Talk:Simon Wessely

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)Reply

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

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)Reply

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)Reply

In fact, they're in two different boroughs and two different health authorities too. --PaulWicks 18:36, 23 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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 Wikipedia.

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

I was somewhat shocked to read that whilst on the one hand, JFW demands reliable sources of information on the Ean Proctor case [see next entry], on the other, he suggests that the notion that "[Professor Simon Wessely] 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)Reply

A report authored by members of parliament is somewhat more reliable than an internet newsgroup. Fallacy of two wrongs? I'm looking forward to the results of your communication with Dr Gibson. JFW | T@lk 20:43, 22 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)alpinistReply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

Just in case there should be any confusion, Dr (now Prof) Trudie Chalder is not a doctor, either. Trudie Chalder is a former mental health nurse with a PhD. MEagenda 13:03, 22 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Is this page quoting Trudie Chalder? And a mental health nurse is more qualified to speak professionally on the subject than a biochemist. Does it matter here? JFW | T@lk 20:36, 22 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

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.[1] I have asked for an uninvolved admin to assess the merits of protection.[2] JFW | T@lk 20:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

Sorry Guido, but you are wrong on that one: Wessely does have an MD. It says so on his IoP weppage: [3]. 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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

{{editprotected}} 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 wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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)Reply

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 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.108.70.119 (talk) 20:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Guido: not only is Wessely a psychiatrist, he has also undergone training in general medicine. Can't get more of a doctor than that. What are you basing your statements on? Also, unless you can back up your allegations on reinsurance companies, can you try to avoid making such statements? What is forbidden in article space (WP:NOR, WP:BLP) does not immediately become allowed on talkpages.

JayEffrage: what part of the page consists of cynicism? The present version or the intended one by Alpinist?

Simon/Alpinist: I never enjoy discussions of the sort I've been having with you, although I must say I'm pleased ("enjoying" is a big word) that the page protection has stopped you from adding your content again & again. Having interviewed the subject or written a book about the subject does not absolve you from having to provide balanced content that is not intended to make the subject look bad.

Wikipedia is not a democracy. There is also no policy on real names, and I have no desire to have my phones ringing in the middle of the night or my inbox going into meltdown because some activist with a mailinglist thinks I'm the devil incarnate for daring to defend a serious scientist. Please read any other Wikipedia article about a controversial person, and see how carefully worded the critical paragraphs are. This is an encyclopedia; it does not make judgements. Rather, it aims to describe reality. Using loaded terms like you have been doing (e.g. "imprisonment") violates that very aim. JFW | T@lk 22:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Simon Wessely has, or had, a high-ranking position at PRISMA, and has also been an advisor to UNUM. Wessely claimed that ME exists only because well-meaning doctors have not learnt to deal effectively with suggestible patients (Psychological Medicine 1990:20:35-53). According to prof. Hooper he spoke at a UNUM symposium in 1995 where ME patients were, as a group, accused of insurance fraud. Guido den Broeder 18:45, 20 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Guido, we dealt with this canard many months ago. Your other comments are not really relevant to the discussion (we are talking about the Proctor case), unless you are trying to demonstrate that Wessely is a hypocrite (which you seem to be doing). There is ample evidence to the contrary. Don't believe everything Malcolm Hooper writes. Much of what that chemist has written about Wessely is polemical character assassination.

I don't think the page should be edited further. The litany of "that man is very evil" is getting a bit emetogenic. JFW | T@lk 19:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

So is the litany of "that man is a saint". And since when should a Wikipedia page not be edited further? That is novel policy to me. But if the protection is not removed, then the article should be deleted. I've rarely seen an article as non-neutral as this one. Guido den Broeder 20:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

I don't know exactly what the dispute is, but there doesn't seem to be consensus to make a change to the article, so I will disable the editprotected tag. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

"Don't believe everything Malcolm Hooper writes. Much of what that chemist has written about Wessely is polemical character assassination." This if from JFW, someone who claims to be objective. Hooper, 'that chemist', is a professor of chemistry (now emeritus). So JFW indulges in some character assassination of one of Wessely's most trenchant (academic) critics, painting him as at best an unreliable witness, at worst a liar. How does JFW 'know' this? Has he read all the criticisms of Wessely made by Hooper? Has he followed up the criticisms and the references? As he claims some distance from the political scene of ME/CFS, my guess is either he has not, or there is more to this than meets the eye. JFW's contempt of Malcolm Hooper is significant here. Either way, the last few days, let alone the previous archived discussions, clearly demonstrate JFW and JzG are not neutral on this issue, having specific POV which they are demonstrably pushing (particularly the discrediting of critics of Wessely's beliefs and conduct), and so giving them carte blanche to block others while making their own changes is bad wikipolicy. Angela Kennedy Angela Kennedy 07:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Neither myself nor JzG have blocked anyone. Thankfully I've not had to read every word that Hooper has written against Wessely. The only point of my comment was that Hooper can hardly be regarded as an objective observer. I have not called him a "liar", but I posit that his writings are perhaps not the best sources to be quoted here; I'd rather have a truly impartial journalist who takes a bird's eye view of the battlefield.

It is true that my comments about Hooper's professional background were personal commentary. Indeed, many CFS/ME experts are psychologists (such as Prof Jason). But why has Hooper aligned himself with so many groups that are essentially attacking this "medical establishment"? Whatever the weather, perhaps we should drop this subject and stick to the article. JFW | T@lk 20:36, 22 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

You are wrong about this. He was described to me by one member of the Richardson Research Group as charming, deeply caring, a wonderful man. The reason he has taken the position he has is that along with the members of this MEDICAL research group of which he is a member he feels Sharpe and Wessely's IDEAS to be dangerous and wrong. As a lay reader and an ex-general synod member he is a man of high integrity. He has worked alongside many physicians who find the psychiatric paradigm to be absurd. These include Prof. Terry Daymond, Dr. Julia Newton, Dr. Byron Hyde, Dr. Vance Spence, Dr. Nigel Speight, Dr. John Richardson the list continues...AND these are physicians and scientists of great note.

Simonalpinist —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 18:34, 27 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

As usual the anti-Wessely camp are portraying their bias as neutrality, and neutrality as unacceptable POV-pushing. This has been their tactic from the very beginning. This article is covered by WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOR, WP:COI and various other policies and guidelines. Bottom line: being an activist in the anti-Wessely camp does not, as appears to be asserted above, give you the right to add derogatory content. Quite the opposite. Being an activist means you should not be editing the article at all. We have been here before, we had a decent period of thoughtful input, we absolutely do not need activists hijacking the article. We went through that cycle once before, see http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/wiki/Wikipedia_And_Wesselygate, and the result was a lot of pain. Guy (Help!) 10:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Dear Guy, the above is a Wikipedia:Personal attack, which is completely unacceptable on Wikipedia. You have also edited the protected article, thereby making it even more pov: you incorrectly removed the mention of criticism from the scientific community. This is an abuse of mod power. Please apologize and undo your edits. Guido den Broeder 16:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

JzG's post is not a personal attack; it's a comment on problematic editing behavior - and a comment which appears, from a brief review of the talk page and article history, to be quite well-founded. For examples of actual personal attacks which violate Wikipedia policy, see, well, just about any of User:Alpinist's contributions above or on User talk:Jfdwolff. As to editing the protected page, admins are permitted to do so to address violations of the policy on biographies of living persons. JzG's edits, while bold, were not improper. MastCell ^Talk 18:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

I stand by my statement. JzG did not address User:Alpinist but all activists here present. The edits made added a policy violation. Guido den Broeder 18:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Guido, this page has been a battleground only because of activists who insist on seeing this honest and hard-working scientist smeared and accused of all sorts of wrongdoings. In the absence of these activists, there would have been no edit warring, blanking & locking by Jimbo, and numerous accusations made.

Is there an objective source (e.g. the BBC) that impartially describes the "ME lobby's" objections to Wessely's work? I totally agree with Guy's linking to the Gibson report, which makes it clear that Wessely was harassed by particular elements. JFW | T@lk 19:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

There can only be a battleground if there are two (or more) warring parties. The other party is consistently ignoring and removing all criticism. 'Honest and hard-working scientist.' Come on, what does that matter. The man's theories are false, his treatments unhelpful. Guido den Broeder 20:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

A possible source could be: Eileen Marshall and Margaret Williams, "The Views of Dr Simon Wessely on ME: Scientific Misconduct in the Selection and Presentation of Available Evidence?", CFIDS Chronicle (Spring 1994, pp 14 - 17).

