• Welcome to Phoenix Rising!

    Created in 2008, Phoenix Rising is the largest and oldest forum dedicated to furthering the understanding of and finding treatments for complex chronic illnesses such as chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), fibromyalgia (FM), long COVID, postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), mast cell activation syndrome (MCAS), and allied diseases.

    To become a member, simply click the Register button at the top right.

Wessely suspension draft letter is here!!!!!!!!!!

Dx Revision Watch

Suzy Chapman Owner of Dx Revision Watch
Messages
3,061
Location
UK
Muffin, you are confusing criticism with ad hominem.

In my view, Flex's comments were naive.

That is not an "attack" on Flex as a person, but a criticism of his approach.

In a thread elsewhere, Cort has commented that he questions the accuracy of some of the content of Hillary Johnson's articles and opinion pieces and that her robust style of advocacy can make him "squirm".

Is that an "attack" on Hillary or criticism on the part of Cort?
 

julius

Watchoo lookin' at?
Messages
785
Location
Canada
The US is so going to kick Canuck butt in hockey on Sunday. :D

No idea. I'm only half Canuck in that I don't actually watch hockey, or sports in general. That's why I have to post under a pseudonym.:mask::worried:


The statement Suzy was referring to was naive. It's a point of fact really. Any 'tone' is implied by the reader. The word that best fits what she was trying to say is 'naive'.

And I think it's best not to have enemies anywhere. As adults we should be able to have a frank discussion without considering each other enemies.

I would be happy to get advice and input from someone as sharp and knowledgeable as Suzy.
 

justinreilly

Senior Member
Messages
2,498
Location
NYC (& RI)
The Truth is Not Defamatory; Shout the Truth of ME/CFIDS from the Rooftops!

@ MEAgenda-
What was my inaccurate post on another thread? I certainly want to be accurate.

Everyone-
I agree that there are different valid ways of conducting advocacy. Lots of people taking a couple of minutes to send out a quick unresearched note can be very valuable. As can having well cited letters on different topics which we can post on this site for others to use. There is a dearth of the latter, so getting those out would be very valuable.

Malcolm Hooper's Magical Medicine is amazing and is well cited. It could certainly be used as our only source IMO.

We certainly want to be accurate. The truth is on our side and we gain credibility by being accurate. That said, I think there is generally too much caution expressed by organizations like CAA and some advocates that we don't want to libel/ defame. Wessely and his crew are defamers. They make totally unsupported statements like that there is "no pathology" in ME and it's been proven that exercise can't make us worse, etc. in scientific journals. This is outrageous.

On the other hand, someone like me stating that he is a scumbag as i like to do, is not defamatory since it is an opinion (in this case well-founded, IMO). Stating that he intentionally abuses the disabled, as i do, may be viewed as more borderline, but in the end not defamation since there is very good evidence for this position. We cannot see in his head, but the circumstantial evidence speaks for itself (Res Ipsa Loquitor).
Anyway, we would not be sued as this takes resources and he would never recover anything (ME patients don't have deep pockets).

Just tell the truth as you see it; neither hedge nor exaggerate. The truth as I see it is we are being systematically abused by those who have a solemn obligation to help us- medical doctors and our national governments. These truths must be shouted from the rooftops for progress to be made. We will be vindicated in the end; the more and louder we speak the truth, the quicker this day will come for us and the millions of our brothers and sisters who suffer tremendously every day.
 

julius

Watchoo lookin' at?
Messages
785
Location
Canada
You do realize that I was joking about the hockey thing. I don't watch hockey, i was trying to take the discussion into a lighter area.

Yes, my response was my own lame attempt at a joke. I even used smileys...well, ok they weren't smiling. they were hiding from the mob of angry Canadians who hate me for not loving hockey.

One of our favorite Canadian bands, The Tragically Hip has a lyric

"You said you didn't give a f*ck about hockey
And I never saw someone say that before"


Says it all.


