Professor Simon Wessely & The Abused Child?

[Elliot]

Hey guys,

I'm not sure if this has been posted before, apologies if it has and mods feel free to close it!
I've been seeing a few videos and stuff about the young boy (Ean Proctor) from the Isle of Man who was apparently taken against his will from his parents due to his ME and subjected to some rather nasty things like being thrown in a swimming pool whilst paralysed, forced onto a ghost train, etc.
I took it at face value because searching through to verify it whilst feeling bad is quite strenuous! But I've been on a few other forums who have linked this:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1485798/

It seems to paint the story in a much different light, I'm all for advocacy and fighting for the cause, but it seems a fair few places have misrepresented the story? There seems to be a fair amount of information from the text that the parents were abusive/negligible.

I know there's the personal account from Ean about what occured but it seems those opinions were shaped by his parents? But just thought it might be interesting posting this here to see what you guys think of it.
This isn't critical of Ean either way, if he had psychological problems and cfs or just cfs I may add. Both are real and are real to the person, so I sympathise either way.

When the Proctors petitioned
for redress in 1989, they made several
allegations of serious professional
misconduct. A commission
was appointed and a report was published
in 1991. Unfortunately for the
Proctors, it vindicated the long-suffering
health care workers who had
cared for their son and revealed that
the family's allegations were a parody
of the truth.

Apparently Ean was often kept
home from school for illnesses that
were trivial or unduly prolonged.
When CFS developed at age 11, he
was kept home from his new school,
and over 18 months lost 20 kg.
When he was admitted to hospital
for observation, the ward sister said
"he had a transparent look and the
aroma of death. A cold would have
taken him." He was transferred to
the Alder Hey Children's Hospital in
Liverpool, where a neurologist diagnosed
CFS.

 

[V99]

Unfortunately, I have no reason to trust the medical profession when dealing with ME patients, and this provides no evidence to change that. Also it says 'Apprently Ean was often kept home...'

Thanks for pointing it out though, as all these things are important. :Retro smile: Hope I don't come across in a bad way, it's not my intention.

 

[Esther12]

I don't like the idea of trying to build an argument off an individual's case, like Eans, so tend to feel uncomfortable when others place such emphasis upon them. As well as thinking such an approach makes it difficult to develop a strong argument, I'm also uncomfortable with the way in which it opens up the personal lives of others to attack from your opponents.

Equally, I think that an article in a Medical Association's Journal defending medical staff from claims of mistreatment should be viewed in a similar light to an army report clearing the army of claims of mistreatment (I wonder what the IDF's new investigation will find...). The article seemed pretty weak to me, and written on the assumption that the readers would have an instinctive faith in the views of the writer, the commission and in the medical staff involved in Eans' case.

I've got no idea what happened with any of it, but that some of the BSers seemed to see this article as conclusive proof that there is no reason for concern about Eans case was fairly disappointing. Maybe the commission was an excellent and fair-minded piece of work, but I don't feel able to presume this was the case.

 

[V99]

I like the way you put that Esther12.
However, some individual cases are symptomatic of the current situation, and point very clearly toward failures of the system.

 

[kit]

??????? This article seems biased towards the commission that evaluated the case, and displays familiar signs of bias against CFS, for example:

"Those with the syndrome (CFS) like to call it myalgic encephalomyelitiis, a serious viral neurological illness. . .

His parents discharged him because they objected to him being in a psychiatric ward, having passive physiotherapy to prevent contractures, and being fed well. They objected that he was not receiving a "yeast-free diet".

["fed well" is clearly a judgement call here based on your opinion of what is healthy eating]

The pediatrician encouraged Ean's rehabilitation, saying that if there was no progress in 6 months he would call in Manchester University's professor of child psychiatry, David Taylor, who is also a visiting professor at McMaster University."

Oh puleeze. That's encouragement? Ha!

 

[Esther12]

I like the way you put that Esther12.
However, some individual cases are symptomatic of the current situation, and point very clearly toward failures of the system.

Thanks, and you're right. Stephen Lawrence was just one case, but it led to a recognition of widespread and institutionalised failures within the police force.

It's a difficult one... I've typed out a few replies which I'm not happy with. I think I'll leave it for now, and sleep on it.