AFAIK there is no rule that says criticism can only be referenced indirectly. Guido den Broeder 20:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

One possible source for criticism from the scientific community (editor of the Lancet): Dr Richard Horton, "Why doctors are failing ME sufferers", Observer Life, 23 March 1997. --Guido den Broeder 20:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

JFW's comment "the Gibson report, which makes it clear that Wessely was harassed by particular elements" is incorrect. The Gibson report only claimed 'possible' harassment, based on Wessely's own claims, and unsubstantiated by evidence. To claim otherwise will bring Wikipedia into disrepute, as well as Professor Wessely himself, ironically. Angela Kennedy

I will ask JFW again (since he has not responded in the "Hair raising" entry) on what basis is the unofficial and uncorrected and largely unreferenced Gibson Report being cited as a reliable source? MEagenda 21:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Since JFW has yet to provide an alternative (and reliable) citation in support of his suggestion that consideration should be given to including a reference to "retirement" and "harassment" in the Wessely entry, it is worth reproducing in its entirety what the unofficial, non commissioned, uncorrected and largely unreferenced "Gibson Report" actually states in relation to "harassment" and Prof Wessely's "retirement".

Report of the GSRME: Page 19, 3.2 Other Evidence We Received

Prof Simon Wessely

"[...] Wessely gave up the research side of his work possibly due to extreme harassment he received from a very small fringe section of the ME community. There is conflicting evidence available regarding Wessely’s true opinions. The Group invited Wesseley [sic] to speak at an Oral Hearing, however he declined the offer and sent his colleagues Dr Trudie Chandler [sic] and Dr Anthony Cleare. The Group were disappointed not to have the opportunity to discuss this important issue with such a key figure. [...]"

As Sciencewatcher and others have pointed out, the Report actually states "...possibly due to extreme harassment..." No references are given in the Report for this statement. Prof Wessely did not attend any of the five Oral Hearings held as part of this unofficial "inquiry"; Profs Chalder and Cleare gave presentations. Page 19, Section 3.2 also states "Prof Wessely did not submit a written piece to the Inquiry" and by this, the GSRME panel presumably mean that Prof Wessely did not submit a Written Submission; but since there is no appendix in the "Gibson Report" which lists Written Submissions it is impossible to determine just what had been received and perused by the panel. The omission from the Report of a complete list of presenters of Oral Evidence at the Oral Hearings and the omission of a list of Written Submissions has been raised with the GSRME by the ME Association and by others, but remains unaddressed. It seems remarkably unprofessional for an "Inquiry" not to have catalogued the material it received and included a list of Submissions at the end of its report, or in an appendix or annex [not to mention the incorrect spelling of the names of Profs Wessely and Chalder].

Section 3.2 refers to a "letter" which was received by the panel from Prof Wessely. Dr Ian Gibson, MP stated at Oral Hearing Five (for which an audio recording exists) that Prof Wessely's letter ran to some twenty odd pages. It is unknown whether the content of this letter in any way informed the panel in the writing up of their Report or whether, since it was sent to the GSRME panel as a "letter" and not as a Written Submission, its content was disregarded for the purposes of evaluating Submissions, for the purpose of this letter has never been clarified by the GSRME and because the GSRME cited no references at all for the section on Prof Wessely. As this letter has not been made public by Prof Wessely or published by the GSRME panel on their website or elsewhere, it cannot be determined whether the letter, itself, contained any references to "retirement" or to "harassment" and that this letter is source of the inference made in the Gibson Report. The "ME community" awaits a clarification from Dr Ian Gibson on these and many other issues.

I shall write to Dr Gibson's office in the next two days and request that he clarify 1] Whether the twenty odd pages of written material received from Prof Wessely were disregarded for the purposes of the inquiry as being ex officio since this material was not submitted under "Written Submissions" or whether the content of this letter was used in order to inform the panel. 2] That a reference(s) for the statement "Wessely gave up the research side of his work possibly due to extreme harassment he received from a very small fringe section of the ME community" is provided. 3] That the date by which the GSRME panel understands Prof Wessely to have "retired" from CFS research is provided. The final question is very pertinent to JFW's original suggestion in "Hair-raising" since a search of PubMed lists the entries below.

One has to question, not only whether JFW is able to provide us with a reliable reference to support the inclusion of a statement concerning "retirement" and "harassment" (other than rely on the Gibson Report inference which is, itself, entirely unreferenced) but whether and to what extent Prof Wessely can be said to have "retired from CFS research" in the first place?

PubMed

12: Rimes KA, Goodman R, Hotopf M, Wessely S, Meltzer H, Chalder T. Incidence, prognosis, and risk factors for fatigue and chronic fatigue syndrome in adolescents: a prospective community study. Pediatrics. 2007 Mar;119(3):e603-9. PMID: 17332180 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

23: Quarmby L, Rimes KA, Deale A, Wessely S, Chalder T. Cognitive-behaviour therapy for chronic fatigue syndrome: comparison of outcomes within and outside the confines of a randomised controlled trial. Behav Res Ther. 2007 Jun;45(6):1085-94. Epub 2006 Oct 30. PMID: 17074300 [PubMed - in process]

32: Jerjes WK, Taylor NF, Peters TJ, Wessely S, Cleare AJ. Urinary cortisol and cortisol metabolite excretion in chronic fatigue syndrome. Psychosom Med. 2006 Jul-Aug;68(4):578-82. PMID: 16868267 [PubMed - in process]

43: Reid S, Chalder T, Cleare A, Hotopf M, Wessely S. Chronic fatigue syndrome. Clin Evid. 2005 Dec;(14):1366-78. Review. No abstract available. PMID: 16620458 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

44: Cho HJ, Skowera A, Cleare A, Wessely S. Chronic fatigue syndrome: an update focusing on phenomenology and pathophysiology. Curr Opin Psychiatry. 2006 Jan;19(1):67-73. Review. PMID: 16612182 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

52: Jerjes WK, Peters TJ, Taylor NF, Wood PJ, Wessely S, Cleare AJ. Diurnal excretion of urinary cortisol, cortisone, and cortisol metabolites in chronic fatigue syndrome. J Psychosom Res. 2006 Feb;60(2):145-53. PMID: 16439267 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

54: Huibers MJ, Wessely S. The act of diagnosis: pros and cons of labelling chronic fatigue syndrome. Psychol Med. 2006 Jul;36(7):895-900. Epub 2006 Jan 10. Review. PMID: 16403245 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

60: Cho HJ, Wessely S. Chronic fatigue syndrome: an overview. Rev Bras Psiquiatr. 2005 Sep;27(3):174-5. Epub 2005 Oct 4. No abstract available. PMID: 16224602 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

71: Jerjes WK, Cleare AJ, Wessely S, Wood PJ, Taylor NF. Diurnal patterns of salivary cortisol and cortisone output in chronic fatigue syndrome. J Affect Disord. 2005 Aug;87(2-3):299-304. PMID: 15922454 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

73: Reid S, Chalder T, Cleare A, Hotopf M, Wessely S. Chronic fatigue syndrome. Clin Evid. 2004 Dec;(12):1578-93. Review. No abstract available. Update in: Clin Evid. 2005 Dec;(14):1366-78. PMID: 15865734 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

74: Cho HJ, Hotopf M, Wessely S. Related Articles, Links The placebo response in the treatment of chronic fatigue syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychosom Med. 2005 Mar-Apr;67(2):301-13. Review. PMID: 15784798 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] MEagenda 09:42, 21 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

• Another good example of Wessely's continued involvement in CFS research are the PACE Trials. Randomisation and database design and management directed by Professor Simon Wessely who oversees the Clinical Trials Unit (CTU) in collaboration with Professor Janet Darbyshire, MRC CTU. PACE Protocol, BMC Neurology. MEagenda 10:35, 28 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Suzy, I wasn't the one who changed the reference. I'll be very interested in the outcome of your discussion with the Gibson team. I think he's jolly brave for continuing in this field. The tone of the personal criticism is truly deafening. JFW | T@lk 20:36, 22 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Jacob, what makes you think he is continuing in this field - the Gibson Group disbanded in May 2007 and Gibson rarely shows up at APPG on ME meetings. Dr Gibson has been reluctant to provide references for other statements made within the Gibson Report when asked to do so, for example the section on Teenagers and children, and I do not necessarily anticipate that he will be any more prepared to be accountable for what was written in Section 3.2. Gibson has stated that the Gibson panel did not want to get involved in "anecdotal evidence" regarding the potential link between vaccinations and ME/CFS - let us hope that Gibson is equally rigorous when it comes to statements made about Prof Wessely's "retirement" from CFS research and the reason(s) behind his apparent retirement. Or perhaps I have misread your comment and you are refering to Wessely's "bravery" in continuing to accept funding for CFS research. The Gibson Report states that "Wessely gave up the research side of his work ..." either Wessely has retired from CFS research or he has not, and presumably Dr Gibson, as former Chair of this now dissolved committee, will be in a position to confirm the veracity of this statement; whether he is prepared to do so is another matter, entirely. MEagenda 08:14, 23 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

You have indeed misread my comment; I was referring to Wessely. You provided evidence that his work on CFS/ME is continuing. I can understand Wessely's reluctance to get involved with the Gibson team. After all, it was a bunch of non-medics (and even non-scientists; Gibson himself is a geneticist by training) trying to decide whether the research on CFS was adequate. While I don't think you can ever please everyone when it comes to CFS, the whole approach is unsatisfactory both from the experts' and from the patients' perspective.

