Wessely quoted in BBC Gulf War article

[cigana]

Hi,

Here's an article on Gulf War Syndrome that appeared on the BBC main page today:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12195884

Wessely continues to make no connection whatsoever to personal suffering, with quotes like

"Is there a problem? Yes there is. Is it Gulf War Syndrome or isn't it? I think that's a statistical and technical question that's of minor interest."

and

"Even if you gave me 10m [for research], I wouldn't know what to do with it."...

Cig

 

[boomer3]

I don't know anything about British government. But it seems to me that statements like that should be ringing bells with this man's bosses. The people he is accountable to should be feeling very uncomfortable. They should take action fast to remove this man from his position asap. Don't even waste a minute complaining to Wesselly. He is not capable for service to the public. He's a flawed human being.

 

[Marco]

"Even if you gave me 10m [for research], I wouldn't know what to do with it."...


At last. A true statement.

 

[SilverbladeTE]

Boomer
he is doing EXACTLY what they want: lying, obfuscation, thus preventing disability and insurance payments
See Fear Uncertianty Doubt, and how the tobacco companies et al used that garbage to bamboozle the public

it's old old hat this, our government's been doing it for nearly a century!
just keep lying out their asses, until the folk die off so they can't get compensation.

Gulf War Syndrome
ME/CFS
Asbestos
Coal miners
Nuclear veterans
veterans they tested chemical weapons on
Aerotoxic syndrome
Sheepdip poisoning
Camelford
Soldiers with PTSD
etc etc

And where do you keep finding WESSELY'S name involved?
in such cases...
And hopefully the Camelford case, sinc eit came ot court, will get that git jailed! Never mind suing him, he needs to rot in jail for the vast amount of suffering he's caused, the lives lost that could have been saved

he's pure damn evil, hubristic inhumanity and corruption.
To quote one of the best lines ever:
"Ah, arrogance and stupidity in one package! How efficient of you!"

Wessely couldn't find his ass with both hands and a frikkin map, never mind a disease!

 

[boomer3]

Come the Spring, when the weather is better in Europe and North America, I hope there are demonstrations in front of the main Government buildings and residences of Prime Ministers and Presidents. I honestly do believe it will eventually have to get down to that because no one hears your cries on these forums. Even a couple of people with good signs on a consistent basis raises awareness of the dissatisfaction. If it is not this spring then it will be another spring and the sooner the better. Writing articles for the media and media web pages that embarrass the Governments are good too. I think embarrassing the governments on media pages that allow comments will be more effective than writing letters to your prime Minister. Visible and consistent.

 

[Mark]

You're spot on boomer3.

Wessely was in charge of 'scientific' investigations into Gulf War 'Syndrome' - properly known in the US as Gulf War Illness.

His work can be summarised by the approach he seemed to adopt from the outset: he didn't think the cause of the 'Syndrome' would ever be found. Latest update from the investigation...

"I don't think we're ever going to be able to take it any further now," says Professor Simon Wessely.

"Even if you gave me 10m [for research], I wouldn't know what to do with it.

"I think the only thing worth spending money on is trying to help those who are ill."

Why is this man continually put in charge of investigating questions to which he doesn't believe an answer will ever be found?

Is it not obvious that any truth there may be in anything he says is the result of his own self-fulfilling prophecies?


"I don't think we'll ever find the cause of Gulf War Syndrome."

"I will argue that ME is simply a belief, the belief that one has an illness called ME."

"I think we'd better not study the long-term effects on the victims of the Camelford Water Poisoning because it would only stress those victims out and any neurological damage we found could then be attributed to that stress."

"I don't think we'll confirm the association of XMRV with ME/CFS...whoops, look, well what do you know...we just looked and it isn't there - told you so!"


If his counsel of despair is so serious that he doesn't believe answers will ever be found to the problems he's supposed to be studying, doesn't believe in looking for the causes of things, doesn't believe in studying the effects of events, and has no ideas about what to do with research money, then why is he put in charge of important research budgets? Is it because he is incredibly cheap?...

Wessely's career record looks like it could serve rather well as an index of British scientific cover-ups around the turn of the 21st century.

And meanwhile, what of two of the main populations on whom his life's work has been spent - those with ME/CFS and GWI/GWS?

He doesn't believe the explanation for either will ever be found (conceivably because he knows where it's hidden), but instead thinks the money should be spent on helping us all - with CBT, presumably. So have his lifetime's efforts resulted in a breakthrough in support for the UK ME/CFS population, or for GWI/GWS patients? Nope, it sounds rather like they're in the same boat as us...