 

[DysautonomiaXMRV]

Elliot

You have really gone too far in my opinion posting this suggestion to 'debate'. It interests me why you made this thread, especially as I read another quite recently, which was identical, and which was doubting if Professor Simon Wessely was indeed involved in the case.

As you have forgotten to remember, (presumably it slipped your mind), Wessely is quoted (on record) pretending he had no idea and no memory of this case, yet archived medical records and information relating to the Ean Proctor case, prove he was directly involved in this child's abduction.

SEE MY LINKS AT BOTTOM PAGE AS PROOF

Hence the strange, sudden appearence of Pro Wessely mystery forum members decades later on this forum.

I suggest you remove this post straight away, as you are painting Cort's forum as a place to 'debate' if Ean Proctor was abused or not. There is no debate.
It does Phoenix Rising a huge injustice to start threads like this, to make people 'doubt' what is fact. It is also pointless stirring up trouble, because it happened a long time ago, and is only worth debating if using as a reference point, rather than trying to reverse engineer history.

Wessely is on record, in referenced medical literature calling ME CFS patients: neurotic, disgusting, free from blame and a plethora of other highly offensive words. It is pointless to 'debate' Wessely in any other way - other than the negative. Too many people have and continue to suffer from his dangerous rhetoric, and some have died.

Regarding Ean Proctor, you wrote

who was apparently taken against his will

This is a terrible this to type. 'Apparently'? Ean Proctor was sectioned under the mental health act! Why did you type this? Remove it please, before you create a terrible storm of protest about this forum that I guarantee you will cause when people in the UK read what you have typed and put this on facebook.

Facebook has 400 million users.

This is a publically viewed forum, and trying to scupper past historical fact of ME patients being abused is doing Phoenix Rising a huge disservice as an accurate place to come and learn about ME CFS. Is it clever to make this forum look like a place to 'debate' the positive points of child abuse in cases of ME CFS?

I took it at face value

See my above comment.

I know there's the personal account from Ean about what occured but it seems those opinions were shaped by his parents?

Are you serious? A grown man recollecting his abuse story on camera is 'shaped' by his parents? WTH?


Basically, you have started a thread based on one comment that is written on another site and that is

''Unfortunately for the Proctors, it vindicated the long-suffering health care workers who had cared for their son and revealed that the family's allegations were a parody of the truth.''

Not only is this a horrible thing to say, is it also offensive for his parents.

In the UK Sophia Mirza was locked up against her will (as an adult) and subsequently died. Her mother took the GMC to court and lost. Does this mean Sophia Mirza's door was not kicked down, and does this mean she was not held against her will? Does this therefore mean the GMC are correct in finding Psychiatrists not guilty?

I think not.

As I have been personally abused in a psychiatric ward by people who tried to kill me, and even boasted if they killed me there is nothing me or my family could do about it - and these people were ordered to do this through the belief system of Simon Wessely himself, I respectively ask you not to start conjecture on a historical point that many people know far more facts about, than you or I.

If this thread is not removed, I will be very sad. I feel safe on this forum, and do not want to feel physically ill, by reading posts that are supportive of a person well known around the world, to be directly involved in the suffering of millions of persons with ME CFS.

Your motive is entirely yours, but not entirely sensible. People die from ME CFS, and people die because they cannot access medical health care systems, especially in the UK - due to the words of the person you are supporting - which lead to barriers on accessing health care.

I simply cannot tolerate (having been abused by Psychiatrists in the UK) reading someone put forward there is a 'debate' if this child was abused. Really, that is out of order as the case is historical fact, and you have found one comment, that refutes allegations. So what. Do you really think an abuser is going to put there hands up and admit they did it?

Ean Proctors experience is for him to have, not for you, me or anyone else to 'doubt'. Professor Malcolm Hooper and others supports Ean Proctor's case. Ean Proctor was made to lie in his own feaces by nursing staff, and me in urine. Should patients in the NHS not protest? Should we not demand this end? It can only end by silencing 'debate' if events happened or not. If these events didn't happen, how was Ean Proctor's case broadcast on TV?

PLEASE do not 'debate' the accuracy of the testimony of an adult, in a child abuse case. This forum is about ME CFS, literally 'about' ME CFS and not if a child is a liar, or his parents are a liar - as you thread is alluding to, or if Simon Wessely is innocent in any wrong doing towards the suffering of ME patients. Anyone who is aware of the history of UK medico-political meddling knows the answer.