What worries me a lot is the frapper, frapper, toujours smell that the CFS/ME debate has assumed. In many other fields of medicine, major controversies (e.g. electromagnetic fields and leukemogenesis) do not lead to the kind of animosity that we witness in CFS/ME (e.g. Hooper vs Wessely). Perhaps you will say that I'm cynical, but I get the feeling that the whole thing is enormously personality-driven (doctors, patients and activists/advocates, as well as "bystanders" such as peers, employers and insurers). Unless this can be taken out of the equation, we will see more conflict, both here and on Talk:Chronic fatigue syndrome. JFW | T@lk 11:58, 23 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

The 'thing' is not symmetrical. What you fail to see is that patients hold a different kind of stake: they don't care about personality, they just don't want to be victimized. Guido den Broeder 13:05, 23 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Is that any different for the medics? They want to do their job, and would prefer not to be harassed by people who disagree with them, or be victimised in a different way. And what about the activists? Don't tell me that Malcolm Hooper, Martin Walker etc don't make their personalities part of the conflict! Hooper's outraged comments after Wessely's speech at Gresham College, and Martin Walker's reaction to our Wikipedia edit wars, prove my point exactly. If we ever want to get on, we need to drop a large amount of excess baggage in the form of grudges, easily bruised egos etc etc. JFW | T@lk 20:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

We need to be sure of our facts, too, Dr Wolff. You have described the GSRME panel as "a bunch of non medics". You should be aware that two of the GSRME panel had a medical background prior to entering politics or taking up seats in the House of Lords. Lord Turnberg was Professor of Medicine, University of Manchester from 1973-1997, consultant gastroenterologist, Hope Hospital, Salford, Dean of the Faculty of Medicine from 1986-1989, President of the Royal College of Physicians 1992-1997, Chairman of the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges 1994-1998, Chairman of the Specialist Training Authority 1996-1998. He chaired the Board of the Public Health Laboratory Service from 1997-2002, the UK Forum on Genetics and Insurance 1999-2002, Health Quality Service 2000-2004 and the Panel which reviewed the health sciences in London 1998. Vice President of the Academy of Medical Sciences 1998-2004. President of the Medical Protection Society, a Trustee of the Wolfson Foundation, Chairman of the Medical Advisory Board of Nations HealthCare scientific advisor to the Association of Medical Research Charities. A member of the House of Lords Select Committee on Science Technology since 2001. Lord Turnberg co-wrote the preface to the 1996 Royal Colleges Report on ME/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome. Dr Richard Taylor was a hospital consultant for twenty odd years before standing as an Independent MEagenda 21:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for pointing out that I don't know the panel backwards. Well done for finding Prof Turnbull's CV. That means 2 out of 9, surely an overwhelming majority. Has Dr Gibson responded to your request? JFW | T@lk 11:34, 24 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

At the top of this Talk page is an alert stating "Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous." Professor Wessely is a living person and so are members of the ME community, even though for much of the time they may be feeling like stewed death.

I thought the whole ethos of Wikipedia was on providing fact rather than supposition or speculation. Supposition: the Gibson panel was a "bunch of non-medics". Fact: the Gibson panel included two former medics. The ratio of non-medics to medics is immaterial to my picking you up on this - the point being, that you made a supposition without having first checked the facts, which is why I corrected you.

With regard to the issue of "retirement", either Professor Wessely has retired from carrying out CFS research or he has not.

It is evident from a trawl of PubMed, that between 2005 and 2007, in addition to a significant number of papers on GWS and other areas of research which I have not included, that Professor Wessely continued to publish CFS research papers. That, in itself, does not provide unequivocal evidence that Professor Wessely continues to work in the field of CFS research and that he continues to accept funding for CFS related studies, since studies begun some time ago may still be in progress and Professor Wessely and his co-authors may still be waiting for papers of studies completed some time ago to be accepted for publication some time in the future. I cannot say with any certainty at the moment whether Professor Wessely has retired from CFS research, and when that took place and I don't think you can, either.

The only source for the information conveyed by the statement "Wessely gave up the [CFS] research side of his work..." which you have provided us with so far, is from Section 3.2 of the Gibson Report. But the Gibson Report includes no references or sources for this statement. Can it be said, then, to fulfil the requirements for Wiki's "reliable source" policies? The only source for the information conveyed by the statement "...possibly due to extreme harassment he received from a very small fringe section of the ME community" which you have provided so far, is from Section 3.2 of the Gibson Report. But the Gibson Report includes no references or sources for this statement, either. Can this be said, then, to fulfil the requirements for Wiki's "reliable source" policies?

I would consider the "possibly" word, alone, is enough to send shivers down the spine of many a Wiki Admin, or to use a phrase much loved by Dr Gibson, himself, "It's just not good enough." Can any statement prefaced by the word "possibly" be considered anything other than "unsafe"?

So, is the unreferenced statement "Wessely gave up the research side of his work possibly due to extreme harassment he received from a very small fringe section of the ME community." a statement of fact or supposition on the part of the Gibson panel? A statement of fact or speculation on the part of the Gibson panel?

The "inquiry" and the report the Gibson committee published was non commissioned, unofficial and without lines of accountability. Nevertheless, one would expect all eight members of the panel and the panel's chair to be prepared to be accountable for the provenance and accuracy of all statements made within its Report, to be prepared to furnish references and sources and to be confident in their ability to do so. On the other hand, if Dr Gibson is not prepared to provide references and sources to substantiate statements made within this Report, then we must make of this what we will.

When the Gibson Office has responded to my request for a source/reference for the panel's statement that Professor Wessely has retired from CFS research and provided the date on which Professor Wessely's retirement from CFS research took place, I will let you know.

When the Gibson Office has provided a source/reference for the statement "[Professor Wessely's retirement was] possibly due to extreme harassment he received from a very small fringe section of the ME community" I will let you know.

Would this not amount, though, to original research? This information would not appear to be readily available in the public domain from a reliable source, since if it were, then you would no doubt have provided it. All you have done so far is to express the opinion that Professor Wessely is "jolly brave for continuing in this field" whilst ignoring my request to provide a reliable source for the Gibson panel's unsubstantiated and inflammatory allegation of "extreme harassment" by "a very small fringe section of the ME community."

For my own satisfaction, I am also requesting that Dr Gibson provide answers to questions relating to the letter which is referred to in the Report. I would like Dr Gibson to clarify the basis on which this letter was accepted by the panel from Professor Wessely and the purpose to which it was put by the panel, that is, whether the content of this letter was used to inform the panel in their inquiry or whether the content of this letter was disregarded by the panel as not having been submitted on the basis of "Written evidence" or as a "Written Submission". This letter, you will recall, has not been placed in the public domain - so no transparency, there, from the Gibson panel. In the meantime, please remember that parliament has yet to return from the summer recess and that Dr Gibson may not pick up correspondence from his constituency office at weekends, and today is only Monday.

Given that this statement from the Gibson Report is so "unsafe" and given that Dr Wolff, as a seasoned Wiki Admin, should know this, it has occurred to me that Dr Wolff's starting of this "Hair-raising" thread may have been an act of deliberate provocation - like poking a stick at a bear, but then this would be pure speculation, too. MEagenda 21:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Suzy, if a statement of that nature appears in a report written by MPs, then the issue is with Gibson and his Right Honourable friends. Unless you can produce a source that reverses this statement, it stands on its own merit. Members of Parliament do not make statements like that if they cannot back it up. If Gordon Brown today announced a tax cut and subsequently did not backtrack on that, we should presume that he was going to put his money where his mouth was. Obviously my post was not provocation but a legitimate concern that the article would be unbalanced without its inclusion. Please assume good faith rather than second-guessing my motives. JFW | T@lk 19:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Trust me, I'm a politician. MEagenda 21:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

JFW, I've already addressed this issue to some extent on my talk page. There are huge problems with reliability of this document for reasons already delineated by Suzy and myself. I and others are probably now going to have to publicly address the issue of claimed harassment by Simon Wessely and his colleagues, and how these labels are often inappropriately applied to legitimate criticism of claims and actions, and call for Wessely (and Gibson) to substantiate the claims in the Gibson Report. But, there remain enough problems with the Gibson Report to call its reliability into serious question. Saying MPs "do not make statements like that if they cannot back it up" is incorrect- they can and do: the Gibson Report, for example, has key inaccuracies, which just cannot be 'backed up'.Angela Kennedy 23:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Where is the criticism of this document in mainstream reliable sources (e.g. Letter to The Times, Opinion Piece in the Guardian, tough interview by John Humphreys on the Today programme)? I am fully aware of the criticism, and have indeed skimmed the 50-page criticism on the One Click website. I am patiently awaiting a confirmation or retraction from the Gibson report authors. Given the Countess of Mar's sympathy previously extended, would she perhaps be willing to comment on the record? JFW | T@lk 10:13, 26 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Before anyone asks, Dr Des Turner is a research chemist, no a medical Dr. JFW | T@lk 11:36, 24 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Jfdwolff: you're just wasting your time and energy arguing with people like Angela Kennedy. Have a look at her theoneclickgroup.co.uk website and you'll see pretty quickly that it's just a lot of vitriolic personal attacks, rants and pseudoscience, only useful for entertainment purposes. --Sciencewatcher 22:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

• In the early days of recognition of chronic fatigue syndrome (also known as myalgic encephalomyelitis), it was often played down in the media, for example being described as 'yuppie flu' (Newsweek, November 1990).

