• 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.

Wessely in the Guardian on the 'drugs v talking' debate- March 29 2016

sarah darwins

Senior Member
Messages
2,508
Location
Cornwall, UK
This opinion piece by Simon Wessely is essentially about mental illness and approaches to it. He's mostly bigging up psychiatry (and psychiatrists), but there's at least one interesting ME thread in the comments section, a bit of which I'll quote below. Comments can be ordered by 'recommendation' (= likes).

Edit - LINK TO ARTICLE: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/mar/29/drugs-talking-mental-health

One line in the main article, however, really caught my eye:

Psychiatrists are pragmatists who use the best approach for an individual patient, without being too constrained by any specific school of thought.

One commenter — sirebrum — picks up on that:

Quote from this article:
"Psychiatrists are pragmatists who use the best approach for an individual patient, without being too constrained by any specific school of thought."

So why your blind and dogmatic adherence to the unproven and unsubstantiated "Bio-Psycho-Social-Model" you and your ilk invented?

Another commenter — gherkingirl — writes:

Thanks to Wessely's insistence on seeing ME as a pyschiatric disorder and not an neuro-immune condition, I have been unable to get treatment for either my ME or my mental health conditions for the past 5 years.

I did the CBT based system for ME/CFS at King's and while it helped me pace my ME and improve quite a bit and live with it better, it unsurprisingly didn't cure my physical symptoms such as severe muscle pain, digestive issues and problems with blood volume causing dizziness. In fact feeling less fatigue made me more aware of those physical symptoms and attempt to be treated for them too.

When I asked for that I was removed from the list for mental health services specifically for anxiety and an eating disorder at the same hospital for being 'non compliant' and told that if I wouldn't accept my ME was a mental illness, I must be making the other ones up and wouldn't be treated there for them.
 
Last edited:

msf

Senior Member
Messages
3,650
It´s just a bad translation from Idiotese - it should read ´Psychiatrists are pragmatists who use the best approach for an individual patient, without being too constrained by thought.´
 

SilverbladeTE

Senior Member
Messages
3,043
Location
Somewhere near Glasgow, Scotland
Quote should be

"We are charlatan bastards, who'll come up with anything that sounds good, because it makes money for us and out sponsors (TM),
the government and insurance companies like us because our bullshit costs nothing, unlike real medical treatments,
and aren't we just wonderful and you know you have to love and obey us, hm?"


:p

Wessely candid photo taken with Anti-B.S-Kirlian lens

they-live222.jpg


:sluggish:
 
Last edited:

5150

Senior Member
Messages
360
This opinion piece by Simon Wessely is essentially about mental illness and approaches to it. He's mostly bigging up psychiatry (and psychiatrists), but there's at least one interesting ME thread in the comments section, a bit of which I'll quote below. Comments can be ordered by 'recommendation' (= likes).

Edit - LINK TO ARTICLE: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/mar/29/drugs-ta


Try to take Heart. I know that is easily said, but I know how it goes,too. I Hope They Rot in Hell.
 

Chrisb

Senior Member
Messages
1,051
Wessely was on the radio a few days ago being interviewed about this. It brought home to me very strongly the nature of the problem. If you knew nothing about the subject he would appear to be a lucid, reasonably genial if perhaps somewhat glib, individual who would certainly seem persuasive.

It reminded me of the discussions which arose concerning the character of those who rise to the top of business and thrive whilst ruining their companies and shareholders. The characteristics which enable people to get to the top are not necessarily those that would enable them to do the job. Perhaps this is a rule of general application. We do not need to detail here the nature of those characteristics.
 

sarah darwins

Senior Member
Messages
2,508
Location
Cornwall, UK
Wessely was on the radio a few days ago being interviewed about this. It brought home to me very strongly the nature of the problem. If you knew nothing about the subject he would appear to be a lucid, reasonably genial if perhaps somewhat glib, individual who would certainly seem persuasive.

I’m sure Sir Simon, as a fully paid-up member of the Islington Blairite sect, would be horrified but he often reminds me of Margaret Thatcher. She excelled at styling hers as the lone voice of common sense in a world of unreason. To her, everyone else had ideologies, she just had good judgment. She honestly couldn’t see that her politics were as ideological and value-laden as anyone else’s. I’m pretty sure SW has a similar outlook — genuinely believing that the BPS view of illness carries no ideological lading, that the assumption of an element of mental illness in a case of unexplained symptoms is “just common sense”.
 

Chrisb

Senior Member
Messages
1,051
Well, he's certainly not for turning........unless forced. Unlike Thatcher he would understand the reference in the script.
 

alex3619

Senior Member
Messages
13,810
Location
Logan, Queensland, Australia
If you knew nothing about the subject he would appear to be a lucid, reasonably genial if perhaps somewhat glib, individual who would certainly seem persuasive.
Sales rhetoric 101 - make a lot of statements that sound reasonable when used generally. Never mention the specifics unless they would be generally supported. When challenged on specifics refer to the more general statements and point out nearly everyone agrees with them. Claim that the questioners are being unreasonable. Point out that none of the (general) statements have any major disagreements.

BPS is largely promoted by making general sweeping statements, that are typically viewed as correct. However as general statements move to specifics the rationality of the argument is lost. A similar issue occurs with Evidence Based Medicine. Good ideas, bad execution.
 

worldbackwards

Senior Member
Messages
2,051
I’m sure Sir Simon, as a fully paid-up member of the Islington Blairite sect, would be horrified but he often reminds me of Margaret Thatcher.
I doubt they'd be too horrified; the Blairites rather admire Thatcher, I think, they like the way she makes the world sound simple and that anyone who disagrees is just doing it wrong. But I do now want to see Sir Simon holding the PACE edition of The Lancet aloft, shouting "Rejoice at that news!"