-
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, 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.
"Suzanne O'Sullivan's It's All in Your Head wins Wellcome Book Prize 2016"
- Thread starter Daisymay
- Start date
Roy S
former DC ME/CFS lobbyist
- Messages
- 1,376
- Location
- Illinois, USA
Hip
Senior Member
- Messages
- 17,858
@K22
I suspect that the Wellcome Trust may have little day-to-day working connection the Wellcome Trust Book Prize, so possibly one hand may not know what the other is doing. Thus it is important to ensure that both the Wellcome Trust and the Wellcome Trust Book Prize are informed about the extremely contentious medical views contained in the book they awarded their prize to.
I suspect that the judges at the Wellcome Trust Book Prize may have been unaware of the highly controversial nature of O’Sullivan's book, and unaware that her views are deeply insulting and upsetting to the ME/CFS community. And they may have been unaware that medically, O’Sullivan's ideas are more like magical thinking than biomedical science: O’Sullivan's views that a belief can make you ill is akin to ancient notions of evil spirits causing disease.
I received a reply from the Wellcome Trust today, saying that they acknowledge the receipt of my email, and confirming that it has been forwarded to the relevant department for a response. I will post the response here when I get it.
I suspect that the Wellcome Trust may have little day-to-day working connection the Wellcome Trust Book Prize, so possibly one hand may not know what the other is doing. Thus it is important to ensure that both the Wellcome Trust and the Wellcome Trust Book Prize are informed about the extremely contentious medical views contained in the book they awarded their prize to.
I suspect that the judges at the Wellcome Trust Book Prize may have been unaware of the highly controversial nature of O’Sullivan's book, and unaware that her views are deeply insulting and upsetting to the ME/CFS community. And they may have been unaware that medically, O’Sullivan's ideas are more like magical thinking than biomedical science: O’Sullivan's views that a belief can make you ill is akin to ancient notions of evil spirits causing disease.
I received a reply from the Wellcome Trust today, saying that they acknowledge the receipt of my email, and confirming that it has been forwarded to the relevant department for a response. I will post the response here when I get it.
Hip
Senior Member
- Messages
- 17,858
Fine by me.
BurnA
Senior Member
- Messages
- 2,087
Ok I'll try to do something but might take a few days. If anyone wants to act sooner be my guest.
The more I think about this prize - it's an insult to the scientific community. Basically it doesn't matter how much research you do, someone who writes a book based on anecdotes will trump your work.
This attitude should be firmly rejected by any scientist.
Awful article in UK Times today about the book. Behind a paywall. I attach a photo with the long paragraph on M.E in today's article.
Edit:
There is a second paragraoh about her views on ME in the article, pure Wessley school
"What I believe if I’m being uncowardly and completely honest,” says O’Sullivan, “is that ME often starts with a viral illness, then what keeps you sick is the way you react to that illness. Sometimes, the way we behave in response to illness or injury is dysfunctional, and that keeps us ill for longer. Unfortunately, I know some people are upset that I’ve said that, but I’m trying to say that these disorders, like dissociativeseizures, paralysis and ME, are absolutely life-destroying illnesses, and we should give them more respect and pay them more attention in research.”
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/t...ss-is-all-in-your-head-jqsdz6sn5?acs_cjd=true
Edit:
There is a second paragraoh about her views on ME in the article, pure Wessley school
"What I believe if I’m being uncowardly and completely honest,” says O’Sullivan, “is that ME often starts with a viral illness, then what keeps you sick is the way you react to that illness. Sometimes, the way we behave in response to illness or injury is dysfunctional, and that keeps us ill for longer. Unfortunately, I know some people are upset that I’ve said that, but I’m trying to say that these disorders, like dissociativeseizures, paralysis and ME, are absolutely life-destroying illnesses, and we should give them more respect and pay them more attention in research.”
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/t...ss-is-all-in-your-head-jqsdz6sn5?acs_cjd=true
Attachments
Last edited:
I think one needs to be careful in the response. This is a book deliberately designed by its author and publisher to court controversy. It is easy to fall into the trap of doing their publicity work for them.
What is the response that author and publisher would least like? I don't think I know the answer to that.
What is the response that author and publisher would least like? I don't think I know the answer to that.
BurnA
Senior Member
- Messages
- 2,087
This Twitter stream is an insight into one of the judges. You need to read the replies to this tweet, the initial tweet is innocent.
BurnA
Senior Member
- Messages
- 2,087
Unfortunately I think she will get plenty of publicity now. However she presumably will be giving book talks etc touring around. They could be a good opportunity to protest. :thumbdown:
Hip
Senior Member
- Messages
- 17,858
I wouldn't say that; her book fits into genre of popular science, a genre intended to make science (or in this case hocus-pocus masquerading as science) accessible to the layperson.
