Wessely congratulates himself again

[NK17]

letters@independent.co.uk

letters to the editor can be sent here; they must have your full address and phone no.

Very Orwellian, don't you think so?

 

[eafw]

The journalist, Jeremy Laurance, who put out this propaganda for Wessely is now complaining that he is being "attacked" on twitter by "the ME lobby". All because people dared offer comment and criticism. Would be funny if it wasn't so awful.

 

[Roy S]

The journalist, Jeremy Laurance, who put out this propaganda for Wessely is now complaining that he is being "attacked" on twitter by "the ME lobby". All because people dared offer comment and criticism. Would be funny if it wasn't so awful.

"30 tweets so far from ME lobby attacking my profile of @WesselyS in today's @Independent - tiny example of what he has endured for decades"
　
https://twitter.com/jeremylaurance

I'm still wondering if the Wessely School has formal classes in how to do this sort of journalism.
　
　

 

[MeSci]

"30 tweets so far from ME lobby attacking my profile of @WesselyS in today's @Independent - tiny example of what he has endured for decades"
　
https://twitter.com/jeremylaurance

I'm still wondering if the Wessely School has formal classes in how to do this sort of journalism.
　
　

I'm not particularly au fait with Twitter but I had a look at some tweets on his page about the article and from a quick look they were disagreeing quite politely rather than 'attacking'. Wonder why he feels the need to use such terms.

 

[Min]

I'm not particularly au fait with Twitter but I had a look at some tweets on his page about the article and from a quick look they were disagreeing quite politely rather than 'attacking'. Wonder why he feels the need to use such terms.

These are the sort of polite criticisms that Wessely gleefully misrepresents as 'death threats and 'harassment''. Is there another illness where doctors paid to help are permitted to demonise an entire patient group?

 

[Bob]

These are all the Tweets that I can find sent to Jeremy Laurance. They all look very respectful to me:
https://twitter.com/search?f=realtime&q=@JeremyLaurance&src=typd

 

[Sidereal]

"30 tweets so far from ME lobby attacking my profile of @WesselyS in today's @Independent - tiny example of what he has endured for decades"
　
https://twitter.com/jeremylaurance

I'm still wondering if the Wessely School has formal classes in how to do this sort of journalism.
　
　

There is a person claiming Wessely diagnosed her and was pivotal in her "recovery" yet when you look at her twitter feed, she is currently in an ME relapse/crash. This is my main problem with psychiatry: brainwashing patients since time immemorial to consider themselves recovered in spite of ongoing significant, life-altering symptoms.

 

[biophile]

https://twitter.com/search?f=realtime&q=@JeremyLaurance&src=typd

Those tweets, at least the ones I saw, were no indication of any vicious "attacking" from the "ME lobby", just people politely questioning the article. Anyway, I did a Google search* for [Jeremy Laurance is a lying liar] for self-amusement and this interestingly popped up as the 3rd result, a previous skirmish with Ben Goldacre over calls for accuracy of reporting:

* A casual 30-second Google search will probably now be framed as excessive or obsessive stalking efforts!

Jeremy Laurance gets angry about scrutiny for journalists’ claims

http://www.badscience.net/2010/06/jeremy-laurance-is-an-angry-man/

June 8th, 2010 by Ben Goldacre

You might be amused by this piece from the Independent’s health reporter Jeremy Laurance today. It’s about what a bad man I am for pointing out when science and health journalists get things wrong. Alongside the lengthy ad hominem – a matter of taste for you – there are a number of mistakes and, more than that, a worrying resistance to the idea that anyone should dare to engage in legitimate criticism. He also explains that health journalists simply can’t be expected to check facts. This worries me. I’ve dashed off some thoughts below, and offered the Independent a piece about the dangers of misleading science and health journalism, recurring problems, how it can be easily improved, etc. I’ve not heard back yet. ...

 

[Bob]

I notice that the Independent is running a Christmas fundraising campaign for homeless veterans in the UK. This article seems like a bit of a kick on the teeth for veterans.