The early days? The disease was known in ancient Egypt. The diagnosis ME was introduced in the 1950's. Played down? It was not played down in the media at all until psychiatrists started to meddle with it.

• Wessely and his co-workers established that this stereotype was a misnomer, demonstrating an association between low blood pressure and chronic fatigue and providing reliable data on the prevalence of CFS in the community, showing that it has become an important public health issue.

Established? No, it was already known when the term 'yuppie flu' was invented. Association between low blood pressure and fatigue? I doubt that that was new. What of it? Fatigue is not ME/CFS. Reliable prevalence data? There are none (see the NICE guideline and the wild fluctuations in the CDC estimates).

• They developed new measurement tools, established that hyperventilation was not a risk factor for the illness (but that prior depressive illnesses were), found a particular endocrine "signature" for CFS that differed from depression,

What new measurement tools? Why would hyperventilation be a risk factor? Prior depressive illnesses are NOT a risk factor for CFS. What endocrine signature?

• and developed a new rehabilitation strategy for patients. The value of such intervention was later confirmed in a series of randomised controlled trials and follow-up studies. Other studies looked at stigma and CFS, neuropsychological impairment in CFS, and more recently reported cytokine activation in the illness. He has also traced its historical origins.

What new strategy? Confirmed? The evidence shows that it does not work. Cytokine activation? A bit late. He and 1,000 others. Traced its historical origins?? Beard is NOT the historical origin of CFS.

• Wessely's work suggests CFS is generally consequent from some organic trigger, such as a virus, but that the role of psychological, physiological and social factors should also be considered when considering failure of some patients to recover - and that treatments centred around these factors can be effective in many cases. However, his claims in this area are criticised by some other health and academic professionals, and by many patient advocates.

His work suggests? No, the author suggests. Failure of SOME patients to recover? Most patients don't recover, and it's not their failure. Effective in many cases? Name one. SOME other professionals? Try nearly all.

• He set up the first National Health Service (NHS) programme solely devoted to patients with CFS, and continues to see sufferers regularly at King's College Hospital. He has also been awarded a medal by the Royal College of Physicians for his work on CFS. Wessely's summarised his view on CFS in a 2003 review article, co-authored with Baruch Fischhoff and published in the British Medical Journal.[1] He believes that it is a genuine disorder causing distress and suffering to many. Like many related and overlapping conditions there is, as yet, no established biomedical cause, but efforts can and should continue to look for aetiological factors whatever they may be. In the meantime, he believes, the rehabilitative strategies he pioneered are the best way of helping sufferers.

Patients with CFS or with fatigue? What related and overlapping 'conditions'?

Stop fisking please. And sign your talkpage posts. JFW | T@lk 20:36, 22 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

I did sign my post. You put this PA in the middle. Guido den Broeder 12:58, 23 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Given that you added a header, it wasn't clear at all who inserted the above list. But drop the fisking. When the article is unlocked (in a week or so) we'll talk about the wording. JFW | T@lk 20:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

It should reflect that Wessely is known for his theories on CFS and the treatment he advocates, but to be neutral it should also reflect that his theories are inconsistent with scientific evidence, that surveys indicate that his treatment is not helpful, and that it has been harmful in some well-known cases.

The article should clearly say what his theories and treatment protocols are, and how and to what extent these have found support and have spread. It should indicate how he is at odds with the mainstream view on the disease and what his position is in the ME/CFS scientific community, if any. The article should IMHO also give some insight into how he became so influential (why his theories were so welcome). Guido den Broeder 19:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Who says that the theories are "inconsistent" with the evidence? Which objective source can be quoted to this end? The reverse is also true - most CFS/ME patients have no objective "immune dysfunction"; any study that suggests that they do is also "inconsistent with the evidence". What exactly is the "mainstream view" of the disease? The same view as NICE perhaps? And do you have any bona fide explanations from reliable sources (and not the complot theories about insurance companies) for the perceived "popularity" of his views? JFW | T@lk 20:36, 22 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Couldn't that apparent problem "the reverse is also true" be the root of many an evil in the CFS discussion?

Here is a new (review? It says so in the abstract, it is not listed as a review though)stating the CBT and GET are ineffective in many patients and these divergent reactions might be due to a lack of subgroups (PMID 17853290).

Now, the perceived lack of subgroups is at this point in time half-evidence and half-opinion. However, if I'm not mistaken Wessely and his "there is only one functional somatic syndrome" takes the oposite position. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JayEffage (talk • contribs) 12:34, 23 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

@JFW: all prominent biomedical ME/CFS researchers say so, as do many psychiatrists, as well as the WHO and the CDC. The number of scientists among Wessely's followers OTOH is relatively small but they are often in a position of power, e.g. controlling journals - which is perfectly reflected here: moderators that support Wessely and silence the majority. Suhadolnik e.a. clearly show that all ME/CFS patients have immune dysfunction. The mainstream view is that of WHO, CDC and IACFS/ME, definitely not the same as NICE. The popularity of Wessely's views is in protocols by governments, insurance companies and psychiatric institutes, in court decisions, and other non-scientific circles, primarily in England and The Netherlands. Guido den Broeder 12:58, 23 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Please provide full reference for Suhadolnik. What definition of "immune dysfunction" do they use?

Simply referring to "all prominent researchers" will definitely not do. Which researcher (apart from the predictable Malcolm Hooper) has spoken out explicitly against Wessely's approach?

I do not "support Wessely" as such, but I will react strongly against attempts (like the one made by Alpinist) at violating WP:BLP and related guidelines. Is that unreasonable? If someone were to remove all criticism, I'd take the same approach.

You will need to explain (without complot theories, e.g. "controlling journals") the popularity of Wessely's views in the circles you have referred to. Is it perhaps because he is a trained epidemiologist who has actually bothered to set up methodologically sound clinical trials? Is it the power of persuation? We are all aware that the WHOs classification of CFS/ME was the result of lobbying, not of reasonable scientific exchange. I think the CDC does not have a clear stance on this at all. JFW | T@lk 20:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

So everybody except Wessely is predictably biased. Great. We have a cave troll. Guido den Broeder 20:28, 23 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

End of the discussion. We have name-calling. Cheers. JFW | T@lk 11:34, 24 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

In the past couple of days, JFW, you have claimed, “the whole thing is enormously personality-driven (doctors, patients and activists/advocates…”. You have also claimed, [medics] “want to do their job, and would prefer not to be harassed by people who disagree with them, or be victimised in a different way. And what about the activists? Don't tell me that Malcolm Hooper, Martin Walker etc don't make their personalities part of the conflict! Hooper's outraged comments after Wessely's speech at Gresham College, and Martin Walker's reaction to our Wikipedia edit wars, prove my point exactly. If we ever want to get on, we need to drop a large amount of excess baggage in the form of grudges, easily bruised egos etc etc”

This demonstrates a serious problem with your involvement in this page. There is NO substantiated evidence that Simon Wessely has ever suffered ’harassment’ by people in the ME/CFS community. Yet, you are willing to reproduce these unsubstantiated, inflammatory and potentially defamatory claims about this community.

From the above, and other comments you have made, it is clear you have a highly prejudiced opinion of ME/CFS patients’ advocates. Your dislike of Martin Walker might also be influenced by the fact that he took you to task for your insults and inflammatory behaviour towards activists, as well as your lack of knowledge about the problems faced by ME/CFS sufferers and why advocates are legitimately making criticism of Simon Wessely’s claims and conduct. You do have a demonstrable POV, and a tendency to make ad hominem attacks on the characters of people who disagree with you.

Hooper’s reaction to the Gresham College speech and Walker’s reaction to the edit wars do not ‘prove’ anything except you didn’t like them. In the circumstances, I certainly will tell you that Malcolm Hooper, Martin Walker etc don't ‘make their personalities part of the conflict‘ as such. It is a nature of controversial topics that ‘personalities’ (or NAMES) become known. To try and criticise people for becoming known as critics of someone’s actions is a straw man fallacy.