I don't disagree with the rest of what you said. But I still think Suzy was correct in her assessment of Flex's strategy. Not to say the whole thing should go in the toilet, just on the one specific comment.
 

jace

Off the fence
Messages
856
Location
England
Suzy meagenda works so hard and brilliantly on our behalf, I'm sure everyone will agree. Exactly because of her tireless and professional work, I am not surprised that she may get impatient with the perceived 'naivity' of (what i believe is) the early stages of this excellent project.

It is true that there is enough fully referenced damning information about Simon Wessley in (my hero xxx) Prof. Hooper's Magical Medicine PDF. The link is halfway down the page

I think we are all on the same side here, just wanting a way to be well, and trying to get over the clods that stand in the way of that. Sometimes I know I need heads ups from others about the direction I'm taking in my own work: flex has done a brilliant job, he was just asking for ideas and (kind) criticisms and collaborations by posting here.

I want to thank both suzy and flex for their different contributions to the (eventual) solution which benefits all of us.

Vive la differance! xx
 

Dx Revision Watch

Suzy Chapman Owner of Dx Revision Watch
Messages
3,061
Location
UK
@ MEAgenda-
What was my inaccurate post on another thread? I certainly want to be accurate.

Justin, I think you have misread what I have written.

I have written:

"At no point have I stated that anyone involved in this thread has libelled Professor Wessely.

What I have done is cautioned against the reiteration of inaccuracies - just as valia has done, just as justinreilly has done in another thread.

Valia has cautioned against reiteration of inaccuracies.
Justinreilly has cautioned against reiteration of inaccuracies.


Suzy
 

Dx Revision Watch

Suzy Chapman Owner of Dx Revision Watch
Messages
3,061
Location
UK
@ Flex


Media

At this URL, you will find a list of the organisations, institutions and media to which the 442 page document has been sent:

http://www.meactionuk.org.uk/email-addresses-for-magical-medicine-distribution.htm

You might want to monitor ME Action UK site for any responses.


Kew Archives

Your letter makes reference to the issue of the lengthy disclosure notice on certain files archived at Kew.

If you go to these three URLs, scroll each page for content and then open all the links under Context on each of the three parent pages, and their child pages, there is information about the nature of some of the material archived:

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/...69707&CATLN=6&Highlight=&FullDetails=True&j=1

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/...98595&CATLN=6&Highlight=&FullDetails=True&j=1

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/...75665&CATLN=7&Highlight=&FullDetails=True&j=1


In this ME agenda posting:

http://meagenda.wordpress.com/2009/...-services-development-unit-national-archives/

or here: http://wp.me/p5foE-2yP

You will find the response from the Public Services Development Unit, National Archives, 22 December 2009 to a Freedom of Information request, submitted by a member of the public in relation to the file in question, who requested that their name and contact details were redacted from the National Archives' response before publication on my site.


Recent government response

Here is the recent government response from the Office of the Prime Minister to a No 10 e-petition which references Professor Peter White and Professor Simon Wessely, NICE, MRC.

http://www.number10.gov.uk/Page22366

or here on ME agenda site: http://wp.me/p5foE-2Ld

Last week (23 February) Annette Brooke, LibDem Mid Dorset and North Poole, spoke in an Adjournment Debate on "Myalgic encephalopathy".

Full Hansard transcript here: http://wp.me/p5foE-2Oz

at Column 276 at 10.35 pm Minister of State for the Department of Health (Gillian Merron) responds with reference to NICE, PACE, CBT/GET, MRC, MRC CFS/ME Expert Panel November 08 Workshop, commissioning of services, XMRV.


Media coverage of ME and CFS issues

Because of public interest in, and media coverage of the Kay Gilderdale trial and because of the coverage of XMRV studies since October, there has been a marked increase in media coverage of ME and CFS much of which has been archived on my site and on these forums. This material will give insight into which publications within the UK might be receptive to your concerns and which may not.


