Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:35, 19 September 2007

Archive: Talk:Simon Wessely/Archive 1

Biography Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Archived

The last significant edit to this talk page was on 1 July 2006. As it was 168k, I have archived it to Talk:Simon Wessely/Archive 1. Proto::► 10:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

list of publications

This is probably not justified as a subpage, as the home p. will do as well. DGG 22:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Book review

In a book review in the Lancet (20 Jan 07) Wessely decries the neglect of liaison psychiatry and the psychological care for the medically ill. Quite eloquent and possibly relevant: he views the proximity of the Maudsley to King's College Hospital (and the road that seperates them) as metaphorical for the gap between physical medicine and psychiatry. JFW | T@lk 20:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

The Lancet likes SW. Here is an interview ("lunch with the lancet") on doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(07)60802-2. JFW | T@lk 16:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

When doctors become terrorists

This editorial in the New England Journal of Medicine discusses recent involvement by junior doctors in UK terrorist activity. JFW | T@lk 10:23, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Hair-raising

I was somewhat shocked to read in the Gibson Report that Simon Wessely seems to have discontinued much of his work on CFS/ME as a result of harrassment. Perhaps this ought to be represented in the article? JFW | T@lk 12:50, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

It says in the report that he gave up his research "possibly due to the harrassment...", so it is not definite. However I did hear (on an internet newsgroup, so you would need to confirm) that someone phoned an undertaker and told them that Simon Wessely's wife had died, and the undertaker arrived at the Wessely house. If you search for "simon wessely undertaker" on google groups (without the quotes) you'll see the stories. Most people would seriously reconsider their work if they were under this kind of harrassment (especially considering that he is working for the benefit of the people who are doing it to him). --Sciencewatcher 21:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

This is inflammatory, unsubtantiated urban myth by the look of it- and 'working for the benefit of the people doing it to him' is also inflammatory. ScienceWatcher knows that people have critiqued the work of Professor Wessely as NOT being in their interests or for their benefit: a legitimate position to hold. The 'harassment' claims are extremely unsafe- they have not at all been substantiated, and appear based on hearsay and innuendo. To make these claims in an encyclopaedia, especially when unsubstantiated, is likely to discredit Misplaced Pages.

Angela Kennedy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.107.136.221 (talk) 23:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I was somewhat shocked to read that whilst on the one hand, JFW demands reliable sources of information on the Ean Proctor case , on the other, he suggests that the notion that " seems to have discontinued much of his work on CFS/ME as a result of harassment" might be represented in the Wessely article. I am also concerned that Sciencewatcher should repeat what he has "read on an internet group" even with the caveat "so you would need to confirm". Would JFW care to account for the inconsistency in his application of the Wiki "code of practice" concerning reliablity of sources and to provide us with a reliable source? The largely unreferenced and unofficial "Gibson Report" cannot be considered to be a reliable source since the Report, itself, gave no references for the source of its information/implication. I suggest that JFW contacts Dr Ian Gibson at GIBSONI@parliament.uk or his researcher at VEROS@parliament.uk and asks for the source of this claim to be verified. If JFW is not prepared to do this, I should be more than happy to take up this issue with Dr Gibson, myself. The appropriateness of including this reference within the "Gibson Report" to "harassment" and its alleged impact on the continuing work of Professor Wessely, was challenged by the ME community following the Report's publication in November 2006. Thus far, Dr Gibson and his panel have not responded. Although the Gibson Report has no status within Parliament or government (being an unofficial and non commissioned document, produced by an ad hoc committee, convened by a self appointed Chair and with no lines of accountability), nevertheless, its constituency of interest - the ME patient community, wish to ensure that any references (or implications) made within this document are properly sourced and can be confidently repeated. Furthermore, if JFW could also provide a date by which Professor Wessely is known to have given up his research into "CFS", this would be of use in order that we might compare the specific fields of research with which Professor Wessely has been associated since his "retirement" from CFS related research with the areas of research he involved himself in before his "retirement".