Popular science writing is a great genre. But O'Sullivan's book is more like popular pseudoscience. This "all in the mind" somatoform view on disease does not follow the scientific method, which requires you to prove your theories. The somatoform view is more like quasi-religious interpretation that you superimpose onto the disease.
It makes no sense for the Wellcome Trust to be promoting this sort of pseudoscience.
If you examine the ethos and activities of the Wellcome Trust:
The whole ethos is based on good solid science, and the advancement of medical technology and medical products such as pharmaceuticals. Sir Henry Wellcome, who died in 1936, was an American British pharmaceutical entrepreneur.
Henry Wellcome would have had no truck with these backward pre-scientific fairy tale yarns spun by O'Sullivan.
Last edited:
JaimeS
Senior Member
- Messages
- 3,408
- Location
- Silicon Valley, CA
JaimeS
Senior Member
- Messages
- 3,408
- Location
- Silicon Valley, CA
The responses are great: well-reasoned and moderate and, most importantly, inarguable. Though the OP tries.
JaimeS
Senior Member
- Messages
- 3,408
- Location
- Silicon Valley, CA
I agree that, to some extent, this book is PWME-bait. The attempt to whip our community into a froth to help publicize the book (and point out 'hysterical' patients) is practically hanging in the air.
The reason she's won the prize is not because what she has written is imaginative and groundbreaking, but rather the opposite: she's trotted out the same, tired old tropes that Freud pioneered back in the day. Even Freud was putting a pseudoscientific spin on the spiritual sensibilities of the time: that sensibility that gave us the wildly popular seances and pseudoscientific magnetism/electricity studies of the era.
She's won because she's supported the view that the establishment wants to see promoted. She's writing about the status quo.
I'm not sure we should say or do anything in an official capacity. I would answer tweets as above, and I would write in anywhere someone has her on a radio show or where she is promoting her book, with an emphasis on short, well-reasoned responses rather than the outrage people may expect to see.
I say this not in any official capacity as #MEAction staff... just as an individual who thinks it's pretty clear we're being baited. She hopes this will be a controversial and popular book that everyone will be talking and arguing about. What better response than cricket-silence?
The reason she's won the prize is not because what she has written is imaginative and groundbreaking, but rather the opposite: she's trotted out the same, tired old tropes that Freud pioneered back in the day. Even Freud was putting a pseudoscientific spin on the spiritual sensibilities of the time: that sensibility that gave us the wildly popular seances and pseudoscientific magnetism/electricity studies of the era.
She's won because she's supported the view that the establishment wants to see promoted. She's writing about the status quo.
I'm not sure we should say or do anything in an official capacity. I would answer tweets as above, and I would write in anywhere someone has her on a radio show or where she is promoting her book, with an emphasis on short, well-reasoned responses rather than the outrage people may expect to see.
I say this not in any official capacity as #MEAction staff... just as an individual who thinks it's pretty clear we're being baited. She hopes this will be a controversial and popular book that everyone will be talking and arguing about. What better response than cricket-silence?
Last edited:
I agree with your observation @JaimeS about it being PWME bait. We don't want to give her free publicity.
I don't think we as individuals should make to much noise on Twitter etc. However we could simply have a rebuttal with references to her nonsense which we could use to challenge diplomatically such as wellcome without giving her the attention she is craving.
A complaint could and should be made to her regulator GMC as she has not kept her medical knowledge up to date which is a breach. The evidence will be in black and white in her book.
Unlike in the nigel speight case this is clear example of her bringing her profession in to disrepute and she should be reprimanded for "protection of members of the public and to maintain public confidence".
I don't think we as individuals should make to much noise on Twitter etc. However we could simply have a rebuttal with references to her nonsense which we could use to challenge diplomatically such as wellcome without giving her the attention she is craving.
A complaint could and should be made to her regulator GMC as she has not kept her medical knowledge up to date which is a breach. The evidence will be in black and white in her book.
Unlike in the nigel speight case this is clear example of her bringing her profession in to disrepute and she should be reprimanded for "protection of members of the public and to maintain public confidence".
The wonderful maxwhd is a one man ME library.
He has the best compilation of ME resources including this book's extracts.
Click the twit doc to read them.
He has the best compilation of ME resources including this book's extracts.
Click the twit doc to read them.
Last edited:
halcyon
Senior Member
- Messages
- 2,482
Gee, the one doctor on the judge panel is from QMUL. Color me shocked.
This is getting interesting
To all the judges:
To all the judges:
Last edited:
Cheshire
Senior Member
- Messages
- 1,129
Oh God, this is terrible. Old freudian unverifiable assumptions. She doesn't even try to look scientific like the CBT crew.
Our illness originates from our "unconscious". What do want to argue with such a woman?
"I allways say to them: "what you're going through is real"" Madame is so kind.
Irrational, falsely compassionate and so condescending.
worldbackwards
Senior Member
- Messages
- 2,051
Nice to see these two psychiatrists in James Coyne's timeline smart enough to call bullshit. There may be some hope for the profession yet!