One thing I will tell you, as a knowledgeable member of the ME/CFS patients’ advocate community (there are many of us), is that there has been a tendency for certain psychiatrists or their supporters to label CRITIQUE of their claims about the illness, or their conduct in respect of the illness, as ‘personal attack’ or other florid descriptions. A recent document quotes Simon Wessely alleging a housebound woman, one of his most trenchant critics, (a perfectly reasonable position to hold) is ‘stalking’ him. I do have further examples myself of this tendency. These examples would not be reliable sources on Wikipedia, of course (though they might well be so in the real world if the evidence can be corroborated) and I would have no intention of expecting then to be quoted on Wikipedia. But, it is an ongoing problem, which you apparently want to escalate.

I will also tell you that in recent months there have been many attacks on the characters and motivations of the ME/CFS community, even in the print media. These have all been unsubstantiated, and ad hominem. Though WHAT we are saying is never delineated. If you insist on escalating the unsubstantiated claims about ‘harassment’ to the page, you will inflame the situation in the real world, and Wikipedia may find itself brought into disrepute. This is not some sort of ‘threat’ but a reasonable evaluation of a risk. People do not take kindly to defamation, even if it is of a whole community.

What we need from YOU, JFW, and JzG, is a dose of NPOV. You need to acknowledge your own limitations of knowledge in this area. You need to acknowledge your own part in escalating an already tense situation in the past, and YOU need to drop the excess baggage. You need to write a biography of the subject that is NPOV, and therefore you need to include reliable sources of criticism of Wessely’s claims and conduct around the illness ME/CFS (and Gulf War Syndrome too) because these are present in the real world. To achieve this, you need to talk with respect to and assume good faith of those of us who have dared put our heads above the parapet on this page (I think we’re the brave ones) and stop insulting people and making inflammatory comments about them. I, for example, am more than happy NOT to edit this page (because I do have a conflict of interest) and just enter into dialogue, but YOU have to act reasonably and not push POV.

There are various ways in which critique of Wessely’s claims and conduct can be represented in an NPOV manner (but this also must mean hagiography must be avoided). Guido has already mentioned some ideas also. These need to be discussed without you dismissing them out of hand.

The above may be hard for you to hear. It is not my intention to humiliate you or ‘beat’ you into submission (don‘t go taking that metaphor as threat of physical assault now!). But these things needed to be said. Angela Kennedy 23:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

I agree that some of my statements have been pointed, if only to demonstrate that it is not just the ME community which has a right to moral outrage. Professor Wessely is a human being who has spent much of his career working on some desperately complicated conditions, and as a scientist he is entitled to free speech and academic freedom. Any statement that denies him this right (because he might be sadistic, misguided, or what have you) will need urgent clarification.

NPOV does not extend to talkpages. Everyone comes to Wikipedia with intellectual and moral baggage. The purpose of talkpages is to balance out views and to arrive at content that is suitable for "prime time" in an encyclopedia. If this cannot be achieved, there is requests for comment (where other members of the community can be alerted), and if the discussion becomes difficult there are usually violations of assume good faith, no personal attacks or civility.

I am willing to entertain any serious criticism of Prof Wessely for inclusion, but I will give strong preference to major news outlets (BBC, Guardian, Times) to websites run by activitists, purely on the basis of reliable sources (do read the policy, it is useful!)

Before anyone asks, JzG has taken his right to vanish a few days back. I am therefore the only administrator continuously monitoring this talkpage. I will probably unlock the page on Sunday or so, provided the discussion on this page has remained civil, to the point and valid. JFW | T@lk 19:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

I've already addressed some of these issues on my talkpage JFW, as well as above, reproducing some of them here for the benefit of this discussion. There is worrying trend of misrepresenting the legitimate critiques of the ME/CFS community of claims and conduct of certain psychiatrists as 'harassment', 'personal attack' and 'denigration' of the psychiatrists themselves. I have many examples that demonstrate this inappropriate phenomenon among proponents of the psychiatric paradigm - including the subject concerned. It is a ad hominem attack of the straw man type (with a touch of red herring and god knows what other logical fallacies) that is frequently employed. Professor Wessely may be entitled to free speech and academic freedom, but so then are ME/CFS sufferers and their supporters, without being attacked for this and misrepresented. Professor Wessely is not entitled to protection from legitimate criticism. No academic is.

I have Hansard as a reliable source of criticism of Simon Wessely's claims and actions around ME/CFS. There are BMJ Rapid Responses (which are strictly moderated by the BMJ). I have a registered charity website, and yes, there are some newspaper articles too. If these are the type of accepted sources elsewhere on Wikipedia (I've seen evidence they are) then they should be acceptable for this page too. I will put them up on this talk page sometime in the next couple of days. Angela Kennedy 23:32, 25 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

I would not have given a Fukuda if the entire Gibson panel had rodded drains for a living prior to standing for election or taking up seats in the Lords, so long as their self-appointed Chair had properly consulted with his constituency of interest before drawing up the panel's Terms of Reference; had properly catalogued the Witnesses who presented Oral Evidence; had properly catalogued the Written Evidence; had worked within a remit identified by their constituency of interest and not attempted to evaluate scientific research; had provided adequate sources and references for statements made within their Report; had had the Report checked for factual errors, ambiguities, inconsistencies and typos before publication and had been willing to make revisions when errors and ambiguities were reported to them, post publication (errors which have since been ingeminated by the media). Given, however, that two of the panel had medical backgrounds, two had scientific backgrounds and all were experienced parliamentarians it is remarkable that any of them were prepared to sign off on such a problematic document. Mindful of this unofficial inquiry's lack of dedicated resources, researchers and administrative assistance for the project, there were several areas that the panel could usefully have focused on from a purely political standpoint - bias within the MRC, the huge DwP and DLA benefits issue, insufficient LEA home tutors, access for severely affected/bedbound to dental treatment/other medical services etc, without attempting to evaluate existing scientific research in order "to get to the bottom of it". The bottom of what, precisely? Oh yes, "whether it's psychological or physical or a bit of both." So problem solved, then, and Dr Gibson can move on to his next call for an inquiry...

Two lines which for me, sum up the lack of scientific rigour and sloppy lack of precision displayed throughout this document are these:

From 2.4 ME in Teenagers and Children: "We included this section because it was previously thought that children could not have CFS/ME. [No references provided and what of the several government documents specifically addressing the management of ME/CFS in children, not to mention the CMO's Report, Chapter 5] The Group received numerous submissions from parents whose children had or were suspected to have CFS/ME. It has been thought that children could not suffer from CFS/ME [No references provided but ditto comment above] but the Group accepts that CFS/ME is prevalent amongst teenagers and possibly in children. However it is very unlikely to occur in infants and young children and so should not be confused with Munchausen by proxy for example." [No references provided]

and from 4. 4.7.2 Diet and Supplementary: "There is no scientific proof of benefit from the use of vitamin or other dietary supplements. However if any of these have been found symptomatically helpful by individual patients the effect should be welcomed but a search through the shelves of the health food shops should not be encouraged with any optimism." [No references provided]

Note: Glaring omission of the potential for significant Vit D deficiency in the long-term housebound/bedbound or benefits of screening for Vit D deficiency. (Gibson is an advocate of Vit D so this omission is curious). This report should not have become prescriptive, of course, but the Report does become prescriptive around pain relief and the use of antidepressants. They were wrong to do so. Was this a political report or a scientific report? Initially Gibson had stated that he was unwilling to get involved with "the politics" (Ed: How do you take the politics out of ME and Dr Gibson is a politician, for heaven's sake?) No, Ian Gibson wanted "to get to the bottom of it" and therefore they would look at "the science". Was this under resourced panel equipped for producing a scientific report? Many consider they were not.

The lack of scientific rigour evident in some sections of the report was raised at the public meeting with the GSRME in early 2007. The Countess of Mar (GSRME panel member) made a most interesting response: "The other thing is that quite a lot of the criticism that I've seen has been for the fact we got the science wrong. This was never, ever, ever a scientific inquiry - it was a political inquiry into the science. So please don't think that we're scientists trying to put out a duff scientific report - we're not. It's got nothing to do with technical science as far as we're concerned..." [Quote from: Transcript of extracts from audio of public meeting, 6 February 2007 see CFS article]

So, it was a political inquiry. In that case, why did this under resourced panel of parliamentarians attempt to evaluate scientific evidence, themselves, and make recommendations for further areas of research and furthermore, become prescriptive in relation to medications? As Angela has pointed out, there have been significant problems reported concerning accuracy and precision in many sections of this document. Should we assume that we can necessarily rely on the accuracy of the one statement that JFW seems so keen to include in this article? Either Professor Wessely has retired from CFS research or he has not. No retirement = no harassment issue. If there is evidence which shows that Wessely has retired from all CFS research and evidence of Wessely's stated reasons for his retirement, and on which the Gibson Report statement was based, then I am sure that Dr Gibson will be only to happy to furnish this and to answer questions about the letter which Wessely sent the panel and on what basis this letter was accepted from Wessely, and whether and how this letter was used to inform the panel or if it was disregarded by the panel for the purposes of the inquiry since it was shoved under the back door, as it were, and not submitted in the prescribed manner as a Written Submission. As a broadbacked politician Dr Gibson knows that no politician/parliamentarian is above scrutiny or accountability. And this is all I have to say on this matter unless and until Dr Gibson has substantiated the statement made in his panel's report. MEagenda 09:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Angela: the BMJ Rapid Responses are not moderated apart from the most excessive statements. I am patiently awaiting the Hansard source. That is the kind of source that we can work with, even if it contains statements by politicians, who might be accountable for what they say on the record. Likewise, newspaper articles may be very useful, and a direct link would be appreciated. My rule of thumb: if a debate is big enough, it will "spill over" into the mainstream press. This might not be true about the more hairsplittingly specialist debates (e.g. the evidence base for prophylactic banding of esophageal varices in chronic liver disease), but certainly for a public health problem that CFS/ME is.

