• Welcome to Phoenix Rising!

    Created in 2008, Phoenix Rising is the largest and oldest forum dedicated to furthering the understanding of and finding treatments for complex chronic illnesses such as chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), fibromyalgia (FM), long COVID, postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), mast cell activation syndrome (MCAS), and allied diseases.

    To become a member, simply click the Register button at the top right.

UK CFS Secret Files Unwrapped Valerie Eliot Smith

A.B.

Senior Member
Messages
3,780
I skimmed it and was surprised to see that White and Wessely have been saying the exact same things since at least 1993. Looks like they had already made up their mind back then. No wonder the PACE trial was spun so heavily. They have been believing that exercise and positive attitude will magically cure patients for all this time.
 

Sidereal

Senior Member
Messages
4,856
Their vehement tone with which Wessely and White are speaking in 1993 is very interesting given that there was absolutely no evidence then (even by loose quality standards of modern-day psychiatry research) that exercise can "rehabilitate" these patients or that it causes no harm.
 

charles shepherd

Senior Member
Messages
2,239
The divisions and differences of medical opinion (as demonstrated in this DWP correspondence) regarding the use of CBT and GET were just as strong in 1993 as they are today

It will be interesting to see what correspondence from 2015 that is not in the public domain at present then gets published/released in 2035!
 

A.B.

Senior Member
Messages
3,780
Their vehement tone with which Wessely and White are speaking in 1993 is very interesting given that there was absolutely no evidence then (even by loose quality standards of modern-day psychiatry research) that exercise can "rehabilitate" these patients or that it causes no harm.

Suspicion or perhaps even evidence of harm was apparently available. There is a reference to a study by Stokes et al with the words that exercise can cause relapses. Not knowing the title, I wasn't able to find the paper though.
 

Countrygirl

Senior Member
Messages
5,429
Location
UK
Yes, I remember some of those events well and the people involved and I see I get a mention, along with some of my friends as we battled with the disbelieving GPs of Sidmouth. Sadly, the attempt to educate the doctors did not bear fruit as they refused to attend the successful accredited post-grad medical lectures we organised. In fact, one of us died after his wife, his carer, was admitted to hospital for a lengthy period. He was bedbound, but when his wife asked the GP to ensure that he received care, the doctor refused on the grounds that his condition was 'all in his head'. He died in an emaciated state. It's a great pity that his case did not make it into the files, but it occurred about five years later. I tried to make an official complaint, but was told that they didn't accept complaints from people with ME as it didn't exist.

The 'man' mentioned in the files had three small children and also a wife with ME. His GP refused to sign him off work and so he couldn't claim any money. In the end the GP banned him from returning to the surgery for any reason, even for new illnesses, until he had worked for some months. He couldn't, so he was effectively without access to a doctor. His son now has ME, but has been told by the practice to ignore it and continue with his university course and sports. I don't think much has changed, sadly.
 

Sidereal

Senior Member
Messages
4,856
The divisions and differences of medical opinion (as demonstrated in this DWP correspondence) regarding the use of CBT and GET were just as strong in 1993 as they are today

Yes but the point I was trying to make is that today they can at least cite a few crappy rigged RCTs that have been interpreted as supportive of their CBT/GET position whereas in 1993 they were already speaking as though such evidence was available when in reality there was basically none.
 

A.B.

Senior Member
Messages
3,780
@charles shepherd so what do you think the problem with Wessely and co is? A case of the inmates running the asylum, conflicts of interest, or just normal modus operandi in the psych fields? How can this go on for so long without any insight on his part?
 
Last edited:

Iquitos

Senior Member
Messages
513
Location
Colorado
Yes but the point I was trying to make is that today they can at least cite a few crappy rigged RCTs that have been interpreted as supportive of their CBT/GET position whereas in 1993 they were already speaking as though such evidence was available when in reality there was basically none.

Wessely's 'evidence' is in the form of his increasing bank account, paid in sunlight or in darkness, mainly by the disability insurance industry. No rational, educated person could have mistaken all the biophysical evidence all this time. He's been corrupted by greed from the beginning.
 

biophile

Places I'd rather be.
Messages
8,977
I only had a quick look:

Page 10 is bad, Dr M McGrath: I can't be bothered typing it all out but has gems like "the worst thing to do is to tell them to rest. Rehabilitation is essential, exercise is good for these patients" [etc]

Page 16, Mansel Aylward ripping into Charles Shepherd.

Page 17/18, Wessely (1993): [something about how the ME Associations' views are extreme, CFS isn't neurological and he takes serious issue with classifying it as such] "The main difference between CFS and the major psychiatric disorders is neither aetiological, nor symptomatic, but the existence of a powerful lobby group that dislikes any association with psychiatry" ... "the erroneous belief that this is a severe disorder of neurological functioning, for which there is little effective treatment, and a poor prognosis. It will discourage any sensible efforts are rehabilitation".

Page 217, Wessely (1992): [he downplays the role of fear avoidance because it was unproven, rejects the argument that CFS is of "hysterical origin", and rightly criticizes some aspects of the handbook being discussed] ... Then: "Research is at an early stage, but the prospects for rehabilitation look promising, and there are undoubtedly many major medical discoveries to be made, all of which may have dramatic efforts on treatments."

Jump forward two decades. The prospects of "rehabilitation" looks doubtful but biomedical evidence is revealing clues.

Much of the document is pretty boring and some seems to be duplicated.

Some interesting parts about biomedical research?

Page 212 has an atrocious article.
 
Last edited:
Messages
14
Location
London, UK