I am personally quite disgusted at reading this. You have no idea what it is like to be abused in hospital as a child. Some of us on Phoenix rising do, and thus do a double-take when we read such things as this. Lynn Gilderdale was even sexually abused in a UK hospital, and later decided to commit suicide due to extreme levels of suffering.

I for one, support the child, always. Children are innocent.

People (Wessely) who calls desperately sick people with ME CFS : Neurotic, Disgusting and Free from blame and guilt - are not.

http://uk.search.yahoo.com/search?e...147_q-3cR5hoYeDObYwztkCXjcCQAAAA@@&fr2=sp-top <-- Download Word Doc on first link

http://www.ahummingbirdsguide.com/wmarwilltstrsaep.htm
http://www.meactionuk.org.uk/wessely.html
http://www.25megroup.org/denigration by design/denigration introduction.htm

 

[Elliot]

Exscuse me.
I am not insinuating that the child was lying. I'm merely trying to give a balanced view of things showing the other side of the story, I read the link and it gathered evidence from unconnected hospitals that dealt with Ean (I think it's Ean? Brain's fuzzy)
I apologise for wanting evidence and rationality within my life, DysautonomiaXMRV. As for linking to ME websites as your evidence..surely a bit more reputable ones without a bias would be better? (edit: and going from Sean's post, the article linked seems to have a bias too!)

I'm really quite flabberghasted.. I only meant to put this on the forums for some reasoned debate; NOT debate if the child was 'lying' as you have insinuated, but that we have not been given the entire story. The article I linked shows a different take on the story and I thought it would be quite enlightening to read something 'from the other side', as it were. I thought the forums were open to discussion? Unless only threads which post half the story attacking someone are allowed.. how bizzare.
I don't see why you want this thread to be closed when I was only enquiring on the opinions of others, I'm sorry for the terrible time you've faced within the realms of psychiatry, but this wasn't a personal attack upon yourself. I've never even talked to you before?

I'm quite honestly speechless at the vitriol from you. Your post is just full to the brim of anger. Can we not have reasonable discussions? :S

Also: You're really reading too much into my words.

who was apparently taken against his will

Did not mean: "I don't believe he was taken against his will"

apparently
adv
(sentence modifier) it appears that; as far as one knows; seemingly

Also to further elaborate, I posted this just to see what the opinions of others/others offering any refutations to the article that I linked such as Esther12's reply which was interesting and didn't use shouting down mixed with anger rhetoric.

 

[Sean]

I generally try not to dismiss accounts & arguments a priori, based simply on who the author is. But in this case it is totally justified. I see the author of this article is one Caroline Richmond. Some of you may be familiar with that name. She has plenty of what the British call 'form'. I would take anything she says with a huge grain of salt, about the size of a mountain. Actually, I assume that anything she says is false, until proven otherwise. She is a hardcore Wesselyite fan & propagandist, beyond any doubt, with the ethics of an alley cat on heat. She basically thinks us ME & CFS patients are contemptible neurotic scum and seems to take great pleasure and succour from provoking outrage in us. (She, of course, claims to be just bravely telling unpopular truths to the rest of us poor deluded fools, full speed ahead and damn the consequences kind of attitude. Yeah, right.)

In my pantheon of villains of the ME/CFS world, she is near the top.

Don't take my word for it. Check her track record. For example her nasty venomous obituary of David Horrobin, published in (wait for it...) the BMJ under then editor Richard Smith, and the storm of controversy it sparked. (I ain't saying Horrobin did not have to wear some serious legit criticism, but the way Richmond - and Smith - handled it was grossly prejudiced, and well beyond the bounds of legitimate robust criticism.)

BMJ Apr 2003; 326: 885;
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/search?fulltext=obituaries+AND+Horrobin&sortspec=date&x=0&y=0
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/obituaries/david-horrobin-730218.html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC164952/?tool=pmcentrez

 

[Elliot]

Thanks Sean, going to have a read of those now

 

[jace]

If you would like to hear Ean talking about his experience, now as a young man, his testimony starts 2'36" in on this video

[video=youtube;cDeu_OlMivU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDeu_OlMivU&feature=player_embedded[/video]

 

[maryb]

Eliot just wanted to say when someone has been hurt so much, they usually are understandable full of anger, things that go deep and to their very soul have long lasting effects. I'm not presuming to speak for Dys but just to say I understand completely where he is coming from, these people (NHS staff) have abused ME sufferers in the name of NHS treatment and got away scot free.
I have only been ignored and neglected by them and still feel very angry. Times that by 100 if I'd have had the treatment as Dys has had and I would be boiling.
I also agree with him the subject is really not debatable, and why do we want to upset sufferers when there is so much more constructive stuff we can debate. I'm not coming back to this one.