 

[Roy S]

Ladies and gentlemen, it now seems appropriate that in the spigot of the season I should reprise the following mellifluous words reminiscent of the heartwarming classic A Christmas Cudgel.
　
ME/CFS Researchers Face Threats from Militant Islamic Extremist Terrorists
　
http://niceguidelines.blogspot.com/2011/08/mecfs-researchers-face-threats-from.html

 

[worldbackwards]

Jeremy Laurance‏@JeremyLaurance
30 tweets so far from ME lobby attacking my profile of @WesselyS in today's @Independent - tiny example of what he has endured for decades

Criticism? Diddums.

 

[Simon]

I do have a lot of sympathy for Simon Wessely's point that mental health gets a very rough deal from the NHS. But this in the article grabbed my attention.

He could have been a historian or a journalist, he says, but having chosen medicine, there was never any doubt that he would end up doing psychiatry. It had the most interesting arguments.

“Tumour biologists can get excited about a new classification of cytokines but no one else is interested. The issues we debate are issues on which everyone has a view. When does sadness become depression? When does shyness become social phobia? When does a bookish kid, as I was, become Asperger’s? You have to be dull if you get bored by these.”

I don't know about depression and social phobia, but I can't help feeling that ME/CFS would have been better served by more focus on boring details like cytokines and less focus on 'interesting arguments'. And I'm delighted that we are finally getting some robust, large-scale research from scientists committed to those uninteresting details. Bring on the tedious science.

 

[eafw]

Ben Goldacre

Sadly, Goldacre is one of Wessley's little gang. A member of the RCPsychs, and a gleeful propagator of slander against ME patients.

https://twitter.com/bengoldacre/status/105685203598581760

 

[Esther12]

I do have a lot of sympathy for Simon Wessely's point that mental health gets a very rough deal from the NHS.

I'm not sure how much of that is down to psychiatrists/psychologists wasting money on worthless interventions though.

Maybe NHS commissioners really want to help those with MH problems, but have looked into the claims about cost-effectiveness, and decided that they're dubious?

(Prob OT.)

 

[eafw]

I do have a lot of sympathy for Simon Wessely's point that mental health gets a very rough deal from the NHS.

Mental health gets a terrible deal. But if Wessley were genuinely concerned for people with mental health conditions there is plently that he could tackle.

The situation where there is a desperate shortage of beds for people in crisis, the horrible state of inpatient wards, the closure of local services, the farce that is IAPT, the associated farce of inappropriate CBT, failure to keep up with 21st century best practice, massive waiting lists, terrible community support, the condescending attitude of practitioners like himself who infest the mental health profession ... and on and on.

People who are pressing for reform, the real on the ground activists and the handful of frontline staff who can be bothered, know all this and see the real problems. He sits far away doing interviews, handing out soundbites about "stigma" and "discrimination" and in reality helping no-one but himself and his cronies. IOW, typical establishment politician.

 

[user9876]

I'm not sure how much of that is down to psychiatrists/psychologists wasting money on worthless interventions though.



(Prob OT.)

worthless interventions like cbt for psychosis where the evidence doesn't support the treatment but it is still being pushed by some including NICE. There also seem to have been quite a few trials where as perhaps the money would have been better spent trying to understand the mechanisms of the disease.

I tend to feel mental health needs someone with vision to sort it out and Wessely so clearly isn't that person. I don't like his number plate analogy I find it some what dangerous. We need to understand how and why illness (mental or physical) happens. Instead we have trials where the experimental variables are too difficult to control and where measurement systems (questionnaries for psychiatry) are not up to the job or the way stats are presented.

 

[Sasha]

Bring on the tedious science.

Strapline for a new campaign, @Simon!

 

[MeSci]

Strapline for a new campaign, @Simon!

Bring on the tedious science.

Acronym BOTTS!

 

[Sasha]

Acronym BOTTS!

It's got it all!

 

[jimells]

Mental health gets a terrible deal. But if Wessley were genuinely concerned for people with mental health conditions there is plently that he could tackle.

Well, the article mentioned that Sir Weasel's new digs were swanky. That helps patients, doesn't it??