It has been pointed out on the CFS Talk pages that there were a number of factual errors within the Gibson Report. These were raised with the panel not only by various members of the ME patient community but also by the national ME organisations; evidence of complaints raised has been provided by me on the CFS Talk pages. These errors and omissions remain uncorrected in the document, for although some members of the panel were apparently willing to consider making corrections and revisions, other members had already walked away from the project and no changes can now be made. The document's paucity of references, omission of Terms of Reference, omission of a complete list of Witnesses and of Submissions has also been challenged and remains unaddressed by the Report's authors. This has presented the ME community with the significant problem of how best to make use of a document which is essentially not fit for purpose. I have written on the CFS Talk pages that I question the basis on which this Report is being cited as a reliable reference source and I stand by that opinion. I note that JFW did not respond at the time. So I ask again, on what basis is the unofficial and uncorrected and largely unreferenced Gibson Report being cited as a reliable source? MEagenda 08:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Ean Proctor

Someone from the 88.108 range has now twice inserted material on a specific case of a child that was sectioned. The language is biased, and the sources are not cited in a fashion we expect here. Using terms like "imprisonment", even in quotation marks, is an abject violation of WP:NPOV. I don't think the child's mother or propaganda king Martin Walker are reliable sources when we chronicle this event. I dispute that a specific case should be mentioned here. Please provide neutral reliable sources from which we can judge the notability of that incident.

With regards to Gulf War Syndrome, "his position was left in tatters" is editorialising. Perhaps those people with reduced brain cells had reduced brain cells before they went to fight, and developed their symptoms because of this neuropenia rather than the cells being reduced due to a cause in Gulf. Again, one study does not suddenly shift the landscape, and despite it there will still be many people who are closer to Wessely on this.

This article has previously been blanked by Jimbo and locked for WP:BLP, WP:NPOV and related failures. I will not hesitate to do this again unless we can have a reasonable discussion here about these new edits from 88.108. JFW | T@lk 16:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Jfdwolff that the sources did not seem impressive and the added material (which seemed in conflict with the BLP notice above on this page) also not suitable for an encyclopaedia (which is not obliged to include every fact about the subject even if it can be properly cited). -- roundhouse0 16:13, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Un-academic bias

That's ridiculous. I have written about the case also and seen the documents signed by Wessely. My friend who is a notable writer has also discussed the case with Wessely himself. This is sheer bias and I request that the article reflect this important error in Wessely's career. I am too tired to make any changes now but I intend to include a citation to the original court documents in due course.

Simon 18:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)alpinist

Ok- I've worked a little on the citations. Dr. Vance Spence has read my account of the proctor case in my book "Charcot's Bad Idea" and as he knows Barbara Proctor very well I'm sure he would be the first to say I'd not used sources correctly. I contrasted Wessely's approach in that chapter with the scientific approach of Byron Hyde MD- ie actually doing tests. Richard Webster discussed the Proctor case with Wessely so I know something of what Wessely had to say but I have not cited this as it is non-verifiable and private. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alpinist (talk • contribs) 18:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh also- JFW I don't really think you should be a doctor given your obvious accusation that the mother was guilty of munchausen by proxy. This is the klind of bigoted and ill informed pseudo-medicine that needs to be laughed into obscurity. I suggest you go read "Why Freud was Wrong" or even "The Secret of Bryn Estyn" before making a fool of yourself again. With reference to gulf war you have also obviously not looked at the work by Prof. Hooper, a close friend of a very helpful friend of mine- a gentleman by the name of Byron Hyde. Simonalpinist —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 18:57, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Simon, I don't care whether you know this person or that person knows this person. What I want is an objective source stating that the Proctor case harmed Wessely's standing. So far, all I can see now is lots of poorly cited material, largely from people who would criticise Wessely for everything.

The same goes for the Radiology study. That is just one of many studies in CFS, and you have not provided evidence for the claim that this study has completely undermined Wessely's approach to CFS.

I take "JFW I don't really think you should be a doctor" and "before making a fool of yourself again" as personal attacks. I am not commenting on the Proctor case, only on its impact on Wessely's standing.

I suggest you read WP:COI and WP:COATRACK, and stop editing this page. You are on a vendetta. Also, watch out for WP:3RR.

