Talk:Simon Wessely

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] Please rate the article and, if you wish, leave comments here regarding your assessment or the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- B-Class-1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- B-Class-2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- B-Class-3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- B-Class-4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- B-Class-5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no This article is not currently associated with a task force. To tag it for one or more task forces, please add the task force codes from the template instructions to the template call.

This is a controversial topic, which may be disputed. Please read the talk page and discuss substantial changes there before making them. Please read this message from William Pietri before piling in

Archive: Talk:Simon Wessely/Archive 1

Contents 1 Summary 2 Daily Mail article of December 14, 2007 3 Please move the admin category to the talk page 4 the importance of popularity 5 Early days 6 alpinist is back

[edit] Summary

The value of the Gibson report was discussed at length. It was argued that this report is not a reliable source for this particular article. Information on specific cases of myalgic encephalomyelitis / chronic fatigue syndrome was shared. It was furthermore argued, that Simon Wessely's role in a controversy regarding the classification and treatment of ME/CFS should be clarified in the article. Potentially appropriate sources were mentioned:

• [1] David A, Wessely S, "Chronic fatigue, ME, and ICD 10", Lancet 1993:342:1247- 1248, where the authors claim that the WHO was wrong to classify ME as a neurological disorder under G93.3, post-viral fatigue syndrome.
• [2][[3] Song, S, Jason, LA, "A population based study of CFS experienced in differing patient groups. An effort to replicate Vercoulen et al.'s model of CFS", Journal of Mental Health, 2005, 14, 3, 277-289, where the authors show that the data do not support Vercoulen's model, which is based on Wessely's views:

"In part, due to the lack of a biologic marker, several theorists have proposed psychogenic approaches for understanding CFS (Wessely, Hotopf & Sharpe, 1998). For some, CFS was assumed to be a psychologically-determined problem (Manu, Lane, & Matthews, 1988). These views ultimately affected some physicians who believed that CFS was similar to neurasthenia, and that CFS would eventually have a similar fate once people recognized that most patients with this disease were really suffering from a psychiatric illness. Complicating this situation was the fact that psychiatrists and physicians have also regarded fatigue as one of the least important of presenting symptoms (Lewis & Wessely, 1992). ... These biases ...." Guido den Broeder 10:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Both sources you advance are already part of the CFS article. The role of the subject in the CFS/ME controversy is already well established by the present source. JFW | T@lk 11:47, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I disagree. The historical angle is missing, and for the sake of neutrality, it should be made clear that Wessely's views are not mainstream. Guido den Broeder 13:54, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Not mainstream? That is quite an accusation, given the fact that the guideline National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Clinical guideline 53: CFS/ME. London, 2007. seems to strongly subscribe to the view that you argue is "not mainstream". If an NHS-wide consensus guideline is not mainstream, then what on earth is? JFW | T@lk 17:35, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd hate to burst your bubble, since you'd fall so deep, but no, this is not a consensus document, and England does not rule the waves. Guido den Broeder 18:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Uh, please WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL, thank you. I note your objections to the NICE guideline (and the fact that some patients' organisations are unhappy about it), but you are simply wrong about the "mainstream" bit. Being on one side of a controversy doesn't make a view "non-mainstream". JFW | T@lk 19:13, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Why is he wrong about the mainstream bit? I haven't counted it down yet, but it seems to me that a patient organisation not unhappy with the NICE Guidelines ist the exception, rather than the rule. If you see things differently, let's discuss it.

As for what's mainstream and what's not: The opening paragraph of the entire NICE document states something to the effect of "two sides with strongly held views". I don't know how you manage to get to the conclusion that Wessely's view is the mainstream view nevertheless.

Maybe because the guidelines emphasises CBT & GET? Have you ever flipped through the documented stakeholder responses? There is miles & miles of complaints about the guideline and the overemphasis on CBT and GET. Even the Association of british neurologists complained about that very point. Other psychologists are complaining about it. Also, the one major charity who didn't immediately call for a withdrawal (AFME) complained about it.JayEffage 09:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

You've missed my point. Even if numerically in the minority, Wessely's perspective is still one of the several mainstream opinions (as opposed to some loony with a blog claiming that CFS is caused by alien abduction etc). JFW | T@lk 21:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Support by you does not make it mainstream. Respect WP:NPOV, if you please. Guido den Broeder 19:33, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Neither does opposition by you take it out of the mainstream. NPOV is for articles, not for talkpages.

I don't think you should separate your "summary" above from this discussion with extra headers. The discussion follows directly from your summary, and the summary only covers some of the sources discussed. It is obvious that you are trying to restart the discussion, and I don't think your statements should go unchallenged.

