MAGICAL MEDICINE: HOW TO MAKE AN ILLNESS ... - Invest in ME
MAGICAL MEDICINE: HOW TO MAKE AN ILLNESS ... - Invest in ME
MAGICAL MEDICINE: HOW TO MAKE AN ILLNESS ... - Invest in ME
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
19<br />
biomedical aspects of <strong>ME</strong>/CFS were rejected, many of which were submitted by established researchers with<br />
a sound track record (Breakthrough, <strong>ME</strong>RUK, Autumn 2008:8).<br />
It is a matter of record that Wessely – together with members of the Wessely School – firmly believes that<br />
<strong>ME</strong> does not exist, and it is his <strong>in</strong>tention to ensure that it is eradicated as a nosological entity.<br />
On 15 th April 1992 Wessely spoke at a Pfizer/Invicta symposium held at Belfast Castle (Eradicat<strong>in</strong>g “Myalgic<br />
Encephalomyelitis”), where he said that <strong>ME</strong> sufferers prefer to feel that they have a ‘real’ physical disease –<br />
it is better for their self‐esteem, and that the label <strong>ME</strong> helps legitimise patients’ deal<strong>in</strong>gs with doctors.<br />
Referr<strong>in</strong>g to a programme of graded exercise for <strong>ME</strong> patients, he said there were “a very large number of drop‐<br />
outs from treatment, largely related to the fear these patients had, albeit <strong>in</strong>appropriately, of accept<strong>in</strong>g that<br />
their disorder was ‘all <strong>in</strong> the m<strong>in</strong>d’ ”. Noth<strong>in</strong>g could be clearer: the conference report records that Wessely<br />
stated that <strong>ME</strong> patients’ fear of accept<strong>in</strong>g that their disorder was ‘all <strong>in</strong> the m<strong>in</strong>d’ was ‘<strong>in</strong>appropriate’.<br />
In 1993 Wessely wrote <strong>in</strong> The Lancet: “The <strong>in</strong>clusion (<strong>in</strong> ICD‐10) of benign myalgic encephalomyelitis as a<br />
synonym for postviral fatigue under Diseases of the Nervous System seems to represent an important moral victory for<br />
self‐help groups <strong>in</strong> the UK…Neurasthenia rema<strong>in</strong>s <strong>in</strong> the Mental and Behavioural Disorders chapter under Other<br />
Neurotic Disorders…Neurasthenia would readily suffice for <strong>ME</strong>” (Lancet 1993:342:1247‐1248).<br />
In April 1994 when Wessely delivered the 9 th Eliot Slater Memorial Lecture at the Institute of Psychiatry<br />
(“Microbes, Mental Illness, the Media and <strong>ME</strong>: the Construction of Disease”), he claimed dual classification<br />
<strong>in</strong> the ICD: “<strong>in</strong> a masterstroke of diplomacy it will be listed <strong>in</strong> the new revision of ICD‐10 twice, once under<br />
neurology, and once under psychiatry”, an assertion which the WHO confirmed was <strong>in</strong>correct.<br />
In his lecture, Wessely made his position clear: “I will argue that <strong>ME</strong> is simply a belief, the belief that one<br />
has an illness called <strong>ME</strong>….. .I will argue that this l<strong>in</strong>e here (overhead slide) represents not the l<strong>in</strong>e between<br />
low and high cortisol responses (but) the l<strong>in</strong>e between real and unreal illness”.<br />
Hav<strong>in</strong>g l<strong>in</strong>ked <strong>ME</strong> to neurasthenia earlier <strong>in</strong> his lecture, Wessely then said: “there is another condition with<br />
which <strong>ME</strong> might easily be confused, and it is hysteria”. Referr<strong>in</strong>g to the Royal Free outbreak of <strong>ME</strong> <strong>in</strong> 1955, he<br />
cont<strong>in</strong>ued “Royal Free disease is itself part of the world of myth…..It is a tragedy that the label of <strong>ME</strong> has been<br />
transferred from (the Royal Free outbreak to CFS), and brought with it its burden of hysteria…..Organic diseases lose<br />
their credibility as their psychological causes are recognised”. He also said: “No matter how bad doctors are, sufferers<br />
still need to keep go<strong>in</strong>g – doctors are still the ma<strong>in</strong> passport to acceptance and validation of suffer<strong>in</strong>g, not least because<br />
we control access to support and benefits” (http://www.meactionuk.org.uk/wessely_speech_120594.htm ).<br />
In 1995, Wessely stated: “As an observer of the social scene, I know that <strong>ME</strong> is def<strong>in</strong>ed by the sufferers themselves”<br />
and he described <strong>ME</strong> as “a social belief system” (JCFS 1995:3:2:111‐122).<br />
However, on 6 th August 2002 the WHO confirmed that <strong>ME</strong> will stay <strong>in</strong> the neurological section as a disorder<br />
of the bra<strong>in</strong> and that the WHO has no plans to reclassify it as a psychiatric disorder <strong>in</strong> any forthcom<strong>in</strong>g<br />
revision of the ICD.<br />
Despite the Wessely School’s refusal to accept the WHO classification (which is mandatory <strong>in</strong> the UK) and<br />
their <strong>in</strong>correct advice to Government M<strong>in</strong>isters, as a result of clarification by the WHO, M<strong>in</strong>isters were<br />
forced to correct their own mis<strong>in</strong>formation and on 11 th February 2004 the Health M<strong>in</strong>ister, then Lord<br />
Norman Warner, formally confirmed that the correct classification for the disorder (referred to by the<br />
M<strong>in</strong>ister as “CFS/<strong>ME</strong>”) rema<strong>in</strong>s neurological.<br />
The <strong>ME</strong> Association Newsletter of March 2004 stated: “The issue mattered because the psychiatrists had stifled<br />
access to research funds for any UK researchers want<strong>in</strong>g to study organic causes”.