Further attempts to add your defamatory material to this page will meet with a request from myself for protection of this page. JFW | T@lk 19:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

JFW- it has harmed Wessely's standing further within the ME community ie that group of patients he claims to have "helped". Your dismissal of one study is also very poor science given the weight of other evidence on gulf war syndrome- I note you make no reference to hooper's work. Perhaps you should consider that the reason Wessely is so criticised is that he is so desperately wrong. I think the personal attack is well justified as you are acting in such a bigoted way and claiming neutrality as your modus operandi. This is the foulest form of "science". Go read Chomsky. Also you do indeed semantically insinuate that Ean's parent's were guilty of abuse by declining her statement "Ean's Story" as a reliable record. I don't think Barbara Proctor would be very happy with you. Also the entire point behind the proctor case is the way it displays the milieu that Wessely and colleagues inhabit. A milieu which is simply not acceptable by the majority of the public. Taking children away from parent's because of what hyde would call "a failure of science" is severely damaging to Wessely's reputation in the public mind. Please don't quote "positive signs" of hysteria gould et al laid that one to rest, common in most severely brain damaged patients. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alpinist (talk • contribs)

Oh dear me, has the "ME community" found another reason to heap abuse on a scientist for doing his job? I have asked for objective evidence, not propaganda.

Hooper is not a doctor. He is not qualified to treat a medical illness. I see no point in referring to his work.

Personal attacks are never justified. That's the point. Go read the policy. You've just done it again ("bigoted", "insinuate"). You are still suggesting that I'm choosing sides in the Proctor case. I've been careful not to. All I'm saying is that it cannot presently be included for policy reasons. Shame I need to reiterate this point again.

I won't quote "positive signs of hysteria" if that bothers you. JFW | T@lk 20:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I know that I should not be protecting the page. Shame you see that as an excuse for reverting to your version without any attempt at arriving at a consensus version here. I have asked for an uninvolved admin to assess the merits of protection. JFW | T@lk 20:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

JFW, please note that Wessely is not a doctor either, and is therefore not qualified to treat ME/CFS. As for being a scientist: his theories are not supported by any evidence, in fact they have been refuted by evidence, yet he maintains them. So if he can be called a scientist at all, he is not a very good one. His reputation with the IACFS/ME, the international organization of ME/CFS scientists, is, to say it kindly, rather poor. It's not just the patients who criticize him. Further, I have personally corresponded with people of his staff and my distinct impression is that they simply do not want to know that ME/CFS is a neurological disease.

I find the present, protected text extremely pov and misleading. Guido den Broeder 23:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Guido, but you are wrong on that one: Wessely does have an MD. It says so on his IoP weppage: . I do, however find the present text misleading as well. Wessely as the friend and helper of the ME patient...come on, that is just fodder for controversy. In face of reality, it's better to leave that part blank then.

Personally, I am sure the guy was acting "optima fide" all along (and still is) and did not intend to wreak havoc upon ME/CFS patients. Unfortunately, as so often in history, that didn't change the outcome.JayEffage 09:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jay, having the title is not quite the same as practicing the profession, IMHO. For instance: I have a license to teach economics, but I'm not actually a teacher. As for his motivation, I seem to remember that his ME/CFS work was financed by re-insurance companies. Those companies have only one goal, which I need not explain. Regards, Guido den Broeder 12:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

JFW seems to be on a massive power trip here. I hope he is enjoying himself and feels and feels to use an americanism "real good".

Simonalpinist —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 15:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

It is requested that an edit be made to the semi-protected article at Simon Wessely. (edit · history · last · links · protection log) This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y". The edit may be made by any autoconfirmed user. Remember to change the |answered=no parameter to "yes" when the request has been accepted, rejected or on hold awaiting user input. This is so that inactive or completed requests don't needlessly fill up the edit requests category. You may also wish to use the {{ESp}} template in the response. To request that a page be protected or unprotected, make a protection request.

I would ask along with the rest of the ME/CFS community that JFW has his administrator's rights suspended due to his abuse of power and the democratic ethos on which[REDACTED] is based. It is ridiculous that a person whose friend has actually INTERVIEWED Simon Wessely is not allowed to place FACTS about Wessely on the page.

You are really not furthering your own cause here. I consider myself part of the ME community. And I think the picture that this page is portraying is tantamount to naked cynisism.

I can however understand JFW's zero tolerance policy. You can't make edits on the basis that you know somebody who has told you something. That is not objective, and Misplaced Pages can't allow that.

I guess JFW would be much more likely have his admin status revoked if he allowed that to happen. He is behaving correctly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JayEffage (talk • contribs) 17:15, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

1) I am party to an interview with Wessely 2) I have written a book that has a chapter on the proctor case and Wessely's involvement 3) In doing so I looked at a variety of sources all of which were quoted in the edit.

So JFW is acting undemocratically. I've also received e-mail that agrees with me. JFW is a sockpuppet and a coward not to name himself- simonoverton

• Unassessed biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Misplaced Pages semi-protected edit requests