SilverbladeTE
Senior Member
- Messages
- 3,043
- Location
- Somewhere near Glasgow, Scotland
As Malcolm Tucker would say about the article:
"What a load of bollockless, namby pamby, useless, drivelling gobshyte!"
-
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.
The Lancet (UK) editorial: "What's in a name? Systemic exertion intolerance disease"
- Thread starter Sasha
- Start date
As Malcolm Tucker would say about the article:
"What a load of bollockless, namby pamby, useless, drivelling gobshyte!"
biophile
Places I'd rather be.
- Messages
- 8,977
The Lancet's name is partly a reference to a tool used in the ancient quackery of bloodletting (which wasn't considered discredited yet when the journal was established), and they certainly seem to like taking their political pint of blood from ME/CFS patients. Bloodletting was applied to so many conditions over the centuries but ended up only being useful for a few, which is probably how present form CBT/GET will also end up in the fullness of time.
I don't think I agree that the Lancet's political view on ME/CFS seems to be somewhat at odds with other political stances they take. There isn't really enough information to make a judgement, and I wouldn't expect Lancet Neurology to take up a biomedical perspective on ME/CFS either if most neurologists in the UK believe it is a non-disease. Medicine is subjected to fads, and taking up a pro-psychiatry and pro-CBT/GET stance on ME/CFS is a current fad in the UK.
The Lancet promoted/defended PACE as expected, but the comment about paving the way for the IOM report was bizarre.
I don't think I agree that the Lancet's political view on ME/CFS seems to be somewhat at odds with other political stances they take. There isn't really enough information to make a judgement, and I wouldn't expect Lancet Neurology to take up a biomedical perspective on ME/CFS either if most neurologists in the UK believe it is a non-disease. Medicine is subjected to fads, and taking up a pro-psychiatry and pro-CBT/GET stance on ME/CFS is a current fad in the UK.
The Lancet promoted/defended PACE as expected, but the comment about paving the way for the IOM report was bizarre.
Last edited:
taniaaust1
Senior Member
- Messages
- 13,054
- Location
- Sth Australia
Even then we'd see Wessely trying to take credit in some way.. That guy couldnt handle a lot of ME/CFS focus going elsewhere.
......
Here's some info I copied about personality disorders (I truely believe Wessely and a few of the other psychs have one)..
Personality disorders are deeply ingrained ways of thinking and behaving that are inflexible and generally lead to impaired relationships with others.
We've seen just how set and inflexible some of those psychs are in their views of ME/CFS.. eg Dr Shorter the other day saying there will NEVER be evidence that ME/CFS isnt a psychological disorder (or something along those lines). Their relationships with people who have ME/CFS are certainly impaired.
ahhh we've seen this one with Wessely in the past eg when the ME/CFS patients according to him were out to get (kill) him and hence he was needing protection (so he said). remember.. we were all "terrorists" there for a while according to him. That is certainly excessive emotion ..and was attention seeking.
Certainly he has this one...so of cause he believes the PACE trial which he obviously would think of being HIS views, he probably feels he owed the whole PACE trial just due to them having his views.. . so it doesnt at all surprise me to hear him say the PACE trial paved the way for the IOM report.
He probably believes that too.. he's delusional due to his personality disorders. Someone should treat the poor guy.
I am expecting exactly this from him, a political 'repositioning' to make it look like was one of the good guys all along.
Rats, sinking ships. Etc.
He's already smarming up to people from within the ME community. Let's hope that people aren't so naive that they would be taken in by his charm and agree to any sort of working relationship with this man. He needs to be left out in the cold, but as others have said it's clear the guy oozes narcissistic-sociopathic traits and political manoeuvering is what he does.
