Some elements of Wessely's talk:
S. Wessely - Death threats, abuse, smear campaigns - Standing up for Science: 29 March
- Thread starter Yogi
- Start date
I think he has a lot of company in the UK scientific community thinking his comfort and career are more important than the science. In discussing open data a lot of UK academics were saying yes but we must have sufficient time first to ensure we can publish everything possible before sharing -- basically to boost their career rather than helping scientific advances by sharing data.
- Messages
- 902
- Likes
- 2,921
I note https://twitter.com/_NathalieWright attended the above event.
Has done pieces on her experiences of ME in the guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/profile/nathalie-wright
Has done pieces on her experiences of ME in the guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/profile/nathalie-wright
our chum @harveythecat
I was hoping someone from our community might have gone................
edit: thanks for attending and asking questions...........and keeping your cool..........(having read your tweets).I think I would have screamed and been dragged out of the building
I was hoping someone from our community might have gone................
edit: thanks for attending and asking questions...........and keeping your cool..........(having read your tweets).I think I would have screamed and been dragged out of the building
Last edited:
There are some interesting tweets from Janet Eastham concerning questions she managed to ask
Sounds like Wessely is defending bad practice and the audience is lapping it up with the facilitator ensuring he doesn't have to answer difficult questions.
His comments on recovery are really quite outrageous in terms of saying we want recovery so we set thresholds to give it.
Sounds like Wessely is defending bad practice and the audience is lapping it up with the facilitator ensuring he doesn't have to answer difficult questions.
His comments on recovery are really quite outrageous in terms of saying we want recovery so we set thresholds to give it.
SW: ''we are in a world of patiënts reported outcomes'', not objective outcomes Wessely doesn't have any problems with that. Mmm interesting. So if patiënts reported positive findings they use it , and if they reported harm, they ignore it because there is no objective proof for these claims in reviews. Look a little bit silly to me.
SW seeks to distinguish between criticism and abuse, and says that criticism is fine. One would have thought the distinction was often so apparent that one would not need to mention, in passing, comments of the Lord Chief Justice.
Perhaps you can help me. Is it criticism or abuse of patients to say, to anyone prepared to listen, that patients' symptoms are perpetuated by false illness beliefs?
I tend to think it depends upon where you are standing.
Perhaps you can help me. Is it criticism or abuse of patients to say, to anyone prepared to listen, that patients' symptoms are perpetuated by false illness beliefs?
I tend to think it depends upon where you are standing.
The Andy Lewis guy seems very keen to defend Wessley and overly critical of the ME community. He describes the Twitter thread (beneath the tweet quoted above) as evidence that the arguments are abusive. I'm relatively new to all this but I couldn't see anything abusive in the Twitter thread. It was highly critical but actually quite moderate considering what can happen on Twitter. Is Andy Lewis known for defending Wessley and being unfairly critical of ME patients? It crossed my mind that someone who is interested in debunking quackery might rather enjoy the idea that there is a large group of people who imagine they are ill. It would appeal to a certain cynical mindset.
If you spend your whole career getting hate mail, that might be a clue that you're doing it wrong...
- Messages
- 866
- Likes
- 3,847
Except they dropped all the objective measures and the subjective measures provided a null result once the data was released after they changed the recovery definition because "they realised no one would have recovered otherwise", and people could be defined as recovered yet still ill enough to enter the trial at the same time.
Laughter from the scientific community worldwide.
Real objective laughter.
Except Wessely is still living in the subjective wherby he can just ignore the rest of the scientific community worldwide because, well, "thats what we do in the world of psychiatry".
Laughter from the scientific community worldwide.
Real objective laughter.
Except Wessely is still living in the subjective wherby he can just ignore the rest of the scientific community worldwide because, well, "thats what we do in the world of psychiatry".
- Messages
- 866
- Likes
- 3,847
Actually Wessely is being very clever here in his usual play with words. He actually says...
And he keeps reminding people that did not play any part in this trial so he can at any time go back to any previous statement he desires if things go wrong for the BPS crowd.
And he keeps reminding people that did not play any part in this trial so he can at any time go back to any previous statement he desires if things go wrong for the BPS crowd.