 

[Angela Kennedy]

I don't like the idea of trying to build an argument off an individual's case, like Eans, so tend to feel uncomfortable when others place such emphasis upon them. As well as thinking such an approach makes it difficult to develop a strong argument, I'm also uncomfortable with the way in which it opens up the personal lives of others to attack from your opponents.

Equally, I think that an article in a Medical Association's Journal defending medical staff from claims of mistreatment should be viewed in a similar light to an army report clearing the army of claims of mistreatment (I wonder what the IDF's new investigation will find...). The article seemed pretty weak to me, and written on the assumption that the readers would have an instinctive faith in the views of the writer, the commission and in the medical staff involved in Eans' case.

I've got no idea what happened with any of it, but that some of the BSers seemed to see this article as conclusive proof that there is no reason for concern about Eans case was fairly disappointing. Maybe the commission was an excellent and fair-minded piece of work, but I don't feel able to presume this was the case.

Thank you Esther. My concerns also.

 

[xanadu]

Caroline Richmond on ME

Elliott, Journalistic articles published in medical journals are not peer-reviewed. And it's likely that the Proctor article would not have had even the level of editorial scrutiny that you would expect in a real newspaper. But the BSers think that a Canadian trade magazine article by a malicious hack is the real deal because it happens to be indexed on Pubmed.

The fragrant Caroline Richmond on ME:

“(ME) is a new name for an old disease…it’s a British disease, unknown in the new world…The illness behaviour of patients and the diagnostic behaviour of doctors are susceptible to fashion, and they are a part of it…neurasthenia (and) the vapours have lost their organic associations and imply states of personality or mind”. (1)

“There is no evidence to suggest that ME patients are immunocompromised (but) many patients have succeeded in getting disability pensions. Advice should be given to enable them to cope with their symptoms, gradually increase exercise tolerance and return to normality”. (2)

“Many patients arrive in the consulting room with a firm attachment to a dramatic diagnosis made, not by a neurologist or a virologist, but by themselves…Fortunately, this deadlock has now been broken by two recent papers which argue for a more constructive approach” (Here, Richmond promotes Wessely’s paper “Postviral fatigue syndrome: time for a new approach”: BMJ 1988:296:696-698). (3)

“Myalgic encephalomyelitis…sounds really serious and is guaranteed to impress friends and relatives of sufferers….while patients’ groups funded research into possible organic origins of the disease, more and better research was emerging from psychiatric departments (but) patients wanted to be referred to neurologists, who didn’t like seeing them”. (4)

“The battle for better understanding of chronic fatigue syndrome seems almost won. This has been achieved by intelligent strategy from the royal colleges and by high-quality briefings organised by the Royal Society’s programme on the public understanding of science. The colleges say that the best treatments are a programme involving a gradual increase in activity combined with cognitive behavioural therapy…at the press conference, for once, there was little disruption from the ME lobby, which has unpleasantly lobbied the media for years…the lobbyists were disappointed by the emphasis toward psychologic factors and away from viruses”. (5)

(1) Princess Aurora and the wandering womb. Caroline Richmond. BMJ 1989:298:1295-1296

(2) Myalgic encephalomyelitis: a new name for old symptoms. Caroline Richmond. Pulse 14 October 1989:92

(3) Finding a new approach in practice to the postviral fatigue syndrome. Caroline Richmond. Pulse 2 April 1988

(4) What is ME? Caroline Richmond. The Oldie: November 1992:26-27

(5) Mad cows and Englishmen: the aftermath of a BSE scare.

Caroline Richmond. Canadian Medical Association Journal 1997:156:1043-1044

From "Dj vu: Caroline Richmond" at http://www.meactionuk.org.uk/Caroline_Richmond_Deja_vu.htm

 

[Mark]

Thank you everyone.