Last edited:
adreno
PR activist
- Messages
- 4,841
Someone asked a Lancet editor (Pam Das) on twitter, about how the PACE trial paved the way for the IOM report, this was her answer:
She also posted:
worldbackwards
Senior Member
- Messages
- 2,051
Sounds like establishment backslapping and people being told what they want to hear. Or at very least people hearing what they want to hear.
lansbergen
Senior Member
- Messages
- 2,512
The Lancet team has an opion. It is now clear where they stand. Their opion can not fool me.
thegodofpleasure
Player in a Greek Tragedy
- Messages
- 207
- Location
- Matlock, Derbyshire, Uk
You are so right @Sean
He must never ever be allowed to distance himself from this letter, which he wrote in October 1993: https://app.box.com/s/ucpcih8n3bb7vtde9c4pe57tx5iekep1
Lancet - "Despite critical reception at the time of publication, the results of the PACE trial paved the way for this IOM report."
HA HA HA HA ! I have not laughed so much in such a long time!. Is the Lancet a comic?
"Despite critical reception at the time of publication, the results of the PACE trial paved the way for ......... bumper profits and bonuses at Unum (NYSE: UNM), Swiss Re (SIX:SREN) and Aegon (AMS:AGN)"
That's that corrected!
HA HA HA HA ! I have not laughed so much in such a long time!. Is the Lancet a comic?
"Despite critical reception at the time of publication, the results of the PACE trial paved the way for ......... bumper profits and bonuses at Unum (NYSE: UNM), Swiss Re (SIX:SREN) and Aegon (AMS:AGN)"
That's that corrected!
I would love to see the reply to this letter. Does one exist publicly?
thegodofpleasure
Player in a Greek Tragedy
- Messages
- 207
- Location
- Matlock, Derbyshire, Uk
Yes, and you can view it in the same online folder in which the transcript of the Wessely letter resides.
Just close the preview of the Wessely letter and you will see Aylward's reply (and a whole load of other stuff from that period) listed above it.
Bob
Senior Member
- Messages
- 16,455
- Location
- England (south coast)
Interesting letter. I don't think I've seen that one before. It seems rather logical that patients who believe that they have a physical illness would not respond to cognitive-behavioural interventions. When it has suited them, Wessely's colleagues have said that patients should be trusted to report on their health experiences. But it seems that they shouldn't be trusted to decide whether they have a physical or mental illness, even when their opinion is supported by a failure to respond to the wonderfully curative cognitive-behavioural interventions. If cognitive-behavioural therapy works then it's a mental illness, and if it doesn't work then it's still a mental illness but the patient is in denial. There's no abuse of power here at all, is there!!
Last edited:
If you*'re on PubMed Commons, you could write a note there of whatever length you want on this point. PubMed Commons is influential and it could be a useful way to keep the Lancet honest/on its toes.
*i.e. somebody
Sorry I cant understand what you mean...I don't have a preview, I have the whole letter and I cant 'close' it withpout closing the whole page.
thegodofpleasure
Player in a Greek Tragedy
- Messages
- 207
- Location
- Matlock, Derbyshire, Uk
You can view them all here: https://app.box.com/s/75bc6x6vpw1u7jmu512vyjkxe8o69rd3
For future reference, there is a "x" in the top right hand corner of the black background of the viewing pane (above the vertical scroll bar), which closes the document and returns you to the contents page of the folder.
SOC
Senior Member
- Messages
- 7,849
Wow. This person is an editor at a supposedly scientific journal? That reads more like a middle-schooler defending a personal prejudice. "I'm entitled to my opinion." Yes, but it's an opinion based purely on belief with no evidence whatsoever to back it up. That has no place in science, debate, or reasoned discussion. How about a simple, straightforward answer to a simple straightforward question, Pam? No need to get your panties in a twist, just tell us how you back up your claim.
It's also immature to claim "behind the scene discussions" as support for anything without reporting who was involved in those discussions or what knowledge or experience those people have on the subject. The "behind the scenes discussions" could have been between the editor and her grandmother. Or it could have been discussions with the PACE authors who are naturally going to claim that PACE had a major impact on anything important related to "CFS".
Pam Das makes her journal look very bad with this kind of emotional, belief-based, evidenceless attempt at justification of a ridiculously biased statement. It is so utterly lacking in both science and critical thinking at even the lowest level, I'm appalled that she is an editor of anything, much less a scientific journal.
Gingergrrl
Senior Member
- Messages
- 16,171