Further information on what a person's position is, is often very useful. What people can say in a few words or sentences can be interpreted in various ways.I feel I need to respond. I can only speak for myself here, but I apply the same type of critical thinking to Wessely and company. When you see quote after quote that misrepresents him, it doesn't add any credibility for advocacy or quotes that may be accurate. It's gotten to the point that I try to check every quote but I just don't have the energy to do that. While I am also skeptical of Wessely it appears that the meme of poor us and it's all his fault is getting a bit tiresome. Because we perceive someone has treated us unfairly is no justification for using the same techniques against him.
It's the same with the science. I don't go in with a perceived notion or at least as much as possible. It just so happens that my conclusions are a bit different than some here.
We all need to raise questions. And yes, it's poor us. But continuing like this, picking everything apart that Wessely, White et. al. as well as ascribing motives which are nothing but speculation is not productive. If anything we need to focus on the fallacies of the PACE trial.
We are all in this together. As a group we can do a lot. I would just like to see the direction of our energy change to something that will get us somewhere.
Attacking an opponent is the least credible type of debate.
Barb
For example, you said:
White actually said what many have wanted to hear.
with regard to:
We would like to correct several errors of fact in the letter published on this website by the Countess of Mar and others. These authors state that we "..have promoted an hypothesis that ME/CFS is due to an abnormal illness beliefs,.. " We have not; beliefs about an illness determine the ways people cope with it, but this has little to do with how the illness develops in the first place (its immediate cause), which our own research has shown can follow certain infections
I think, although am not sure, what you are saying is what White is saying is reasonable. If that is what you are saying, I have to disagree - I don't find his view reasonable. His view, which can be seen more clearly from other things, is that continuing symptoms and physical functioning problems are due to deconditioning and can be reversed with CBT and GET. So he accepts maladaptive beliefs and behaviours may not be why you got the infection at the start*, but I don't think we should get excited by this - I think this is just playing with words - it's a jesuitical response.
The problems with his views can be seen in the comments on the draft NICE guidelines where he wants to deny supports when people are ill (and similarly reports from people who have had insurance claims turned down by him because they haven't done CBT or GET yet).
In summary, if Simon Wessely and Peter White are giving jesuitical responses which could be misinterpreted, given their influence, it is useful to examine them and assess them against other things they have said/are saying.
* and that's only to an extent - he has also talks about predisposing factors in other research