BBC Radio 4: The Life Scientific with Simon Wessely, 14th Feb 2017

[Jan]

Maybe someone need to let them know about Wessley laughing at pwme during a lecture. (I'm sure it was Wessley, wasn't it? )

 

[Sasha]

Unfortunately all the guests on the series are employed in Britain, I think, so we couldn't suggest Fluge, Davis, etc.

This week's guest, Sean Carroll, is an American working at Cal Tech:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sean_M._Carroll

 

[SamanthaJ]

Is R4 Feedback on Friday of that week? Perhaps people who are fairly confident explaining the science could write to that, to correct the 'science' on The Life Scientific, as will almost certainly be necessary. The BBC always responds to complaints about bias or lack of balance in the same dismissive way, but it would be a chance to get some factual information on the air.

EDIT: Just checked, Feedback is on Friday 17th, a good chance to respond if the programme is as bad as anticipated.

https://ssl.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006slnx/contact

 

[SilverbladeTE]

Next up on the BBC!
The Life Slimy of the Syphilitic Chancroid.
The history and day to day life of yet another smug self satisfied member of the British Establishment, and how he laughs at all the Plebs as he rakes in loads a money doing nothing!

Remember, the Beeb loves you, BBC is Mother, BBC is Father, we never lie!

 

[Tyto alba]

My first thought when I saw this thread title was 'I wonder if there are mentions of CFS patients and threats/abuse'. Lo and behold....

 

[Large Donner]

.....better training for doctors and the need to reduce stigma around mental health (and armchair psychiatrists who think it's OK to diagnose the new American President with a mental illness

Is there any other kind of psychiatrist? Take one armchair one person with a set of subjective questions zero other tools, hey presto... its psychiatry.

 

[Large Donner]

Not only is he lying about threats and abuse, he's also lying about having left the research field.

Maybe this is his way of admitting via a Freudian slip that he has never done anything that meets the definition of research. He does however have an armchair.

 

[JamBob]

It is quite unbelievable that a psychiatrist should admit to stopping doing research on an illness because of 'threats and abuse'. Threats and abuse are a daily experience for all psychiatrists and not that uncommon for other medics trying to help people in distress. If you are a psychiatrist you are expected to handle paranoia, psychopathy, mania and all sorts of other conditions which include threats and abuse very often. Yet a psychiatrist with any respect for the patients would take this in their stride.

It is just incredible that a psychiatrist should think that they are justified to wimp out of their profession in this way. It is pretty terrifying that the British psychiatric establishment have enough respect for this behaviour to vote him in as their president. I have huge respect for those psychiatrists who handle serious mental health problems - including those who saved my wife's life. In comparison Wessely's behaviour seems demeaning to the medical profession as a whole.

I've often thought that Wessely's publicity-seeking behaviour is highly unprofessional. I used to work in both the NHS and social services and violence and threats were an expected part of daily working life. I still have some scars but I never felt the need to go running to the media to denigrate a whole cohort of patients (or a single one for that matter) just because some people (who were suffering in some way) hurt or threatened me in the course of my work.

In fact looking at some of the person specs for the type of job I used to do - they explicitly state that the candidate should have:

1. Evidence of potential ability to work as a lone worker in circumstances where there may be exposure to severe distress, verbal or physical aggression.

2. Evidence of potential ability to work effectively whilst exposed to unpleasant working conditions including frequent exposure to verbal aggression and occasional exposure to physical aggression.

3. To work in a highly emotive atmosphere, frequently encountering highly distressing problems

and circumstances, and maintain a high degree of professionalism at all times.

4.To work in situations where there are barriers to acceptance and possible exposure to aggression.


It seems somewhat odd to me that Wessely feels the need to deal with his emotions about working in difficult (for difficult - read where patients are critical of his approach) situations in the media and the public sphere rather than seeking support from his colleagues or supervisor. He should have some kind of clinical supervisor if he is working therapeutically(?) with patients.