To Elliot, for making me smile every time I see your avatar, and for being both brave and sensitive enough to explore difficult questions and to seek out the truth. I hope that you will apply the appropriate level of scrutiny to the accounts of authorities - unlike the majority of Bad Scientists, as Esther12 has noted. And I hope you turn out to be a good scientist when you eventually make up for lost time, as I'm sure you will.

To Esther12 for a couple of excellent balanced replies, I'll sign up to your expression of the concerns along with Angela.

To Sean for introducing me to Caroline Richmond, I agree, I too try not to "dismiss accounts & arguments a priori, based simply on who the author is" but she looks like a pretty good case for an exception to the rule.

To DysautonomiaXMRV for continuing to give a voice to the appalling experiences of those who have suffered like yourself; I realise it's upsetting to have to keep returning to the same points time and again but I hope you'll do so without getting frustrated with the individuals asking the questions - people coming fresh to any subject are bound to want to consider it from all angles before they make up their minds so patience is, unfortunately, necessary. Have you read Elliot's 'Hello' thread? If not, that might help get an idea where he's coming from and perhaps why he's interested in this.

To maryb for sensitively explaining DysautonomiaXMRV's anger.

And thanks to Jace for posting the video again, which in my view is as good a way as any to help one make up one's mind: listen respectfully to what Ean says himself, and decide whether you believe him. Since the logic that starts "he's off sick all the time but we can't find anything wrong with him, so maybe..." is so horribly familiar, personally I can believe him all too easily. I can see just how the same logic that encourages doctors to lie to their patients and deny them treatment could lead to seriously ill children being sectioned and removed from their parents.

 

[Elliot]

Thankyou for all the links and such guys, really appreciated; posted this link so I could get a balanced view of things (here in the UK we have the Daily Mail which is the epitome of reactionary! Which has made me want to know all info before I make conclusions)

It seems like Caroline Richmond is really rather biased going by the article you linked xanadu. I'm open to the possibility of ME being psychiatric, if it was, I'd go and get myself help; mental illness is just as real as physical. But, things seem to point towards an organic cause/neurological cause, so completely swiping away any other explanation than a somataform illness by Caroline seems rather ..terrible, really!

The battle for better understanding of chronic fatigue syndrome seems almost won", if only it were so! I believe the ME association surveyed a fair amount of people and came back with quite bad 'reviews' on get/cbt.

Maryb, the intent was not to upset, I assure you. I just wanted to know the full story, especially when a man (simon wessely- even if I do think he's an arse) is being purported by a lot of advocacy groups as being in charge or influencing Ean's predicament. Just wanted to know all the information, that's all, as that's quite a serious allegation!

Also thankyou Mark Stephen Fry always gives me a big grin too! He seems to be the adopted uncle of the united kingdom :Retro tongue: And hopefully I'll get off doing my science soon! Will be doing my A levels this year coming studying environmental sciences and biology Can't wait!

 

[IamME]

As people have said, Richmond is a venomous bigot and Wessely/BMJ/CBT school apologist who can't be trusted.

The SECOND Manx parliament report apparently vindicates the parents, unfortunately can't recall the authorr or link and don't have energy to look for it right now, but really Elliot, you shouldn't trust single biased sources for this sort of thing. Why aren't you googling what Margaret Williams/Hooper have to say about it?

As for the quotes in the first post, LOL, where do they support "abuse" or "negligence"? If keeping a kid off school for illness, even if it's supposeldy not that severe, is "abuse", what is domestic violence or pedophilia called? There's NOTHING in that quote that contradicts a diagnosis of ME. And doesn't Ean's opinion count for anything, or is this another Orkney situation where the social worker idiot with a theory is correct and everyone else wrong? (Aren't abusive parents charged with something?) I can't believe this is still being discussed, at least it's a chanc to get facts out again

 

[joe van]

Well done Elliot for being open minded and not taking a "One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest" approach that all doctors are inherently out to abuse patients. For example, the CCTV footage of the 'drowning' was played in the court case that arose from this incident. It was shown to be simply hydrotherapy, where two (rather attractive!) female nurses kept the boy floating and massaged him in the water, a standard medical technique. The judge immeadietly dismissed this particular claim. But why should facts get in the way of a good doctors-are-evil story?

 

[IamME]

I was just coming back and looked what popped up.