Suzy: I appreciate that there is criticism of the Gibson report from both sides of the divide, but that does not negate all statements made therein. Having (cursorily) read the report I find its format impossible, its methodology awkward and its conclusions unsustainable. That said, we are presently only quoting one statement that has found its way into the report, namely of Wessely being harassed. Without a source to counter that, I will put my full weight behind its inclusion pending further evidence. JFW | T@lk 10:13, 26 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

JFW: With regard to your apparent determination to push Gibson as a ‘reliable source’ on unsubstantiated claims of harassment, if you want to put your weight behind the Gibson Report (published on their website), you will then have to acknowledge the reliability of the criticisms of Wessely submitted to them and taken as evidence by them, made by both One Click and Malcolm Hooper publicly to this group of MPs (because they are actually on that website). In fact, I also have evidence submitted to a health committee and recorded in Hansard critical of Wessely, from this year, made by Hooper, and a Hansard debate from 2004 in which the Countess of Mar specifically critiques Wessely’s claims and conduct. The Hansard transcripts are all reliable and primary sources, even on your rather nebulous and possibly idiosyncratic ‘hierarchy’ of sources, and specifically by your own logic of counting the Gibson report as a reliable resource, so are the One Click and Malcolm Hooper Submissions. (no offense to you about idiosyncratic and nebulous hierarchy, I’m just pointing out that personal preferences may not be the way forward here.)

The Countess of Mar comments are contained here:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200304/ldhansrd/vo040122/text/40122-12.htm

Malcolm Hooper’s statement to the Health Select Committee here:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmselect/cmhealth/503/503we79.htm

Ironically enough- Mar is later accused in the Hansard of ‘personal attack’ and ‘denigration’ of Wessely by his supporters, even though no personal attack of Wessely is made. She doesn’t threaten him, for example, call him a poo-poo head, or terrorist or insane, or say his bum looks big (I am not making these attacks either by the way! They are just hypothetical illustrations of personal attack). Ironically- all the critiques made of Wessely in these sources would not violate EVEN Wikipedia policy on personal attacks, even though Wessely’s and other accusations of ‘personal attack’ in response would! You couldn’t make this one up…

If you decide to go ahead and publish Gibson as a source of ‘harassment‘ CLAIMS - you will HAVE to write in an NPOV style. You will need to use the word ‘claimed’, because while the Gibson Report has claimed POSSIBLE harassment- there is no substantiating evidence available. You cannot write it in such a way as to imply it is true- because you will bring Wikipedia into disrepute. Again, we don’t even know if Wessely himself claimed this to the Inquiry for sure. I would strongly advise you, again, NOT to ‘put your weight behind the Gibson Report’ and instead wait for Suzy‘s research to yield some results.

By the way, the critiques of Wessely's claims and conduct we are talking about here are mainly about ME/CFS. We havent' even discussed any critique from the GWS patient or scientific communities, and there might be some. This needs checking out. Angela Kennedy 15:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

I would think that Simon Wessely's comments in the Gibson report would be much more reliable than other people's comments that are contained in the report (e.g. Angelas) about harrassment that happened to Wessely himself. And ironically I also suspect that if you look at Angela's website you'll find a lot of harrassment of Wessely on it (there is certainly harrassment of everyone else!)

If you stop feeding the trolls, eventually they'll get bored and go away. --Sciencewatcher 22:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

JFW has said that he has had a cursory look at the Gibson Report but I am wondering whether Sciencewatcher has read it at all? In the interests of accuracy, Sciencewatcher, I would refer you to the Gibson Report, Page 19 Section 3.2. Apart from the final sentence of the first paragraph which states: "Wessely did not submit a written piece to the Inquiry, however in a letter to the Inquiry he did set out his belief that CFS/ME has a biological element which needs further research and investigation." none of the preceding statements within Section 3.2 are attributed to Professor Wessely, himself, and the paragraph is entirely unreferenced. The Gibson Report is less than 30 pages long and a "light read" - I would be happy to send you the PDF if you have not actually read this document, yourself. JFW has already bitten nipped Guido for "name calling" - just how helpful, is it Sciencewatcher, to refer to members of a patient community who have been raising legitimate concerns about the inclusion on a Wiki page of material extracted from a document for which no references were given, within the original document, as "trolls"? I had told JFW that I would not be posting further on this Talk page, unless and until the Gibson Office has provided a response to the questions which are being raised with the former Chair of the GSRME regarding the provenance of statements made by the panel in Section 3.2, but I would like to record my dismay that reasoned, civil debate is being dismissed by you as "trolling". MEagenda 06:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

And the other problem here is still that certain people use the word 'harassment' quite indiscriminately to describe any situation where they are being criticised for their claims or their actions, to the point where the term harassment becomes meaningless. We have Sciencewatcher doing this about 'Angela's site'- whatever that is. It is both a straw man and a red herring - claim 'harassment' instead of addressing the issues contained in the critique. It is logically indefensible. I have never harassed Simon Wessely or anyone else for that matter.

Anyone can claim to be 'harassed'- but harassment can be defined in law and there are laws against it. We have already seen that 'Wessely School' supporters inappropriately use terms like 'personal attack' and 'denigration' when what they are really refering to are reasonable criticisms of their claims and actions. HOW is the term 'harassment' being used in the Gibson Report? It could mean 'critiqued' for all we know. Wessely did apparently use the term 'stalked' to describe a housebound woman who is one of his strongest critics. both 'Harassment' and 'Stalking' are defined a certain way in law to my knowledge, and what the critics of the psychiatric paradigm do are NEITHER of those.

Has Wessely reported any harassment (as defined in law) to the police, I wonder?

Gibson also uses the term "very small fringe section of the ME community" to describe the alleged harassers of Wessely. what on earth is a 'fringe section'? Is the Report claiming that a band of ME sufferers themselves are carrying out actual acts of harassment as defined in law? Or is the term 'harassment' being used just to describe anyone who contradicts Wessely's claims or criticises his actions?

Obviously the closer the Report is scrutinised on this issue (of Wessely) the more unsafe its claims reveal themselves to be.

It is also getting tiresome to be accused of being various cryptids, which themselves seem to function as more legitimised ways of name-calling. How many more mythical creatures are there in the Wikipeida lexicon? It'll be 'don't feed the chupacabra or leprechaun' next. Angela Kennedy 08:32, 27 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

What I remember is that there was considerable disagreement among Gibson's inquirers, and that they chose to soften the report to get everyone to sign it, particularly Lord Turnberg. Probably for that reason it was also published somewhat hastely, which could explain some of the errors. Regards, Guido den Broeder 08:41, 27 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

"Angela's site" is www.theoneclickgroup.co.uk - see my comment above about it.

Here is a novel idea: phone prof Wessely and ask him about the harrassment. However I suspect he probably won't talk to discuss it, and he may not want it in his biography anyway. --Sciencewatcher 17:58, 27 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Sciencewatcher- you are wrong about "Angela's Site"- out of date anyway. Also I am party to someone's interview with Wessely on many of these issues- what was said is private of course. HOWEVER I suspect that simply not being liked by some people and being verbally told so would qualify in Wessely's mind as harrassment. He is an academic not a football manager. If a student told me they didn't like me- I would deem that as offensive and report them. The problem with some of the medical profession is when patients fail to doff their caps they have the same reaction.

Simonalpinist —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 18:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

O-kay. In the first instance, Sciencewatcher, the One Click Group Website was never my website. I am no longer part of the One Click Group, leaving in approximately April 2006 because of family problems. I am correcting here what I presume were erroneous understandings on your part.

