Letter to Prof Colin Blakemore: =91Disease of the brain, not the mind, ha=
s=20
no stigma=92 ( =91The Times=92, 2 August 2011)
by Susanna Agardy
Dear Prof Blakemore,
Re: =91Disease of the brain, not the mind, has no stigma=92 ( =91The Time=
s=92, 2=20
August 2011)
In your article I note an unfortunate sidestepping of major issues in=20
=91CFS=92 in which you include ME. From a discussion of =91CFS=92 you seg=
ue into=20
a discussion of mental illness. You seem to try to console =91CFS=92=20
sufferers by saying that once neurology and psychiatry have been=20
reunited the stigma of their (mental?) illness will retreat. This=20
ignores the fact that ME is already considered a neurological illness=20
without being a psychiatric one, by the WHO.
As a sufferer, I would venture to claim that ME sufferers are not=20
affected by shame as you imply, but rather by feelings of neglect and=20
invalidation which their misdiagnoses and missed diagnoses inflict on the=
m.
Patients with ME have been diagnosed with a psychiatric condition purely=20
on the basis that they have a physical condition =96 an intractable one=20
for which there is no simple test or explanation as yet. A group of=20
psychiatrists of whom Wessely is a leading member have invented a=20
diagnosis of somatisation or dysfunctional cognition for which there is=20
no evidence, and substituted it for the experience and symptoms of=20
patients, ignoring or reframing physical symptoms such as orthostatic=20
intolerance and post-exertional malaise. As a result, motives such as=20
malingering have been attributed to patients.
The psychiatrists then invented the CBT/GET treatment for this invented=20
diagnosis. Yet, CBT/GET is =91a purely pragmatic approach and without=20
theoretical foundation=92 as Prof Sharpe has cheerfully admitted. So, the=
=20
MRC has been supporting research on a treatment for which there is no=20
theoretical basis (with seriously adverse consequences already known to=20
patients and clinicians) for a condition of which the underlying=20
features were admittedly unknown to it and which has been reframed as a=20
psychological theoretical construct. All in the name of science and the=20
taxpayer.
You seem to be saying that it was too hard for the MRC to get a handle=20
on this multi-faceted condition. So, the MRC settled on the assumption=20
that it is psychological even in the face of numerous findings of=20
physiological underpinnings by independent scientists many years ago. It=20
seems the MRC endorsed Wessely et al=92s prescription that =91No=20
investigations should be carried out to confirm the diagnosis.=92 In=20
addition, the Wessely school=92s claim that the more patients protest tha=
t=20
they have a physical condition the more they are thought to be=20
psychiatric purports to box in patients so that the psychiatrists can=92t=
=20
be proven wrong by scientific testing. This behaviour indicates an=20
active turning away from the physical aspects of 'CFS' by the MRC. No=20
wonder 'CFS' patients were protesting. We hope that the current=20
allocation of funds at least begins to repair the situation.
Patients do not generally attack researchers who approach their=20
condition with respect and a genuine open-mindedness to discovering the=20
source of their problems. The Wessely school has not shown this respect=20
nor any scientific open-mindedness. They insist on their psychosocial=20
model, ignoring the biomedical abnormalities in spite of the mounting=20
evidence for these. All the while they parade themselves as experts in=20
=91CFS=92. It is also widely ignored that Wessely has been insulting and=20
provoking ME patients for many years and sneering at their disappointment=
s.
If one or more persons have unfortunately overreacted to his=20
provocation, is that an occasion to invite the media to ridicule and=20
denigrate an entire group of ill patients? Is this in accord with the=20
standards of behaviour in psychiatry? Wessely himself stigmatizes mental=20
illness in the course of his crusade against ME patients.
Wessely claims to have given up research on =91CFS=92 10 years ago. How i=
s=20
it then that we seen his name on at least two recent publications? (He=20
features as participanting author in the PACE study and the study of=20
XMRV and CFS with M McClure et al, both published in the past year.) His=20
recent publicity-seeking in relation to =91CFS=92 also does not indicate=20
retirement from the field.
Wessely has been widely quoted as saying that he now goes to Iraq and=20
Afghanistan to feel safer. This claim would appear to be grossly=20
disrespectful to the many thousands of civilians and soldiers who have=20
been killed and maimed there. I wonder if the maimed and the relatives=20
of the dead would agree with him? It would seem that Wessely is willing=20
to trivialize these large-scale, tragic conflicts to dramatise his own=20
sense of victimhood.
What benefit does Prof. Wessely hope to gain from lashing out at very=20
ill ME patients in this way?
---------------------------------------------
Send posts to CO-CURE@listserv.nodak.edu
Unsubscribe at http://www.co-cure.org/unsub.htm
Co-Cure Archives: http://listserv.nodak.edu/archives/co-cure.html
---------------------------------------------
Co-Cure's purpose is to provide information from across the spectrum of
opinion concerning medical, research and political aspects of ME/CFS and/or
FMS. We take no position on the validity of any specific scientific or
political opinion expressed in Co-Cure posts, and we urge readers to
research the various opinions available before assuming any one
interpretation is definitive. The Co-Cure website <www.co-cure.org> has a
link to our complete archive of posts as well as articles of central
importance to the issues of our community.
---------------------------------------------