Well done Elliot for being open minded and not taking a "One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest" approach that all doctors are inherently out to abuse patients. For example, the CCTV footage of the 'drowning' was played in the court case that arose from this incident. It was shown to be simply hydrotherapy, where two (rather attractive!) female nurses kept the boy floating and massaged him in the water, a standard medical technique. The judge immeadietly dismissed this particular claim. But why should facts get in the way of a good doctors-are-evil story?

Who are you and why have you suddenly materialised to defend the guilty? How do you know what went on in court? Even if it were true, coerced treatement of an organic disease is abuse, pure and simple. Don't tell me, you don't believe M.E., "such as", exists. Whatever, right, lets look at FACTS. From the summary of Margaret Williams':

There were two reports, so to which of the two reports is Wessely referring? The first report is entitled "Report of the Select Committee of Tynwald on the Petition for Redress of Grievance of Robin and Barbara Proctor" and is dated 19th April 1991; the second is the McManus report dated May 1994.

We possess copies, as well as the official correspondence from the time (including the Child Care Department Case Conference Minutes), and so can quote accurately from these documentsDespite this denial on national television, there is unequivocal documentary proof (which we possess) that it was Wessely himself, in conjunction with paediatric psychiatrist Dr Bryan Lask of Great Ormond Street (to whom Wessely had referred Ean Proctor), who had advised the local authorities to take the action they did in Ean's case.

In a letter dated 10th May 1988 Lask wrote the Ean's GP (Dr Milne): "We would recommend that the appropriate authorities give serious consideration to whether legal action should be taken to enforce the correct treatment for Ean".

To remind him, we include here extracts of what Wessely wrote in support of that legal action.

In a letter dated 3rd June 1988 to the Principal Social Worker on the Isle of Man (Mrs Jean Manson), Wessely wrote: "Ean presented with a history of an ability (sic) to use any muscle group which amounted to a paraplegia, together with elective mutatism (sic). I did not perform a physical examination but was told that there was no evidence of any physical pathologyI was in no doubt that the primary problem was psychiatric (and) that his apparent illness was out of all proportion to the original cause. I feel that Ean's parents are very over involved in his care. I have considerable experience in the subject of 'myalgic encephalomyelitis' and am absolutely certain that it did not apply to Ean. I feel that Ean needs a long period of rehabilitation (which) will involve separation from his parent. For this reason, I support the application made by your department for wardship".

On 10 June 1988 Wessely provided another report on Ean Proctor for Messrs Simcocks & Co, Solicitors for the Child Care Department on the Isle of Man. Although Wessely had never once interviewed or examined the child, he wrote "I did not order any investigations.Ean cannot be suffering from any primary organic illness, be it myalgic encephalomyelitis or any other. Ean has a primary psychological illness causing him to become mute and immobile. Ean requires skilled rehabilitation to regain lost function. I therefore support the efforts being made to ensure Ean receives appropriate treatment". Under his signature, Wessely wrote "Approved under Section 12, Mental Health Act 1983".

In a further medical report dated 5th August 1988 for Messrs Simcocks, Wessely expressed a diametric opinion from that of consultant neurologist Dr Morgan-Hughes (who had confirmed the diagnosis of ME and who had advised Ean's parents that ME patients usually respond poorly to exercise until their muscle strength begins to improve), writing: " A label does not matter so long as the correct treatment is instituted. It may assist the Court to point out that I am the co-author of several scientific papers concerning the topic of "ME".I have considerable experience of both (it) and child and adult psychiatry (and) submit that mutism cannot occur (in ME). I disagree that active rehabilitation should wait until recovery has taken place, and submit that recovery will not occur until such rehabilitation has commenced..it may help the Court to emphasise thatactive management, which takes both a physical and psychological approach, is the most successful treatment available"

I think this was before any of the so-called evidence base of CBT/GET RCTs had been published.

Contrary to what Wessely had asserted in his letter of 3rd June 1988, investigations performed by an ENT specialist in Manchester confirmed that Ean's vocal cords were not closing properly and that he was not exhibiting "elective mutism".

Wessely states: "After he was discharged from hospital, the parents of the boy made a number of serious complaints about his treatment". Again, the facts are not as presented by Wessely, because Ean was not discharged from hospital: the hospital did not want to let the boy go, but they had to comply because his parents had obtained a Court Order allowing them to take their son home.