Prof Wessely and the Science Media Centre

I have already mentioned that Professor Simon Wessely is an advisor to the Science Media Centre - but I will give the link again:

http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/pages/about/sap.htm

http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/pages/about/

I hope these links may be of interest to you.

Suzy
 

Dx Revision Watch

Suzy Chapman Owner of Dx Revision Watch
Messages
3,061
Location
UK
Justin wrote:

Anyway, we would not be sued as this takes resources and he would never recover anything (ME patients don't have deep pockets).


Could we acknowledge please that not all ME advocates are patients. Advocates may be parents of children and young people with ME, or relatives or partners of ME patients. I am not a patient.

Responding generally, and not with reference to any specific issue arising out of this thread, it should be noted that Margaret Williams has reported that in 1989, the publishers of Dr Anne Macintyre's book "ME‐PVFS: how to live with it" were compelled to remove a section of the book in response to a threat of injunction.

The Director of the organisation formerly operating as Westcare UK (subsumed by Action for M.E. in 2002) was also reported by Marshall and Williams as having had a similar experience with material intended for publication in a report. [1]

Within the last few months, Professor Wessely has requested removal of material from Co-Cure mailing list. This necessitated its removal from all other sites where this material had been republished, including Cort's forums and also from my own site.

(This issue resulted out of a misunderstanding over the obtaining of permission to publish a private communication from Prof Wessely and did not revolve around content written about him but it does illustrate that Professor Wessely monitors Co-Cure mailing list and other sites and will contact those who circulate or faciliate the circulation of material.)

Prof Wessely also collects examples of internet material for use in his slide presentations at the lectures, meetings and conference presentations he gives to members of the medical profession, professional bodies and academics.

A PowerPoint presentation from 2008 includes a couple of screen shots of Yahoo! Group Home Pages. In a screen shot dating from 2003, the former List owner, displaying a serious lack of judgement, had published a photograph of Prof Wessely and invited members of his Yahoo! Group to participate in a poll. The photograph, text and poll were taken down following complaints:

http://health.dir.groups.yahoo.com/group/MEND-UK/

Wessely PowerPoint

See Slide #75: http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/BIOS/pdf/rcts/Wessely.pdf


What one is prepared to publish in relation to any issue or individual will depend on personal circumstances, location, the availability and strength of supportive documentary evidence and one's own code of conduct when publishing on the internet or by other means and whether one is working under the cloak of anonymity.

Again, speaking generally and without reference to any specific issue arising out of this thread what I have not done is caution against speaking out against evidence of injustice, dishonesty, malpractice, negligence, duty of care etc from whatever quarter we perceive this to be originating, only that due care is taken, and that care is also taken not to leave ourselves wide open to criticism from the medical profession, government agencies and the media that we cannot get our facts right, and I do not think that is an unreasonable expectation and one which you appear to share.

[1] To set the record straight about Ean Proctor from the Isle of Man By Eileen Marshall and Margaret Williams, 20th July 2005 and other Hooper/Williams documents.
 

justinreilly

Senior Member
Messages
2,498
Location
NYC (& RI)
@MEAgenda-
Sorry I misunderstood you. Thank you for advocating for us even though you do not have ME! I wish we had many more like you.

It was good to see that an MP is taking this seriously. Thanks for posting the video.
 

justinreilly

Senior Member
Messages
2,498
Location
NYC (& RI)
Wessley Says Patient Charities are "Behaving Badly" by Warning of Dangers of Exercise

Prof Wessely also collects examples of internet material for use in his slide presentations at the lectures, meetings and conference presentations he gives to members of the medical profession, professional bodies and academics.

A PowerPoint presentation from 2008 includes a couple of screen shots of Yahoo! Group Home Pages. In a screen shot dating from 2003, the former List owner, displaying a serious lack of judgement, had published a photograph of Prof Wessely and invited members of his Yahoo! Group to participate in a poll. The photograph, text and poll were taken down following complaints:

http://health.dir.groups.yahoo.com/group/MEND-UK/

Wessely PowerPoint

See Slide #75: http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/BIO...ts/Wessely.pdf

That powerpoint was interesting. Wessely says patient charities are "Behaving Badly" (his words) by warning of the potential adverse effects of exercise. He implies that the evidence for the effectiveness of his CBT and GET are airtight: "Game, Set, Match" and the results of the patient surveys showing a third of patients having adverse reactions to his GET are totally invalid (because the survey was not randomized). Unbelievable.
 

