Phoenix Rising: The Gift That Keeps on Giving All Year Long
This holiday season Jody Smith turns her eyes to the people of Phoenix Rising and gives thanks for you all ...
Discuss the article on the Forums.

David Healey writing on the Science Media Centre (some CFS/Wessely mentions)

Discussion in 'Other Health News and Research' started by Esther12, Sep 7, 2017.

  1. Esther12

    Esther12 Senior Member

    It looked like there were a couple of posts from CFS patients in the comments section, and that this led to Healy recognising some of the problems with PACE.

    I pulled out the CFS bits I saw from the blogs, and the quotes relate to the blogs linked to under the quotes.
  2. TiredSam

    TiredSam The wise nematode hibernates

    Looks like I missed out on a good session with Shorter and Simon :(. They were just round the corner and they didn't let me know!

    Classic Wessely - accuse you opponent of being a conspiracy-theorist, then refer to matey drinks, bottles of red wine etc instead of addressing substantive points. Only thing missing was "This isn't you, David!" I reckon it wouldn't be too hard to write an algorithm to produce a Wessely-style response to any criticism. Now there's an idea for my next programming project ...
    Woolie, GreyOwl, Snowdrop and 11 others like this.
  3. BurnA

    BurnA Senior Member

    Is it perfect, no, but it is by far the best we have.
    Am I a Demi God ? Well I'll leave that up to mortals to decide.
    Woolie, MEMum, Esther12 and 6 others like this.
  4. Sean

    Sean Senior Member

    Conveniently ignoring, yet again, the rather critical fact that it has not reached a minimum absolute standard of either effectiveness, or safety (particularly in the case of GET).

    Certainly nowhere near safely justifying it's widespread clinical application and near total dominance of funding, and policy and medico-legal advice, for decades.

    Plus the serious lost opportunity cost of other avenues of investigation and therapy being unable to make progress due to that dominance.

    We have, and you are not.
  5. Yogi

    Yogi Senior Member

    These are very interesting links.

    I was not aware of the depth of controversy with psychiatrists and big Pharma for mental health.

    The comments section is very interesting on the blog.

    The comments by someone called TM are good. I haven't read all of it as I there is enough ME&PACE/Wessely scandal to keep me preoccupied with.

    What I find fascinating is that mental health patients and TM states this himself want talk therapies (CBT) but were only given drugs and no other options. I have heard this before that mental health patients have to really fight to get talk therapies such as CBT and are refused but are only given physical biological anti-depressant drugs.

    So mental health patients only get biological drugs even when they want psychotherapies (CBT).
    And physical neurological ME patients get psychotherapies (CBT) when we don't require it.

    This is topsy turvy.

    Simon Wessely has a lot to answer for.

    The money aspect is very interesting. This really proves he is a corporate shill.

    Some more links
    Last edited: Sep 8, 2017
    Wonko, Woolie, MEMum and 4 others like this.
  6. Skycloud

    Skycloud Senior Member

    Very interesting indeed! I'm grateful to those who have posted information regarding PACE in the comments on David Healy's blog.
    GreyOwl likes this.
  7. Snow Leopard

    Snow Leopard Hibernating

    South Australia
    BurnA and Esther12 like this.
  8. Barry53

    Barry53 Senior Member

    Well Richard Dawkins is not strong on religion, so SW's scientific approach may clash a bit.
    Wonko, Woolie, GreyOwl and 1 other person like this.
  9. Londinium

    Londinium Senior Member

    I think it's part of the wider difficulties psychology and psychiatry are having with the so-called replication problem. My view is that by their nature these fields are more prone to junk science. I think there are several reasons for this:
    • It's much easier/cheaper to do a psychological study and with much less pre-registration, so publication bias effects are much higher
    • In other fields of medicine there are more objective measures (it's hard in oncology to hide the fact that, despite your supposed miracle cure, your patients are still dropping dead)
    • Most importantly, in other fields of medicine, study subjects and patients are believed. Whereas if you're a Freudian, you can defend your work with 'well of course they would deny wanting to sleep with their own mothers'. Even worse, in psychiatry you can portray your critics as mentally unwell or 'resistant'. Your poor results are no longer your fault, but the fault of your patients who don't want to get better. Or you can state that in fact you get brilliant results and it's only a few psychopaths who deny it.
    This is not to say that all psychology/psychiatry is junk science; it's just that a significant portion of it is, and the normal scientific checks and balances - which aren't perfect anyway - seem to be much less effective here.
    Last edited: Sep 9, 2017
    Yogi, Hutan, Orla and 4 others like this.
  10. Barry53

    Barry53 Senior Member

    I think there is also the fact that psychiatry often does have to deal with false perceptions in people, and tries to help them overcome these. Extremely low self-esteem would be an example, where the person's perceptions of their own inadequacies are largely false. From another life a long time ago, I know what I am talking about here. Fixing this, with or without external help, is essentially about correcting those false self-perceptions, and the flawed behaviours that accompany them.

    So good psychiatry/psychology is nonetheless rooted in changing people's perceptions and behaviours. In effect it is a tool in the psychiatrists toolkit, which like all tools, can be used for good or bad. The tool is not at fault - helping people to modify their perceptions and behaviours is perfectly valid and beneficial when this tool is properly used.

    It is the abuse of this tool that is abominable, and the those who use it abusively are the abominations. The tool is not the problem, just the people who misuse it.

    I think it is also true that psychiatry lives in a largely subjective world, and psychiatrists have deluded themselves (somewhat ironically) into thinking subjectivity is more important that objectivity. That may be true for conditions where subjectivity is core to the issue anyway (such as for low self esteem), but not where physical problems are paramount ... they should basically just keep their long noses out of these conditions!
    Last edited: Sep 9, 2017
    RogerBlack, Londinium and Orla like this.

See more popular forum discussions.

Share This Page