[...]
Specifically, the 1991 report did not refute the allegations made about Ean's care: it found against the medical profession and in favour of the parents and it recommended that the parents should receive compensation. It also recommended that a further committee be set up to consider child care on the island (this was the McManus report).

Well, how embarrassing for you, "joe van".

At paragraph 2.2, the report states: "At this time Ean could not keep his balance, his legs were getting weak, his speech was much slower, he found it difficult to read and he could not keep his concentration"; paragraph 2.3 states: "By this stage Ean could not walk at all and was in a wheelchair. He could not feed himself because he could not move his arms and his speech had become slower and quieter. He could not stand and was suffering terrible headaches".

Paragraph 3.6 of the first report records the evidence of the Principal Social Worker (Mrs Jean Manson): "We should not have been influenced as much as we were by the medical professionthe medical model is a very great influence, it always has been, and I think this was a mistakewe should have been stronger in opposing that".

Paragraph 3.15 states that on Ean's being taken into care at Nobles Hospital on the Isle of Man (a supposed "place of safety"): "It was agreed that he had been when in fact, paralysed, put into the swimming pool with no floating aids whatsoever. Mrs Proctor said that at this time, Ean could not move a finger and could not speak. Ean sank under the water".

At paragraph 4.7, the report states: "This Committee cannot find that the Case Conference was acting appropriately or in the best interests of Ean in making the decisions it did".

 

[IamME]

Contd...

At paragraph 4.8 the report states: "It seems to be generally agreed amongst those who have made a study of ME that patients should never exceed their physical or mental limitations. Attempting more active exercise or active physiotherapy (which is recommended by some doctors) will only exacerbate the condition".

At paragraph 8.6 the report states: "We have come to the conclusion that a great deal of distress and worry could have been avoided had the Case Conference members not misdirected themselves in coming to the conclusion that the only course of action open to them was to seek an immediate Care Order and have it executed without any prior investigation or conferring with the Proctors. In our opinion, in this they did not correctly interpret their duty under Section 1 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1969. The evidence indicated to us in the Proctor case that the social workers were rather overwhelmed by the medical opinions expressed".

To quote from the conclusion of the 1991 report: " The Humble Petition of Robin and Barbara Proctor sheweth that your petitioners have suffered both financial loss and mental anguish and stress, as a result of firstly, the failure by the medical consultants in the employment of the Department of Health and Social Security to accept a diagnosis of Myalgic Encephalomyelitis (ME), a condition recognised by the medical profession elsewhere, secondly the decision by the Department of Education to take their son Ean from their care without notice and without due consideration for his condition, and thereafter to seek by legal actions to restrict their access to him, and thirdly, when finally he was returned to their care, the decision of the Department of Health and Social Security not to pay for the treatment ordered by the High Court".

That Wessely was implicated in this judgment can be seen from paragraph 2.8 of the 1991 report, which states: "A psychiatrist called Dr Wessely informed the Proctors that 'children do not get ME' and at paragraph 4.4 the report states: "Dr Simon Wessely said 'The question of the existence of a disease called 'ME' is irrelevant to the case of Ean, as he does not have it.Ean has a primary psychological illness causing him to become mute and immobile"

6. The next point to be addressed is Wessely's statement in his Co-Cure post about the swimming pool allegation and his statement that "For security and safety reasons there was a CCTV system installed in the pool.nothing remotely like the incident described by Ms Bagnall took place". This was not the conclusion of either report. The first report made no mention of any CCTV videotapes. If video evidence relating to the swimming pool incident had provided clarification, why was it not mentioned in the first report? The second report (the McManus report) stated: "We saw a video film of (Ean) in the water and it appeared to us to be a pleasant and helpful activity". However, the report continues: "We think that it is probable that there was an episode which caused him to be fearful". This indicates that, contrary to Wessely's implication, there was no CCTV of the actual incident in question. Given that Ean was in fact deliberately placed in the water face down with no floating aids whatsoever, it is doubtful if such "treatment" would have been recorded on videotape.

From:
http://www.meactionuk.org.uk/To_set_the_record_straight_about_Ean_Proctor.htm

And apparently some mention in the original edition of Dr McIntyre's book.
I hope Margaret Williams forgives me quoting at length.

Wasn't going to do all this but couldn't let that trolling influence people.