MAGICAL MEDICINE: HOW TO MAKE AN ILLNESS ... - Invest in ME

22
Common threads running through the Wessely School’s documents are their refusal to heed publicly‐
expressed concern about what is described as their flawed methodology, and their ignoring of the copious
published evidence that disproves their insistence that ME/CFS is a behavioural disorder.
In a recent article, Wessely states: “there is also a second and more disturbing explanation for the alacrity and
uncritical nature with which (organic) explanations are endorsed on often the flimsiest of evidence. Psychiatry, its
patients and its practitioners, continue to be stigmatised like no other branch of medicine...If one reads the angry
responses to any article that mentions chronic fatigue syndrome and psychiatry in the same breath, it is
clear that the drive to find an (organic) biomarker for chronic fatigue syndrome is driven not so much by a
dispassionate thirst for knowledge but more by an overwhelming desire to get rid of the psychiatrists…
indeed, the search for infective causes and triggers for psychiatric disorders has never ceased.ʺ
(http://www.jameslindlibrary.org/trial_records/20th_Century/1920s/kopeloff/kopeloff‐commentary.html).
Inevitably, the desperation of people with ME/CFS to show how erroneous is the Wessely’ School’s
psychosocial model of “CFS/ME” is escalating.
Wessely seems to take patients’ “drive to find a biomarker” quite personally (a “drive” which is shared by
internationally respected doctors and scientists) and appears unable to perceive any explanation other than
ME/CFS patients’ “overwhelming desire to get rid of the psychiatrists”.
Wessely appears to be so blinded by the supposed benefits afforded by a diagnosis of ME/CFS that he
overlooks the simple fact that the patient’s life ‐ in every respect ‐ is devastated by the illness. The suffering
and disruption are such that many patients could not care less about what the solution might be as long as
they can improve or recover. To imply that patients would reject help because it happened to come from a
psychiatrist is ludicrous.
Patients with ME/CFS are not opposed to psychiatry or psychiatrists. Patients are opposed to the ‘Wessely
School’ because the theories they have espoused for over two decades do not help them and do not accord
with the biomedical science that underpins ME/CFS.
It seems that no matter how much evidence is presented, and no matter how many times the WHO
repudiates their misinformation, Wessely and other members of the Wessely School refuse to accept it and
they continue to insist that ME, which they include as part of “CFS/ME”, is a mental illness.
It is the Wessely School ethos that underpins the MRC PACE Trial.
As Dr Monica Greco, Senior Lecturer in the Department of Sociology, Goldsmith’s College, University of
London, suggests: “..are there ways in which the privilege accorded to aetiology may actually hinder the delivery of
better care in many situations?…..the immediate focus on…treatments often constitutes a ‘knee‐jerk’ reaction dictated
by factors that have little to do with the best interest of the patient. Indeed, physical evidence – or lack thereof, as
supposedly ‘proved’ by negative test results – is often used to better dismiss patients and their concerns
rather than vice‐versa” (Co‐Cure ACT 12 th September 2009).
That this occurs in ME/CFS is beyond dispute, so the question requiring an answer is why is it occurring?
It is a matter of record that Wessely School psychiatrists have close links to powerful medical and
permanent health insurance companies such as UNUMProvident, which has been described as an “outlaw
company” by California Insurance Commissioner John Garamendi – see below. If it can be “proven” that
“CFS/ME” is a mental disorder, then insurance payments to patients could be limited or even denied. Given
the rise in the number of claims for ME/CFS, this is a not insignificant matter from the insurers’ perspective.