Dx Revision Watch

Suzy Chapman Owner of Dx Revision Watch
Messages
3,061
Location
UK
Response from Professor Sir Michael Rawlins, Chairman, NICE

Response from Professor Sir Michael Rawlins FMedSci

[Paper letter scanned to image file]


http://www.meactionuk.org.uk/Rawlins-response-to-MM.jpg

NHS
National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence

MidCity Place
71 High Holborn
London
WC1V 6NA

Tel: 0845 003 7780
Fax: 0845 003 7784

Email: nice@nice.org.uk
www.nice.org.uk


Professor Malcolm Hooper
2, Nursery Close
Sunderland SR3 1PA

02 March 2010


Dear Malcolm

Thank you for your letter and for enclosing Magical Medicine: How to Make
Disease Disappear.

You are obviously aware that NICE has, in the recent past, been involved in
defending an action for Judicial Review over the ME/CFS guideline we
published a couple of years ago. Although judge found in favour of the
Institute the legal costs were considerable. I am afraid, therefore, that I am
not prepared to enter into any correspondence on this matter.

I am returning your document.

Yours sincerely

Professor Sir Michael Rawlins FMedSci

Chairman

------------------------
 

maryb

iherb code TAK122
Messages
3,602
Location
UK
No surprises there then, don't think we were expecting anything else. Thank you for posting it Suzy, our champion always on the ball.
 

Dx Revision Watch

Suzy Chapman Owner of Dx Revision Watch
Messages
3,061
Location
UK
@ Flex

I am concerned about the reliability of the source given for this statement in your draft letter:

We feel that all of the above issues have lead to the NICE guidelines offering nothing but two treatments known as GET and CBT. It is even stated by NICE that these treatments are not remotely curative.


This document:

101 Good Reasons : Why it is wrong to provide CBT and GET to ME Patients.


by Greg Crowhurst, 2nd March 2010, includes the following text at point 23:

23.
Professor Malcolm Hooper


(CBT, GET) :

(i) is not remotely curative;

(ii)modest gains may be transient and even illusory;

(iii) these interventions are not the answer to ME/CFS;

(iv)patients have a tendency to relapse; and

(v)evidence from randomised trials bears no guarantee for treatment
success

ref: www.meactionuk.org.uk/Concerns_re_NICE_Draft.pdf ).
For a detailed review of Wessely School indoctrination of State
agencies, and the impact of this on social and welfare policy, see
www.meactionuk.org.uk/Proof_Positive.htm .
Evidence submitted by Professor Malcolm Hooper (NICE 07)
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmselect/cmhealth/503/503we79.htm

-----------------

If you follow up the source www.meactionuk.org.uk/Concerns_re_NICE_Draft.pdf

it is a 19 October 2006 document by Margaret Williams.

The reference source for the statement:

(i) is not remotely curative;

appears to be

Page 28, paragraph 5:

Wessely himself is on record as stating that CBT doesn't work for all: in his Editorial (JAMA 19th September 2001:268:11) he stated that CBT and GET are only "modestly effective" and that "neither is remotely curative"

What you have attributed to NICE, appears to be a quote from a 2001 editorial by Professor Simon Wessely referenced in a 2006 document authored by Margaret Williams as the Nominated Respondent for the 25% ME Group's submission in the NICE Guideline draft consultation process and not a statement made by NICE, themselves.

I hope you won't mind my pointing this out.

Given that these are public archives and the posts are listed on Google and given that not all readers may read this entire thread could I suggest that an edit is included on Post #1 which corrects this misattribution, please?

Suzy