BBC radio interview on Wesseley vilification 2011 http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9550000/9550947.stm. Oh,good grief. The blunders he makes in the media. When the interviewer loses any objectivity at 4.02m Wesseley misses any opportunity he has to clarify matters and goes on with the media moment. Its hard not to get antsy about stuff like this. His beliefs are transparent, yet he seems to want to run with the hares, hunt with the hounds. RE; above “The absence of abnormnal tests leads to the erroneous conclusion that nothing is wrong, or alternatively to the understandable but misguided tendency to over interpret minor abnormalities or variants. The description given by a leading gastroenterologist at the Mayo Clinic remains accurate: “the average doctors will see they are neurotic, and he will often be disgusted with them. Often he sends them away with as little ceremony as possible” (Alvarez, 1935). Thus, attitudes towards psychiatric illness affect both patient and doctor with equally adverse effects on prognosis”. Wesseley. (My bold) "The absence of abnormnal tests leads to the erroneous conclusion that nothing is wrong, or alternatively to the understandable but misguided tendency to over interpret minor abnormalities or variants". Simon wouldnt make this mistake, if he was on duty! No middle ground then, between these two extremes?.. Minor abnormalities or variants must be associated with misguided tendency to overinterperet. What about the occasions when testing finds biological dysfunction which leads to treatment?? The nice little narrative gap between these two polarities is where Wesseley can weave his magic. "Thus, attitudes towards psychiatric illness affect both patient and doctor with equally adverse effects on prognosis”. Psychiatric illness?? What psychiatric illness? Who mentioned anything about a psychiatric illness?? Suitably ambiguous for Wesseley. Whose attitudes? The Treating doctor's attitudes? The patients attitudes? I get thoroughly annoyed at this sort of shape shifting talk which allows him to get away with saying anything, because, in retrospect he's said nothing definite at all. Its elusive, and allows him to cover his tracks later. Maybe it is just me, but the more i read his sentences the more they dissolve into vapour. All i would really like is for him definitively to say, we've learnt a lot since the 90's and in retrospect a lot of our assumptions have to be revised. But, no! He stands firm, while shuffling sideways.