• 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.

Brave Sir Prof Wessely discusses death threats 29th March 2017

adreno

PR activist
Messages
4,841
I don't see much factual argumentation or engaging with details coming from Wessely. It's all just emotionally-laden non-speak, grand statements and vague assertions to unrelated anecdotes. He doesn't address any criticism, just talks around it and broadcasts his opinions as though they have some special status. Makes me wonder if he took that course at Trump university.
 
Messages
2,087
SW: 'they changed the recovery measures because they realised they had gone too extreme and they would have the problem that nobody would recover'

Is this the most incriminating statement ever made on the pace trial?

An admission that the protocol was changed to get desired results.

The question the PIs need to answer is what changed between initial protocol approval and protocol amendment to justify the amendment?
 

ukxmrv

Senior Member
Messages
4,413
Location
London
Is this the most incriminating statement ever made on the pace trial?

An admission that the protocol was changed to get desired results.

The question the PIs need to answer is what changed between initial protocol approval and protocol amendment to justify the amendment?

He would claim it was a "joke" as laughing at the patient and medical critics.... "imagine if we changed it to get a better result, ha ha, as if we would"
 

Sean

Senior Member
Messages
7,378
I don't see much factual argumentation or engaging with details coming from Wessely. It's all just emotionally-laden non-speak, grand statements and vague assertions to unrelated anecdotes. He doesn't address any criticism, just talks around it and broadcasts his opinions as though they have some special status. Makes me wonder if he took that course at Trump university.
Wessely is, first and foremost, a propagandist and political manipulator, one of the best you will ever see in action.

Unfortunately. :grumpy:
 

Stewart

Senior Member
Messages
291
Is this the most incriminating statement ever made on the pace trial?

An admission that the protocol was changed to get desired results.

The question the PIs need to answer is what changed between initial protocol approval and protocol amendment to justify the amendment?

I've just asked this on another thread (in the General News forum) but isn't this an admission that they falsified their results? They found that none of the four trialled treatments led to recovery - but rather than report that finding they changed the trial methodology so that they could instead report that their preferred treatments were moderately effective (all the while suppressing the original results, refusing access to the trial data, and playing down the impact that the changes had on the reported outcome). Does that not fit the definition of 'falsification of results' - or does falsification have a more limited definition?
 

Large Donner

Senior Member
Messages
866
I spoke to a sir journo today about whether it is "against the rules" to quote someone else at a panel discussion. "Of course not," he said.

It seems totally bizarre to claim otherwise. Dont people quote Newton or Einstein all the time in debates for example. Or are we supposed to believe that's only ok because they have been published. But then isn't most of the BPS critique published also.

How about Wessely just being allowed to claim that the whole patient community is just anti psychiatry is that ok? How about Wesselys death threat claims without the alleged issuer of the threat being present?
 
Last edited: