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

37
Those studies, however, have been stringently and repeatedly criticised in the medical literature as being
methodologically flawed.
The only issue for the Wessely School seems to be how to achieve the implementation of CBT/GET for the
whole range of “medically unexplained fatigue” – into which the Wessely School have incorrectly subsumed
ME ‐‐ throughout the nation and beyond, including the United States and New Zealand.
It is a matter of record that when serious errors and misrepresentations in Wessely’s published articles have
been pointed out to him and to Editors (which, when challenged, even Wessely himself cannot rationally
condone), he blames his peer‐reviewers.
One instance of this occurred in 1997 in relation to his article in the Quarterly Journal of Medicine (The
prognosis of chronic fatigue and chronic fatigue syndrome: a systematic review. Joyce J, Hotopf M, Wessely
S. Q J Med 1997:90:223‐233), the many flaws of which were exposed by research methodologist Dr Terry
Hedrick in an analysis that was subsequently published (Q J Med 1997:90:723‐725). To quote Hedrick: “Not
only did the article fail to summarize the psychiatric literature accurately, it omitted discussion of the many avenues
now being explored on the organic underpinnings of (ME)CFS”. Following Hedrick’s exposure to the Editor,
Wessely blamed his peer‐reviewers for allowing his mistakes to go unnoticed (personal communication).
This is not an isolated example of Wessely blaming his peer‐reviewers. There have been others, for example,
when UK medical statistician Professor Martin Bland, then at St George’s Hospital Medical School, London,
pointed out significant statistical errors in a paper by Wessely and Trudie Chalder, saying that Wessely’s
findings were “clearly impossible”, Wessely absolved himself from any blame, but Bland was robust:
“Potentially incorrect conclusions, based on faulty analysis, should not be allowed to remain in the literature to be cited
uncritically by others” (Fatigue and psychological distress. BMJ: 19 th February 2000:320:515‐516). Wessely was
compelled to acknowledge on published record that his figures were incorrect: “We have been attacked by
gremlins. We find it hard to believe that the usually infallible statistical reviewers at the BMJ could have overlooked
this and wonder, totally ungallantly, if we can transfer the blame to the production side”.
Published criticism of the Wessely School’s studies on “CFS/ME” is readily accessible for all to read,
particularly for:
• the use of a heterogeneous patient population (studies using mixed populations are not useful
unless researchers disaggregate their findings)
• selective manipulation of others’ work, claiming it supports their own findings when such is not
the case (for example, in the 1996 Joint Royal Colleges Report CR54, Wessely et al mention a paper
by Bombardier and Buchwald [Arch Intern Med 1995:155:2105‐2110] and convey that it supports
their own stance, whereas the paper actually states: “The fact that the same prognostic indicators were
not valid for the group with CFS challenges the assumption that previous outcome research on chronic
fatigue is generalisable to patients with chronic fatigue syndrome”; Wessely et al also mention a paper by
Sandman [Biol Psych 1993:33:618‐623] in apparent support of their own view that the results of
neuropsychological testing have been “inconsistent”, but the paper itself concludes: “the performance
of the CFIDS patients was sevenfold worse than either the control or depressed group. These results indicate
that the memory deficit in CFIDS was more severe than assumed by CDC criteria. A pattern emerged of
brain behaviour relationships supporting neurological compromise in CFS”
• their focus on the single symptom of “fatigue” whilst ignoring other significant signs and
symptoms associated with the cardiovascular, respiratory, neurological, endocrine and
immunological systems
• generating conclusions before generating the data to support such conclusions, for example, in his
paper on the status of vitamin B in CFS patients (JRSM 1999:92:183‐185), Wessely found a