychiatry in effect is largely a tool of the state/corporate parasite and mentality since, unlike shall we say, the "engineering" areas of Science with hard practical catastrophic and obvious results for actions and mistakes, Psychiatry and Medicine as well, are ideal areas for those who wish to push a product or manipulate people, the new DSM V and USA arrests/convictions of senior psychiatrists and others for collusion with pharma corporations proves this.

http://www.theguardian.com/business...thkline-fined-bribing-doctors-pharmaceuticals

Both (product sales and manipulation) are highly desired by the unscrupulous which is why the Pharma corporations have routinely been exposed committing gross crimes that would get individuals jailed for life if not executed or classed as "terrorists"

GlaxoSmithKline fined $3bn after bribing doctors to increase drugs sales

Sales reps in the US encouraged to mis-sell antidepressants Paxil and Wellbutrin and asthma treatment Advair

• Share 4
• inShare0​
• Email

• Simon Neville
• The Guardian,Tuesday 3 July 2012 17.19 BST

GlaxoSmithKline has admitted to corporate misconduct in the US. Photograph: Toby Melville/Reuters

The pharmaceutical group GlaxoSmithKline has been fined $3bn (£1.9bn) after admitting bribing doctors and encouraging the prescription of unsuitable antidepressants to children. Glaxo is also expected to admit failing to report safety problems with the diabetes drug Avandia in a district court in Boston on Thursday.
The company encouraged sales reps in the US to mis-sell three drugs to doctors and lavished hospitality and kickbacks on those who agreed to write extra prescriptions, including trips to resorts in Bermuda, Jamaica and California.
The company admitted corporate misconduct over the antidepressants Paxil and Wellbutrin and asthma drug Advair.
Psychiatrists and their partners were flown to five-star hotels, on all-expenses-paid trips where speakers, paid up to $2,500 to attend, gave presentations on the drugs. They could enjoy diving, golf, fishing and other extra activities arranged by the company.
GSK also paid for articles on its drugs to appear in medical journals and "independent" doctors were hired by the company to promote the treatments, according to court documents.
Paxil – which was only approved for adults – was promoted as suitable for children and teenagers by the company despite trials that showed it was ineffective, according to prosecutors.
Children and teenagers are only treated with antidepressants in exceptional circumstances due to an increased risk of suicide.
GSK held eight lavish three-day events in 2000 and 2001 at hotels in Puerto Rico, Hawaii and Palm Springs, California, to promote the drug to doctors for unapproved use.
Those who attended were given $750, free board and lodging and access to activities including snorkelling, golf, deep-sea fishing, rafting, glass-bottomed boat rides, hot-air balloon rides and, on one trip, a tour of the Bacardi rum distillery, all paid for by GSK.
Air fares were also covered for doctors and spouses, in most cases, and speakers at the event were paid $2,500 each.
Before one event, the compere said: "We have a wonderful and unforgettable night planned. Without giving it all away, I can tell you – you'll be experiencing a taste of luxury."
Not everyone was impressed, though. One psychiatrist complained: "The style of the conference would have been suitable for a convention of cosmetics sales reps; this is supposed to be a scientific meeting. To me, the music, lights, videos, emcees are offputting and a distraction, even demeaning."
GSK also published an article in a medical journal that mis-stated the drug's safety for children, despite the journal asking several times to change the wording.
Copies of the misleading article were given to sales representatives to pass on to doctors in the hope that it would secure more business. Tickets to sports matches were exchanged for discussions about Paxil, with one doctor writing: "Dinner and a Yankee game with family. Talked about Paxil studies in children."
Despite knowing that three trials had failed to prove its effectiveness on children, Glaxo published a report entitled "Positioning Paxil in the adolescent depression market – getting a headstart".
The second drug to be mis-sold was Wellbutrin – another antidepressant aimed only at adults.
The prosecution said the company paid $275,000 to Dr Drew Pinsky, who hosted a popular radio show, to promote the drug on his programme, in particular for unapproved uses – GSK claimed it could treat weight gain, sexual dysfunction, ADHD and bulimia.
Pinsky, who had not declared his GSK income to listeners, said Wellbutrin could give women 60 orgasms a night. A study of 25 people using the drug for eight weeks was pushed by a PR firm hired by GSK, generating headlines including "Bigger than Viagra? It sounds too good to be true: a drug to help you stop smoking, stay happy and lose weight" and "Now That is a Wonder Drug".
When a GSK-funded doctor refused to remove safety concerns about the drug from an article he was writing, GSK removed his funding.
The investigation also found that sales representatives set up "Operation Hustle" to promote the drug to doctors, including trips to Jamaica, Bermuda and one talk coinciding with the annual Boston Tall Ships flotilla. Speakers were paid up to $2,500 for a one-hour presentation – up to three times a day – earning far more than they did working in their surgeries.
One speaker, Dr James Pradko, was paid nearly $1.5m by GSK over three years to speak about the drug. He also produced a DVD funded by the company, which was claimed to be independent. It was shown more than 900 times to doctors.
The hope was that doctors would be persuaded to prescribe the drug to patients over its rivals.
The last drug under scrutiny was Advair, GSK's bestselling asthma treatment.
The drug was launched to sales representatives in Las Vegas using images of slot machines, emphasising the bonuses they could make through sales. At the event, the then chief executive, Jean-Pierre Garnier, said: "What is the number one reason why you should love to be a GSK sales rep? Advair's bonus plan. Yeah!"
The company pushed the drug as the ultimate answer for tackling asthma, saying it should be the drug of choice for treating all cases. However, it had been approved only for treating severe cases, as other drugs were more suitable for mild asthma. GSK published material calling mild asthma a "myth" in an attempt to boost sales, according to the prosecution.
About $600,000 a year was given to district sales representatives for entertainment, including regular golf lessons, Nascar racing days, fishing trips, and baseball and basketball tickets.
US attorney Carmin Ortiz said: "The sales force bribed physicians to prescribe GSK products using every imaginable form of high-priced entertainment, from Hawaiian vacations [and] paying doctors millions of dollars to go on speaking tours, to tickets to Madonna concerts."
GSK chief executive Andrew Witty said: "Whilst these [matters] originate in a different era for the company, they cannot and will not be ignored. On behalf of GlaxoSmithKline I want to express our regret and reiterate that we have learnt from the mistakes that were made."
Despite the large fine, $3bn is far less than the profits made from the drugs. Avandia has made $10.4bn in sales, Paxil took $11.6bn, and Wellbutrin sales were $5.9bn during the years covered by the settlement, according to IMS Health, a data group that consults for drug makers

THAT is the reality of "Medicine", like food, water and power it is merely a means to an end for the most evil, destructive, dangerous and unscrupulous lunatics the world has ever seen.
Wessely maybe completely sincere, but his beliefs and actions tie in exactly with what is wanted and so he is rewarded and has power.