I presume your 'comment above' is this one (which was easy to miss): "Jfdwolff: you're just wasting your time and energy arguing with people like Angela Kennedy. Have a look at her theoneclickgroup.co.uk website and you'll see pretty quickly that it's just a lot of vitriolic personal attacks, rants and pseudoscience, only useful for entertainment purposes. --Sciencewatcher 22:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)"

What does one say to this? Apart from the lack of the assume good faith Wikipedia principle, it has already been highlighted here how ad hominem attacks are logically indefensible: calling a person or organisation's contributions a 'rants' or 'vitriol' or 'personal attacks' or (Sciencewatcher your apparent personal favourite if your contributions elsewhere are anything to go by) 'pseudoscience', while it may distract some people or 'poison the well', are merely ad hominem attacks and have no relevance to the issue at hand.

I also have to remind you, Sciencewatcher, of your willingness to repeat and discuss unsubstantiated claims about Simon Wessely and harassment (again,like the Gibson Report, the source of this story is clear as mud) on this very talk page a few weeks ago:

"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)"

I do not know whether Professor Wessely would appreciate people phoning him up about this even if it were possible, but I suspect not. I certainly would NOT consider such a thing and I doubt any other editor would either. It could well be considered actual harassment, of the type prohibited by law. Plus a phone call does not count as reliable source evidence by Wikipedia standards. It seems you knew anyway that this option is completely unacceptable (by what you say in the same paragraph as you suggest the idea!) and therefore I suspect this idea was written in provocation. Angela Kennedy 18:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

You may not be part of one click now, but you were one of the two co-founders and you wrote article s for the site for a number of years. While you were there, many of the articles were vitriolic personal attacks and pseudoscience (e.g. claiming that MMR causes autism). That alone makes you unreliable.

I certainly wasn't suggesting that you should phone Prof Wessely and ask about the harrassment and then use his answer here. I was just giving some ideas about how someone might research the claims if they were so inclined. If the stories in the newsgroups are true then it certainly would be harrassment. That's obviously not good enough for an encyclopedia article, but I was just giving the info as a starting point for anyone who is interested. --Sciencewatcher 21:43, 27 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Sciencewatcher, you clearly do not understand about the ad hominem logical fallacy. 'Vitriolic Personal Attacks' are perjorative but subjective opinionated descriptions, not statement of fact, and you are using these unsafe descriptions in order to claim that I am unreliable. You will frankly have to do better if you want to engage successfully in rational debate. Trying to discredit me instead of rebutting my arguments is futile. And I have nothing to do with the MMR debate!

As for the 'pseudoscience' label: this is as unreliable a description as 'quackery'. Both terms are full of instability, often used in ad hominem arguments against others, and can often be used so widely as to be meaningless. The problems of such terms are briefly documented even on the entries as above. Often both terms are merely name calling. I notice that you are very quick to use the term 'pseudoscience' against others, especially on the Chronic Fatigue Syndrome talk page. I think you use it as a way of discrediting ideas you don't agree with, and you use the term incorrectly. Your linking to the MMR/Autism debate as 'pseudoscience' is a case in point. Whatever one's opinion of the debate, it is actually a scientific debate, i.e. a debate between scientists, about scientific research! Ironically, aspects of psychiatry have been called pseudoscience also. Frankly- I think the term is pretty useless and brings nothing to any debate.

I think your 'someone could phone Professor Wessely' suggestion is irrelevant, if it's something that should not be done anyway. I can't see the point of you making it. Angela Kennedy 22:34, 27 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Anyone can go to the one click site and will see the pseudoscience and vitriolic personal attacks. --Sciencewatcher 15:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

I do not feel that telephoning Prof Wessely would be at all appropriate. Since this issue revolves around unreferenced and unsubstantiated claims in the report of the unofficial Gibson inquiry, more appropriate then, to look to the authors of that report to provide reliable sources for statements made on Page 19 of this document. As JFW has been advised, I have written to Dr Ian Gibson, MP, Chair of the now dissolved Gibson Inquiry panel via email (this to be followed up, today, with a paper letter to his Norfolk constituency office). I have requested that Dr Gibson provide the following: 1] The reference source for the statement regarding Wessely's having "retired" from [CFS] research. 2] The date beyond which it was understood by the GSRME panel that Prof Wessely had ceased undertaking research studies in the field of CFS research. 3] The reference source for the basis of the panel's statement that Prof Wessely gave up the [CFS] research side of his work "possibly due to extreme harassment he received from a very small fringe section of the ME community."

It is understood from a further statement in Section 3.2 that Prof Wessely did not submit a Written Submission to the inquiry through the prescribed channels for receipt of Written Submissions but that he sent a letter to the GSRME panel. (I recall that at one of the later Oral Hearings Dr Gibson quipped about the considerable length of this communication which the panel had received from him!) Other than the brief allusion to this letter in Section 3.2, the content and purpose of Prof Wessley's letter to the panel has never been disclosed by the GSRME nor has the basis upon which the panel decided to write in the specifically quoted passages in the report, been clarified. Dr Gibson has therefore been asked [4] Would you please confirm whether it is the case that the panel formed its view of the matter that Prof Wessely was understood to have given up [CFS] research work on account of alleged harassment through the direct wording of Prof Wessely's letter, that is, did the panel effectively paraphrase Prof Wessely's own words? Or did the panel, in essence, form its own view on what they considered Prof Wessely was saying to them in his letter, in more general terms? Or did the panel form this view based on discussions and material other than that provided in Prof Wessely's letter?

Please bear in mind that Parliament has yet to return from summer recess and that there has been a Labour Party conference this week (Dr Gibson currently holds the seat for Norwich North constituency and indicated some months ago that he intends to stand again) so I am not necessarily anticipating an early response from Dr Gibson. For the record, I will place a copy of the queries raised with Dr Gibson on my Talk Page. Please also be mindful of the fact that the GSRME committee was dissolved in May 2007.

In the Minutes of that meeting, the following was recorded at minute 2 and 3:

2) Response of Group members/frequency of meeting: The Group members present discussed the fact that the other members were no longer willing to attend meetings or engage with the work of the Group. The GSRME had always been set up to run for a finite period of time to conduct an Inquiry. The other members obviously felt they have served their time and were not willing to continue. Thus the Group should disband. In any case it is confusing and of little use to have an APPG and GSRME when efforts can be concentrated in one place.

3) Mandate to speak for the Group/correspondence: Sarah Vero had made numerous attempts to get the individual Group members to agree to amendments to the report however only the members in attendance would be willing to consider amendments and as such there is not a mandate of the Group to consider amendments. Dr Gibson was still responding to correspondence on behalf of the Group and felt it was not right to continue doing so without their support.

It may transpire that Dr Gibson is reluctant to respond on behalf of a now disbanded panel, citing "no mandate" to do so. Should this be the case, the inquiry panel has bequeathed upon its constituency of interest, vis the ME patient community, the legacy of a document for which neither factual errors, omissions and ambiguities can be addressed and for which large sections of the report (including section 3.2) remain unreferenced.

This will compromise the position of the very group in whose interests this unofficial inquiry was instigated. The report was not put out for any form of consultation prior to publication and was submitted to NICE, sight unseen, as it were, by the patient community on whose behalf the inquiry had been set up; the report was then published a couple of days later, by which time it had already been mailed electronically, complete with errors and omissions to all MPs and to selected ministers. Ownership of the document remains with the GSRME but the GSRME has disbanded. This situation illustrates very well the dangers of unofficial, non commissioned reports by ad hoc committees of parliamentarians - no lines of accountability and a report that has no status within Parliament/government (which is why the media ignored its launch). Section 3.2 was not the only section of this document that has given cause for concern. If Sciencewatcher would like to explore more fully the use of inappropriate and emotive language within this report then I can recommend this Commentary. If the GSRME are not prepared to be accountable for statements made in their report by providing references where these are currently lacking, then perhaps consideration should be given to Prof Wessely, himself, being approached in order to provide a public statement concerning his retirement from CFS research before any decision is made about whether the as yet unreferenced/unsourced statements and very shaky "possibles" made within Section 3.2 can be considered reliable. MEagenda 08:09, 28 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

I have now received a most interesting response from the Gibson Office. In relation to their response, the Gibson Office has contacted a third party and is waiting on a response from them. When I have been advised of the outcome of these exchanges I will write this up on my User Talk page. I am advised that the Gibson Office will be closed from this evening until 10 Oct so it may not be possible to fully resolve these matters until after the Gibson Office re-opens in a week or so. MEagenda 13:57, 28 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Whatever the response is to these inquiries, unless they are published by reliable sources, they cannot be included in Wikipedia due to our policy forbidding original research. Your efforts to investigate the contents of this source yourself are consequently entirely futile. Tim Vickers 18:49, 28 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