"A lot of veterans, because they haven't been able to find treatment, have decided to stop looking because they think nobody cares any more...Some of them are getting support from their GPs or their Primary Care Trusts but certainly some veterans we talk to are not getting any support unless they can pay for it privately. " (Sue Freeth, director of welfare at the Royal British Legion)

I guess that's not Wessely's responsibility, to be fair...he's more of a research guy...actually not really a research guy so much these days either...these days he's just a jobbing director - currently of the King's Centre for Military Health Research, and of course he's an adviser to the Ministry of Defence...he tends to take more of an advisory, consultative role...and he does a lot of work with the press...he won an award for that last year, to great popular acclaim...it must be quite arduous stuff, constantly sound-biting and quote-spitting in between secret meetings with MOD officials...

It's an incredibly impressive CV so far, especially considering what he has achieved scientifically and what his research has revealed.

Who can guess what lies ahead?

 

[SilverbladeTE]

Wessely is also an officer of UNUMProvident, one of the most evil bunch of SOBs ever
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/03_51/b3863104_mz020.htm

check their history, check what judges said about them, check how government threatened ot tear the corproation apart and then the corproate vermin said "Oh mea culpa,we have changed! do not spank our asses! we are good boys now!"...oh really?

you know they part funded the 2003 UK *LABOUR* party conference, hm? That they work directly with the Deperatment of Work & pensions (welfare) and are behind ATOS, the pondslime who've been putting many of us off welfare?
One of many reasons I stopped voting for those gits and hey the other lot are in bed with them as well, so "Heads I win tails you lose" :/

Mark
Wessely's been as revealing as his ass crack in a midnight coalmine!
actually, IMHO, he's a a real life "Hannibal Lector", worst evil isn't stupid and venal stuff like folk think, cannibals, jeesh, get real *rolls eyes*
No, it's the cold blooded button pushers, the "percentage loss versus personal profit makers", the "you can't make an omelette without breaking eggs!" type of scumbag, because they are MUCH harder to pin down, to recognize for the heinous results of their acts
It is easy to understand and fear and revile the jackboot, the gas chamber or the gulag....it's much harder to accept the megadeaths caused by "profit margins", bean counters, hype-tastic media and cowardly politicians

great line in a computer game, fictional setting but awesomely true...though if taken for more mundane, RL things
"Moral relativity has killed more bloody folk than dragons, vampires and plague combined!"
the character was reffering to how cop outs, sell outs, working with evil scumbags for momentary and/or monetary gain, by your own side/leaders/nation etc ends up causing more damn mayhem than the "enemy" does!

 

[alex3619]

Does anyone else think Wessely sounds more and more like a sociopath every day? Or perhaps something more like narcissistic personality disorder....

Hi Sickofcfs, this question has been raised before, I don't recall where but I think it was on an earlier PR thread. I also don't recall who wrote it. Its certainly and interesting question though. Bye, Alex

 

[Esther12]

Other than 8, I can see myself slipping in to a diagnosis for being a sociopath. Perhaps unsurprisingly, I'm not ashamed.

With so many of these diagnoses though, their often so vague, relative, or dependant upon the symantic interpretation of a particular word, that I'm not sure how sensible it is to use them to diagnose others. Whatever the opposite of being a sociopath is, I've could probably fulfil most of that criteria too.

re: "It's an incredibly impressive CV so far, especially considering what he has achieved scientifically and what his research has revealed.":

I think he does believe that one of his wonderful contributions is to instil a greater realism and awareness of the limits of science and medicine in our approach to understanding diseases and helping patients.

I think he badly underestimates the unpredictable progress that can be made by science, and the genuine and legitimate desires patients have for an honest pursuit of an understanding of the causes of their conditions.

 

[Angela Kennedy]

I think we should avoid trying to diagnose other people with 'mental' disorders, especially considering how unstable and problematic both the DSM and perhaps most beliefs in psychiatry about mental illness are, and how such diagnosis is being applied inappropriately to this community.

 

[SOC]

With so many of these diagnoses though, their often so vague, relative, or dependant upon the symantic interpretation of a particular word, that I'm not sure how sensible it is to use them to diagnose others. Whatever the opposite of being a sociopath is, I've could probably fulfil most of that criteria too.

re: "It's an incredibly impressive CV so far, especially considering what he has achieved scientifically and what his research has revealed.":

I think he does believe that one of his wonderful contributions is to instil a greater realism and awareness of the limits of science and medicine in our approach to understanding diseases and helping patients.

I think he badly underestimates the unpredictable progress that can be made by science, and the genuine and legitimate desires patients have for an honest pursuit of an understanding of the causes of their conditions.

Agreed, Esther12. I expressed my concern very poorly. I wasn't trying to diagnose Wessely -- I was using shortspeak to try to describe his personality traits that concern me. Using their questionable model to describe behavior is no more productive when used by me than it is by them, so I'm sorry I went down that path.