Now, is there anything on the menu that comes from the famous cuisine of consensus? JFW | T@lk 21:16, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm waiting for the challenge. Guido den Broeder 21:29, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if this is the wrong place to ask this qn, but I'm wondering why the Martin J. Walker article "The WWW. Weird World of Wikipedia" was removed from this page. Surely this would be the appropriate place for it, if not the entire thing, then an intro and a link to it? Virginia (sorry, I'll get myself a proper account some time) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.79.21.2 (talk) 17:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

• Because it fails our sourcing policies for biographies. Guy (Help!) 22:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

But this is a discussion page. And Walker discusses the merits of Wikipedia's sourcing policies vis-a-vis this biography. So surely this is right on-topic. Virginia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.79.21.2 (talk) 05:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• Nope. Guy (Help!) 10:45, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

OK - I'm new to Wikipedia, and fine about discussing. Perhaps you could clarify why you simply responded with a "nope", considering (i) I didn't suggest allowing the article to be posted on the actual biography page, but on the discussion page (and it *is* a discussion page, right?) (ii) Walker's article discusses what should go under Simon Wessely's bio, so it is on-topic, even if you disagree with its contents and don't personally support any of its points about changing the bio page (iii) Other comments on this discussion page are likewise discussing what should go on the bio page, but they have not been deleted. Again, I get it if it's an issue about length - so why not just include an intro and then a link to the full article? cheers Virginia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.79.21.2 (talk) 10:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• It's just a rant by someone whose friends have, largely due to their own absolute unreasonableness, been prevented from skewing an article towards supporting their external agenda against someone. Such input generally falls somewhere between unwelcome and very unwelcome, especially in cases of sensitive biographies. It has absolutely no merit as a source for content, and as a debating point it will achieve nothing other than further inflaming a dispute which is quite heated enough already. Guy (Help!) 12:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Wessely's views on ME being mainstream or not, and what exactly these views are, it's worth recognising that his comment in the Gaurdian "Battle fatigue" article was a regret over language used, not a regret over the sentiment expressed. He's more "careful", usually, now about what he says, but the spots haven't really changed. If they had, he'd be turning away CFS research funding and instead nominating Spence, Gow, Kerr et al for much needed pathoetiological research, while he concentrated on the limits of his expertise in mass psychogenic illness/hysteria/PTSD/somatised depression/anxiety etc. His so-called "biological" studies on HPA axis and so on are not specific to ME and quite specific to anxiety disorders and other functional/behavioural/psychiatric/"biopsychiatry" states which are usually reversable through psychological debriefing and exposure therapy, unlike ME. The CDC doesn't seem to agree with him regarding the status of ME anymore. MEspringal (talk) 09:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Daily Mail article of December 14, 2007

Yesterday the Daily Mail had a news story on the Camelford water poisoning scandal of 1988 [4]. The One-Click Group [5] links this to an article by Simon Wessely and Anthony David in the Journal of Psychosomatic Research, Vol 39, No 1. pp.1 9. 1995, "The Legend Of Camelford : Medical Consequences Of A Water Pollution Accident" [6]. The authors claimed that "there was little cause for concern". I don't know whether One-Click's conclusion to an intentional cover-up has any merit, but this seems serious enough as it is, if the Daily Mail sketches the right picture. Any thoughts? Guido den Broeder (talk) 19:37, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

The Daily Mail article does not mention Wessely. Wessely's article from 1995 does not, to my reading, suggest there was little cause for concern - the conclusion reads, in part, "To this day it is impossible to quantify the morbidity, be it primarily psychological or physical, arising from the water contamination incident." I would suggest that One-Click's website is not a suitable source to make unsubstantiated, inflammatory allegations (per WP:BLP). MastCell ^Talk 19:58, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah. I think I see what happened. The article reads: "The committee concluded that acute short-lived intoxication was so unlike the circumstances of long-term renal dialysis that there was little cause for concern." The One-Click group translated this into "Wessely concluded" and concern in general. The members of the committee are not listed, but from the text it seems unlikely that Wessely was a member himself. Guido den Broeder (talk) 20:13, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

The whole tone of Wessely's article is however derisive of any organic basis for symptoms. This is evident in his source selection and of course reading the article in the context of his other work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.108.105.204 (talk) 23:00, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Certainly; the article should be more explicit about Wessely's views on the topic of ME/CFS and the consequences thereof. Guido den Broeder (talk) 12:37, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Guido: if you can find a source that can support your interpretation, fine. But so far all we have heard from many contributors is allegations. In what way has Wessely been "derisive" in a way that is not open to various interpretations. JFW | T@lk 17:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

The article is called "the Legend of Camelford" which does suggest a degree of unreality and Wessely's views on chemical sensitivity are well known. Also Wessely works for UNUM provident. Surely this should be in the wikipedia article??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.108.43.49 (talk) 15:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the question should be, why is there any need for psychological explanations when there is perfectly good toxicological evidence that the disaster occurred? Surely the causality between aluminium sulphate poisoning -- especially when tardily recognised and untreated (if there is a treatment) at the time -- and long term health effects is a no brainer: which part of that exactly is confusing? Why bring in the official state figleaf at all -- unless there's something to cover up? That seems to be Wessely's speciality, after all: is there any condition he hasn't at least initially poured a lakeload of cold water on, reassuring the plebians that we're just getting worked up over everyday "symptoms" (something of a contradiction in terms, not that that's ever bothered the psychological lebensraum).

