| Jan van Roijen 2004-11-14, 10:06 pm |
| ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Send an Email for free membership
~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~[vbcol=seagreen]
15 November 2004
Editorship : j.van.roijen@chello.nl
Outgoing mail scanned by Norton AV
~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~
Reference: "GWS & Simon Wessely"
Help ME Circle, 15 November 2004 at Co-Cure:
http://listserv.nodak.edu/scripts/w...re&F=&S=&P=9994
~jvr
``````````````````
From: "connie" <connie.nelson@ntlworld.com>
Simple Question for Professor Wessely
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Margaret Williams
14th November
2004
Professor Wessely, in your comments of 13th November 2004
to Connie Nelson on the recently released US Binns report on
Gulf War illness (which you kindly gave permission to re-post),
you state:
"The Binns report is not reporting any new research, just
reviewing the same research as many others have, such as the
Institute of Medicine and the MRC, yet coming to very different
conclusions.. One of the remaining scientists Dr Haley is of
course very well known for his papers on GWS and neurotoxic
damage, and it is perhaps a little unusual that such a
committee would include someone so closely identified with
one theory, and then come to the conclusion that this is
correct, against the conclusions of other committees".
If such is your view, why was it not "a little unusual" for you
yourself --- well-known for being closely identified with one theory
with regard to ME/CFS --- to be included on the Joint Royal
Colleges' Working Group on CFS (Chronic Fatigue Syndrome.
Report of a Joint Working Group of the Royal Colleges of
Physicians, Psychiatrists and General Practitioners [CR54],
October 1996) in which 10% of the references were authored by
you and which concluded that your own view was correct, but
which was deficient in including references from other
researchers that support the organic basis of ME / CFS ?
Equally, why was it not "a little unusual" for you to have been a
member of the Chief Medical Officer's Working Group on
"CFS/ME", given that you are so closely identified with one
theory about ME / CFS (ie. the psychosomatic theory) to the
exclusion of any other theory (ie. the organic theory held by other
competent researchers / clinicians that is supported by
compelling laboratory evidence)?
Further, given your well-known identification with one theory
about ME / CFS, why was it not "a little unusual" for you to have
been "expert adviser" to those at the Centre for Reviews and
Dissemination at the university of York who carried out the
Systematic Review of the literature on the efficacy of CBT and
graded exercise for those with ME / CFS, the conclusions of
which underpinned the conclusions of the CMO's Report?
Also, given the offices you are known to have held at the MRC,
was it not " a little unusual" for some of the allegedly "fresh" and
"independent" members of the MRC's Research Advisory Group
on the direction of future research into "CFS/ME" to have
previously co-authored published papers with you yourself and
with your colleague Professor Mike Sharpe, and to have
contributed to a book that you co-edited, all of which support the
theory with which you are so closely identified?
Such close associations are, of course far from unusual in
medicine, but in your post you state that it is "a little unusual" for
someone so closely identified with one theory to be included on
the Binns committee, so what is your explanation in relation to
your own inclusion in similar committees?
~~~~~~~~~~~~
|