This is a Wikipedia article talk page. Per the talk page guidelines, this page is to be used to discuss specific improvements to the Wikipedia article. It is not a forum to argue, debate, scold, advocate, etc for a particular point of view. Discussion should focus around what reliable sources have verifiably had to say on the topic, and how to present this information neutrally and without undue weight. The principles of the biography of living persons policy apply on this talk page as well as the article, and unsourced negative information may be removed. In the interest of bringing this talk page back a little closer to its intended purpose, I'm going to begin removing comments that misuse this talk page as described above. MastCell ^Talk 16:29, 28 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Whoa there! : ) MastCell, which comments do you think are NOT relevant? The attempt to establish whether Gibson is a reliable source for allegations about 'harassment' of Simon Wessely? The discussion of whether criticism of actions or claims of someone constitute personal attack or 'harassment'? What this article needs to do to stay NPOV? I thought the talk page was EXACTLY the place to thrash out these issues and would inevitably involve argument and debate, inlcuding opposing POVs and rebuttal. It happens all over Wikipedia! I think your intervention here would be premature and ill-advised, because you have not in any way demonstrated yourself as a suitable arbiter of whether such an intervention is even required! I think the very least you should do is discuss it properly with other people first.Angela Kennedy 16:49, 28 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Much of this talk page consists of unsourced argumentation and speculation about various issues, in the manner of an Internet debate forum or blog. The solution is to narrowly focus and limit comments here to specific changes or improvements to the article. There is such discussion going on here, but it's drowned out by noise. The signal-noise ratio needs to improve. I'm happy to ask other admins to also watch this talk page (in fact, I already have), but I think they'll agree that enorfcing the talk page guidelines is a good idea here. MastCell ^Talk 16:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

But the talk page guidelines don't seem to actually indicate support for what you are proposing. Angela Kennedy 17:10, 28 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Angela Kennedy, I think you misunderstand something about the article talk page guidelines. All discussions here should be highly focussed on possible edits to the actual content of the article. There's no room for anything else. Wikipedia article talkpages are not a forum for the discussions of background issues related to the topic of the article. 70.53.131.179 18:13, 28 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

MastCell has said "Discussion should focus around what reliable sources have verifiably had to say on the topic". Indeed, which is precisely why this issue was being contested, in the first place, and why the Gibson Office has been asked to verify their sources for this specific passage in unreferenced Section 3.2. As an indirect result of JFW's stated intention to include a specific quote (or paraphrase) from Section 3.2 of the Gibson Report, the Gibson Office has, today, elected to contact Professor Wessely, themselves.

Either Wessley has given up CFS research or he has not; if he has not, then the Gibson Report cannot be said to be a reliable source on the status of Wessely's research interests; the GSRME have suggested that the status of Wessely's involvement in CFS research is "possibly" linked with "extreme harassment" - in order to form an opinion on this matter, they would have required verifiable information on which to base their opinion, unless the GSRME are relying on unsubstantiated rumour or innuendo or on speculation on internet forums. But they provide no references for either of the two concepts contained within this contested statement. If you are of the opinion that this passage can be relied for veracity solely on the grounds that the GSRME panel members are all parliamentarians how do you then MastCell, set about distinguishing between those passages of the Gibson Report which are sound and those passages which are known to be incorrect? Can you, for example, correctly identify for us, the significant factual error on Page 29, Section 6.0 Benefit entitlement? An error which is now being reiterated by the media.

When JFW casually threw out the suggestion that the statement "Wessely gave up the research side of his work possibly due to extreme harassment he received from a very small fringe section of the ME community." might usefully be included in the Wessely article perhaps, mindful of the problems associated with the accuracy of this document (which had already been brought to his attention elsewhere), mindful of the fact that no references were included, and above all, mindful of the fact that a very serious allegation is being expressed here, to the detriment of a patient community, he should have considered whether it would be advisable to return to source. Either Prof Wessely has "retired" from CFS research or he has not, Prof Wessely would no doubt be happy to have obliged JFW with a confirmation, and at the same time also confirm his reason(s); if it were the case that Prof Wessely has "retired" from CFS research as a result of "extreme harassment" then Prof Wessely will know that this is a very serious allegation with legal implications for which evidence would be expected to be forthcoming. "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable". The Gibson Inquiry debacle is very well documented, via transcripts, audio recordings, correspondence etc. In contrast, the contested Gibson Report passage could be considered speculation, and as a result, invalid in terms of encyclopedic content. Your issue, MastCell, is with JFW. MEagenda 18:35, 28 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

No, you fundamentally misunderstand the role of Wikipedia editors. We are not reporters and this is not investigative journalism. We don't call up sources to confirm their statements and gather additional information (if we did, it would be inadmissible on Wikipedia as unverified original research). You seem to believe that information needs to be verified by an editor calling up the subject and personally verifying it on the phone, which is incorrect. Wikipedia reports what reliable sources have said. A government report is generally a reliable source; if it is outdated or factually incorrect, then it should be easy to produce other equally reliable sources contradicting it. If you have provided such contradictory sources, then they have totally and completely drowned out by the din of argumentation, speculation, unverfiable personal commentary, etc. which you and others have brought to this talk page. That is the problem I'm trying to address. MastCell ^Talk 18:41, 28 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Strong agreement with MastCell. All editors of this article are kindly encouraged to show some discipline and address article content only on this article talk page. Also, please don't introduce spurious arguments. Finally, everyone involved in this dispute is kindly requested to read AND understand the following policies of this project: WP:TALK, WP:DR, WP:RS, etc. I am confident that, providing the regular editors of this article are familiar with the way things work on this project, the dispute here can be solved to everyone's satisfaction. 70.53.131.179 19:33, 28 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

First of all, the Gibson report is not a government report. Not that it matters, because stating that government reports are by nature reliable is ridiculous. Now, the reliability of any source can be questioned, which results in a discussion. This discussion is settled with arguments. It is not required that such arguments are themselves held to the same standard as the article text, so arguments being, for instance, original research, can be perfectly alright, as long as they are not cited in the article. On a talk page, we are not editors. MastCell is fundamentally wrong. Guido den Broeder 20:05, 28 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'm sorry but I think both mast cell and the unregistered user misunderstand the issue here. JFW has expressed an intention to publish unsubtantiated, inflammatory claims which will be to the detriment of a patient community, from an unreliable source. Suzy Chapman and I have been trying to illustrate how unreliable the source is and how unsubstantiated the claims are. We have been providing copious evidence and plausible arguments as to why, but frankly it feels we are running around in circles. We are certainly not engaging in 'spurious arguments'. IF this goes ahead, the reputation of Wikipedia, Simon Wessely himself and possibly the Gibson may be severely damaged, because public calls for full verification will have to be made by the patient community, and Wikipedia's displayed determination to publish unsubstantiated, inflammatory claims from unreliable sources (NOT a government document). Suzy has attempted to resolve this problem by verifying the situation by Gibson himself via letter. But neither of us have suggested to phone up the subject on the phone: Sciencewatcher has. So already we have misreading of the facts being exhibited here.

But in addition there is a marked inconsistency here: all sorts of debate goes on at Wikipedia. Calling the discussion "the din of argumentation, speculation, unverfiable personal commentary" DOES NOT MAKE IT SO just because you say. And just because you can't be bothered to study the points does not make the points irrelevant! I have developed quite a lot of familiarity with Wikipedia processes, and both Mast Cell and the unregistered user don't seem to be following them. I suggest that certain people stop pulling Wiki-rank 'I know more about Wiki than you' and act responsibly in this, for Wikipedia and the subject concerned, if not for a patient community. Angela Kennedy 20:17, 28 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Guido is correct. The Gibson Report is NOT a government report and I have not suggested that anyone should be telephoned for verification - that was Sciencewatcher. I asked JFW to provide alternative verifiable sources since the Gisbon Report statement contains no references/sources, JFW has not done this. JFW seems perfectly content to wait until these two specific issues have been confirmed or discounted as unreliable. Your issue, MastCell is with JFW. He introduced this matter [see Hair-raising]. I don't see you addressing JFW with your concerns. MEagenda 20:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

• Afari N, Buchwald D. Chronic fatigue syndrome: a review. Am J Psychiatry. 2003 Feb;160(2):221-36.
• Craig T, Kakumanu S. Chronic Fatigue Syndrome: Evaluation and Treatment Am Fam Physician. 2002 Mar 15;65(6):1083-90.
• J K S Chia The role of enterovirus in chronic fatigue syndrome J Clin Pathol. 2005 Nov;58(11):1126-32.
• Reeves WC, Lloyd A, Vernon SD, Klimas N, Jason LA, Bleijenberg G, Evengard B, White PD, Nisenbaum R, Unger ER; International Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Study Group. Identification of ambiguities in the 1994 chronic fatigue syndrome research case definition and recommendations for resolution BMC Health Serv Res. 2003 Dec 31;3(1):25.

Hope these are useful as sources for this article. Tim Vickers 19:04, 28 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Er... of those four articles, one is subscription-only, and the other three don't mention him (other than a reference to one of his papers in the footnotes). This is a talkpage for discussion of improving the article on Simon Wessely, and not for general discussion of CFS/ME. — iridescent (talk to me!) 19:39, 28 September 2007 (UTC)Reply