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

406
physical illness and is only an ‘aberrant belief’…The well‐intentioned but wholly misplaced attempt to dialogue with
and influence these corporate‐backed psychiatrists has not only failed to secure progress, it has led to the extremely
dangerous situation now at hand…I would solemnly caution the M.E. community to beware of people attempting to
persuade us not to confront…corporate‐backed psychiatrists…These people are not open to reason, they are the enemy
of good science and the enemy of M.E. sufferers…The time has come to sadly disassociate with MEA, AfME and other
appeasers – they are part of the problem, not the solution…The one thing we have on our side is that Wesselyites do not
is science. It is time to expose bad science and vested interest” (http://wp.me/p7FYk‐3a ).
As one severely affected ME sufferer wrote: “When they publish the PACE ‘results’ there will be widespread
suffering on a scale hitherto unknown” (letter to Heather Walker at AfME, 8 th June 2007). The correspondent
continued: “We’ve had enough of the damage the IoP and Barts and their supporters have wreaked locally via GPs,
and the endless continuous stress we are subjected to by their influence on the DWP – never mind the research
environment, which they have managed to devastate over the years…None of this has happened mysteriously.
Individuals are responsible, and they tend to have names”.
Disturbingly, perhaps as a result of the Wessely School myth, the on‐going disdain and contempt in which
extremely sick ME/CFS sufferers continue to be held is reflected by contributors to “Advances in Psychiatric
Treatment” 2010:16:1:doi:10.1192/apt.16.1.1. Discussing the forthcoming revision and harmonisation of the
two major classifications ICD and DSM, the Editor, Joe Bouch, states:
“Sartorius gives a behind‐the‐scenes view of the revision process. There are many vested interests: not just
clinicians, but governments, NGOs, lawyers, researchers, public health practitioners, Big Pharma and
patient groups. Vast sums are at stake – everything from welfare benefits and compensation claims to research
budgets…Like Sartorius, Thornicroft singles out chronic fatigue syndrome, ‘bitterly contested in terms of its
status as a physical, psychiatric or psychosomatic condition’ and viewed by healthcare staff as a ‘less
deserving’ category”.
Referring to ICD‐10, Sartorius (to whose 1990 book “Psychological Disorders in General Medical Settings”
Wessely contributed the chapter “Chronic Fatigue and Myalgia Syndromes”: see Section 1 above) himself
states: “Some of the categories that one would expect to find in a chapter devoted to mental disorders have been placed
elsewhere, mainly because of pressures exerted by those who did not want to be labelled by any particular ‘psychiatric’
diagnosis. Thus, for example, chronic fatigue syndrome, which was listed together with neurasthenia for a long time, is
now in the chapter containing infectious diseases which are supposed to be causing it”. This is remarkable for three
reasons, first because ICD‐10 G93.3 is contained in Chapter 6 under Disorders of the Brain (not under
Infectious Diseases); secondly because ME (for which CFS is a synonym) has never been classified in the
ICD as neurasthenia and thirdly, Norman Sartorius is President of the Association for the Improvement of
Mental Health Programmes and holds professorial appointments at the Universities of London, Prague and
Zagreb and at several other universities in the USA and China. He was a member of the WHO’s Topic
Advisory Group for ICD–11 and a consultant to the American Psychiatric Research Institute, which supports
the work on the DSM–V. He has also served as Director of the Division of Mental Health of the WHO and he
is a past President of the World Psychiatric Association and of the Association of European Psychiatrists, so
one could expect him to be accurate.
Without the correct application of the scientific process, there can be no advancement of knowledge. There
should be open debate and discussion, not suppression or dismissal of evidence that does not support a
particular theory.
The FINE Trial results do not support the Wessely School’s model, but contrary to the most basic principal
of science, the Wessely School remain wedded to a theory that is not supported even by their own evidence.
Notwithstanding the FINE Trial results, it is widely expected that the PACE Trial results will support the
Wessely School’s model of “CFS/ME” not least because, according to Professor Peter White, the aim of the