Even more preferable would be for Wessely to engage seriously with the substance of complaints and threats from patients and perhaps look inwardly to see if there is anything he could be doing differently to help ME patients rather than go running to the newspapers and television to denigrate ME patients as unstable and violent.

 

[BurnA]

I really do not think just anyone should do this, lest we fuel the (alleged) flames. Far better something measured from established/respected/known advocates?

Surprised by this sentiment.
We are more qualified than anyone to comment publicly on SW and his shenanigans.

We are patients, and our voice matters regardless of whether someone considers us to be established or respected.

I can't believe even after all the Tuller articles and the PACE reanalysis paper, some people still think we should remain quiet. Then we wonder why no journalist picks up our story.

We should be making more noise than ever, it should be an organised campaign against anyone who supports SW and Co.
Something along the lines of stop funding hate campaign.

Science is on our side.

 

[Sidereal]

It seems somewhat odd to me that Wessely feels the need to deal with his emotions about working in difficult (for difficult - read where patients are critical of his approach) situations in the media and the public sphere rather than seeking support from his colleagues or supervisor. He should have some kind of clinical supervisor if he is working therapeutically(?) with patients.

He strikes me as an anxious, phobic guy. I'm surprised he survived one week in liaison psychiatry.

 

[Jo Best]

Oh we are living in interesting times to be sure (those of us still surviving, unlike my dearest friend)... did you all note the comments by Dr. Ian Gibson about being invited to tea and told to behave etc... in his intro to the public talks in Norwich last month (but only available online since yesterday)? The page includes links to the BBC Look East TV news reports of the meetings.. http://www.investinme.org/IIME-Newslet-1701-02.shtml

His book 'Science, Politics and ME' should be out soon - http://www.investinme.org/IIME-Newslet-1508-01.shtml

This was a BBC radio interview he did in 2011 -

 

[user9876]

It is quite unbelievable that a psychiatrist should admit to stopping doing research on an illness because of 'threats and abuse'. Threats and abuse are a daily experience for all psychiatrists and not that uncommon for other medics trying to help people in distress. If you are a psychiatrist you are expected to handle paranoia, psychopathy, mania and all sorts of other conditions which include threats and abuse very often. Yet a psychiatrist with any respect for the patients would take this in their stride.

It is just incredible that a psychiatrist should think that they are justified to wimp out of their profession in this way. It is pretty terrifying that the British psychiatric establishment have enough respect for this behaviour to vote him in as their president. I have huge respect for those psychiatrists who handle serious mental health problems - including those who saved my wife's life. In comparison Wessely's behaviour seems demeaning to the medical profession as a whole.

Its not just the way he has treated ME patients. We should remember that he is in a powerful position and running around promoting bad science - in that he pops up everywhere to justify outcome switching and poor methodology in PACE. Doctors leaders should be trying to promote good science and improving methodology.

 

[Barry53]

his dropping CFS work because of threats is a joke

I suspect he is attempting to distance himself from his own self-made losing side.

 

[user9876]

his dropping CFS work because of threats is a joke and yet he pops up everwhere eg PACE trial recruting patients, his Blog on the PACE trial defending the trial team -

y

I suspect he cares more that patients dare criticism his 'science' and work than anything else. He seems to exist in a group where criticism isn't the done thing and certainly not from the great unwashed.

 

[Barry53]

I'm curious as to what prompted this programme to pick up this particular topic at this time.

When you wield the influence he does (he is a "sir"; is a psychiatrist so especially knows how to press people's buttons; is proven to put self interest first), he will have many fingers in many pies in the corridors of power. Such people often nurture a network of others they can manipulate to their own ends; their pawns often never knowing they are being manipulated, and sincerely believing they are doing what is right. When I was younger I naively believed such people were confined to Hollywood and books, but now I fully appreciate they form a significant minority of the population.

 

[Barry53]

Surprised by this sentiment.
We are more qualified than anyone to comment publicly on SW and his shenanigans.

We are patients, and our voice matters regardless of whether someone considers us to be established or respected.

I can't believe even after all the Tuller articles and the PACE reanalysis paper, some people still think we should remain quiet. Then we wonder why no journalist picks up our story.