What I was trying to get across was my concern that we are dealing with someone who is not capable of understanding our situation, as opposed to someone who simply doesn't understand. The difference being that someone who doesn't understand can be shown, or talked to reasonably, while a person who is incapable of empathy and unable to let go of their sense of self-importance cannot be dealt with in any reasonable way.

I still don't feel I've made my point clearly... :sad:

I guess I'm disagreeing (or wondering if I should be disagreeing) that he is drawing logical but erroneous conclusions. Is it that he "badly underestimates the unpredictable progress that can be made by science", which is just bad judgement, or is it that he is not able to grasp that things outside his self-focussed self-created world exist?

It makes a difference in how we deal with him, I think, if he is unable, as opposed to unwilling to hear what we are saying....

This concerns me, given the amount of influence he has in the perception and treatment of our illness. Maybe I just need to ignore him and hope he goes away... [feeble grin]

 

[Esther12]

I still don't feel I've made my point clearly... :sad:

It is difficult to be clear about complicated stuff (or even simple stuff... I've just clocked the number of typos I made in the post you quoted!), and I'm sure we all understand that.

I think I understand what you're saying, and I agree that Wessely's work reads as if he's spent very little time thinking about how he would behave and what he would desire if he were in the same position as his patients. (Or if he does so, he does not seem to view that viewpoint as one deserving of any particular respect).

I think it's best to presume everyone is able to think honestly and clearly, both out of a moral commitment to mutual respect, and because this approach tends to lead to more interesting conversations. There does come a point when one's able to abandon this presumption though!

As a final crude and pragmatic point... Wessely is a respected professor. CFS patients, as a whole, are not a respected group. If CFS patients start casually talking as if Wessely is insane, it's only going to make others more dismissive of us. (I may have a commitment to mutual respect, many of those in positions of authority expect rather more deference).

 

[SOC]

It is difficult to be clear about complicated stuff (or even simple stuff... I've just clocked the number of typos I made in the post you quoted!), and I'm sure we all understand that.

I think I understand what you're saying, and I agree that Wessely's work reads as if he's spent very little time thinking about how he would behave and what he would desire if he were in the same position as his patients. (Or if he does so, he does not seem to view that viewpoint as one deserving of any particular respect).

I think it's best to presume everyone is able to think honestly and clearly, both out of a moral commitment to mutual respect, and because this approach tends to lead to more interesting conversations. There does come a point when one's able to abandon this presumption though!

As a final crude and pragmatic point... Wessely is a respected professor. CFS patients, as a whole, are not a respected group. If CFS patients start casually talking as if Wessely is insane, it's only going to make others more dismissive of us. (I may have a commitment to mutual respect, many of those in positions of authority expect rather more deference).

I don't know what we could do if we did come to a point where we need to abandon the presumption, so I suppose we go on as we have been....

I think we will have gained something if we can communicate with Wessely from postitions of mutual respect.

Your crude and pragmatic point is absolutely accurate. My concern, while I feel it is legitimate, did not need to be verbalized in a public forum. It has a potential for harm that I don't think is balanced by my relatively small desire to have a better understanding of what we're dealing with in Wessely. Thanks for the elbow in the ribs -- I'll remove the post.

 

[Esther12]

Thanks for the elbow in the ribs -- I'll remove the post.

I certainly didn't mean to stick my elbow in! (Trust me, if I'd meant to you'd know about it).

I wouldn't remove the post if I were you, or spend a moment regreting it... I often post stuff that others then make me think twice about. It's one of the reasons forums are useful. Ta.

 

[boomer3]

Here is an update on Dr. Luckett's blog.

http://cfidsresearch.blogspot.com/

"In one of my previous posts, I mentioned about some findings on CFS that were suppressed - I directly challenge any UK bureaucrat who has access to any of these to post them on WIKILEAKS. "

 

[me_is_realist]

Well put, that man is a sociopath and he should not be allowed to work in this area: just perfect for all those who wish to keep on beating people down who have this type of illness, to employ someone who is cold like Slimon Weasely....

 

[cigana]

Simon Wessely has taken advantage of the UK government's decision to "quantify" research excellence with the citation index. The more papers you write and the more you are cited, the better you are at science, apparently. This drives the quantity up and the quality down.

Simon Wessely can play this game - he invents a simple (and flawed) theory and goes about applying it to different conditions ad infinitum. His papers are easy to write, as little proof is needed in order to state a theory. No wonder then that he has been able to publish 550 (one paper every ten days - you tell me if that's quality). Soon other psychiatrists realise they can do the same, and they play the game too - helping each other out by endlessly citing each other's research. They climb up the academic strata, becoming professors and employing junior researchers in this bogus field. Thus the positive feedback loop is established and fraudulent science "appears" as a credible subject.

Science will prevail? Science can prevail, but "science" is no longer what is being practised in our research institutions.

More here: http://www.dcscience.net/?p=182