"Furthermore, the image of evoked potentials as entirely ‘objective’ may be confusing. Like most physiological measures they are influenced by such things as anxiety and hyperventilation [20] as well as being open to deliberate deception." Ah, the old hyperventilation fandango again, scourge of ME sufferers before it was trashed as nonsense there. I don't have access to the full article so I wonder what other delights lurk in his deliberate deception, sorry, "reassurances". The suggestion of "deliberate deception" is surely both beneath contempt and above arrogance.

This character here[7] is citing Wessely's Camelford piece as evidence of "Mass Psychogenic Illness". Are we expected to believe poor ol' Simon has been "misunderstood" again? D'oh! MEspringal (talk) 09:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

This talkpage is not for ranting. Please tell us what changes need to be made, not what your opinion is about this or that. JFW | T@lk 13:46, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Please move the admin category to the talk page

Category:Place of birth missing should be on the talk page, not the article page. Alex Middleton (talk) 17:45, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Done. JFW | T@lk 17:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] the importance of popularity

Surely to be a good doctor one needs to be liked?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.108.113.151 (talk • contribs) disruptive comments unsuitable for WP:TALK removed by JFW | T@lk 12:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, a small group of noisy people opposes Wessely, despite his high-profile clinical research into several enigmatic conditions and significant benefit derived by patients from his research. You made an edit to name them (Spence, Goldstein and Hooper), and you also alleged that the subject "works for" an insurance company, a claim that has been repeatedly debunked on this talkpage.

This is an article about a living person, and therefore specific guidelines are in place to prevent gross distortions without suitable sources from making their way into a widely read public resource. From your use of rhetorical questions I surmise that you are no great fan of the subject of this article, and perhaps you should also read WP:COI, because in many cases "no great fans" originate very unbalanced content.

I am one of the Wikipedia administrators who watches this article closely in view of previous disruption. Please work with me, and take into account my above comments before making any further attempt at editing this page. JFW | T@lk 12:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

So UNUM's annual report was a fake??? associated if you prefer, it is still a conflict of interest. Also I am unable to find any physician apart from one or two north of the border who take his work seriously. "noisy people" is this your attitude when 95% of YOUR patients think the treatments you offer are unhelpful??? It is simply not correct to produce stalinist biographies of people who are so controversial. Threatening and unhelpful comments removed JFW | T@lk 16:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Anyway I'm not about to discuss this with you as I think like various religions you are a wikipedian and thus a cult member ie irrational (like Judaism or Christianity) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.108.113.151 (talk • contribs)

Well, suit yourself. You have managed to get the page as well as this talkpage semiprotected. I asked you to work with me, and your agenda and obvious rudeness got in the way. JFW | T@lk 16:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Early days

• In the early days of recognition of chronic fatigue syndrome (also known as myalgic encephalomyelitis), it was often played down in the media, for example being described as "yuppie flu".

This seems not entirely accurate, since the disease had been recognized with the diagnosis of ME decades before. Guido den Broeder (talk) 18:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] alpinist is back

JFdwolff (or whatever)- very amusing. I don't edit wikipedia, haven't done for ages yet the paranoia goes on. I don't like Wessely, I think INTELLECTUALLY his ideas are a nasty piece of work. I suspect he is the three fatal combinations of 1) Clever 2) Bored 3) Very unhappy in his personal life. His work on Harry Farr and Camelford and more recent papers on fatigue and exercise all demonstrate this "I'm so clever I can make black white and white black" strand in his work. Farr was deviant because he failed to conceal his illness when everyone else did, the punishment at the time was firing squad and retrospective condemnation is pointless ergo Farr deserved to die.

The ultimate failure of wikipedia is that it is not a consensus opinion nor even as Emily Dickinson stated that "truth is manifold" but the product of fanaticism and irrationality under the mask of nobility and reason. Is Wessely a decent person- how should I know- I have never met him! Will his work stand the test of time? Not with an empty waiting room and an increasingly vocal patient body.

By the way since I have not edited wikipedia for ages I doubt I shall look at this- it just amused me to discover a month or so own the line that the paranoia goes on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.108.95.179 (talk) 16:05, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh also- do you have a picture of SW with a little candle lit underneath? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.108.95.179 (talk) 16:07, 25 May 2008 (UTC)