We should be making more noise than ever, it should be an organised campaign against anyone who supports SW and Co.
Something along the lines of stop funding hate campaign.

Science is on our side.

Hi BurnA. Please don't misunderstand me - I agree with you entirely, people here are incredibly well qualified to comment. But although that is an extremely important and valid point, it is a totally different one to the concern I am (perhaps unclearly) expressing. If we try standing in the shoes of Jim Al-Khalili for a moment (and I really do mean trying to see from his perspective, not just looking at him from our perspective), then we have to appreciate no matter how impressive a character (I mean that sincerely) he is, he is inevitably going to be somewhat naive and misdirected regarding ME/CFS, and the SW influence. From Jim Al-Khalili's perspective it is going to be very hard to see the wood for the trees.

So if he suddenly sees his inbox apparently being spammed by 100s of emails, he is going to find it very hard to not view that as confirming SW's allegations. We know that is not the case, but it will be extremely hard for Jim Al-Khalili to appreciate that. In fact, if SW is the kind of person I imagine, he will very likely be banking on us reacting that way (provoking us even) ... I bet he has already primed Jim Al-Khalili along the lines of "It's very good of you to do this interview with me Jim ... you do realise of course that in doing so you risk the same sort of harassment that I have been subjected to all these years ... theatrical sigh ... blah blah blah". Our efforts would be completely counter-productive. Our being right is not the issue unfortunately ... our being effective is the issue, and the two things, though interconnected, are definitely not the same.

The trouble is that with such folks being on the right side is not enough, nor is being more than qualified. To deal with such people we have to appreciate how they work, and not let ourselves be manipulated by them. And if anyone believes SW does not have the capability to behave this way, I utterly disagree. It is exactly the way such people behave ... and unfortunately they can be bl**dy good at it.

 

[Esther12]

Also, I expect that once again there will be an attempt to portray criticism of Wessely as stemming from opposition to psychiatry, or a desire to avoid the stigma of mental health, rather than the poor quality of his work, so it will be important to avoid anything that could be misinterepreted on that front. The whole 'physical vs mental' distraction has been so helpful for Wessely being able to avoid addressing any of the substantive criticism of his work, and just lets him play the sophisticate, rambling on about how very complicated these matters are.

 

[Barry53]

I have huge respect for those psychiatrists who handle serious mental health problems - including those who saved my wife's life.

Absolutely so. We must not lose sight of the fact there are many very dedicated and very skilled, genuine psychiatrists, who do huge good. Very few families get through life without needing them somewhere along the way. It is the usual "bad apples" syndrome.

 

[BurnA]

So if he suddenly sees his inbox apparently being spammed by 100s of emails, he is going to find it very hard to not view that as confirming SW's allegations.

Don't worry I know what you meant.
But I don't consider it spamming for patients to inform a journalist of the truth.

Remember Al-Khalili probably has no idea of protocol changes, redefining recovery, or peer reviewed academic papers debunking the PACE trial.
We have that ammo now so I think we should use it, if I was a journalist I would want to know about it.

I don't know anything about Al-Khalili but any decent journo would be only too happy to be given good material to let them ask probing questions. The more people who tell him the better.

The source shouldn't matter it's the quality of the material, how about that clip of SAS Trevor Butterworth saying the patients were right. I'm sure that would be a nice uncomfortable conversation with the winner of the SAS Maddox prize.

If we keep shying away expecting others to do our dirty work, we only have ourselves to blame.

 

[trishrhymes]

Jim Al-Khalili is not a journalist.

Jameel Sadik “Jim” Al-Khalili OBE is a British theoretical physicist, author and broadcaster. He is currently Professor of Theoretical Physics and Chair in the Public Engagement in Science at the University of Surrey. Wikipedia

I don't have a fixed idea about the best way to tackle our dilemma - but I don't think lots of e-mails to him from individuals is the best way forward. On the other hand, I'd be very happy for lots of e-mails to pile in to the BBC if the program is as bad as we fear.