Misplaced Pages

Talk:Simon Wessely: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 10:42, 21 October 2007 editRoadcreature (talk | contribs)4,347 editsm →Summary of previous discussion: more wikilinks← Previous edit Revision as of 10:52, 21 October 2007 edit undoRoadcreature (talk | contribs)4,347 edits Removed now superfluous text according to WP:NPANext edit →
Line 10: Line 10:


'''Archive: ]''' '''Archive: ]'''

__TOC__

==Archived==
I have archived the lot, since in my view ]'s input tended to shed more heat than light. I have no objection to conducting the same debates without that particular input, but several of those comments violated core policies in respect of living individuals. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 16:17, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


== Summary of previous discussion == == Summary of previous discussion ==


The value of the Gibson report was discussed at length. I was argued that this report is not a reliable source for this particular article. Information on specific cases of ] / ] was shared. It was furthermore argued, that Simon Wessely's role in a controversy regarding the classification and treatment of ME/CFS should be clarified in the article. Potentially appropriate sources were mentioned: The value of the Gibson report was discussed at length. It was argued that this report is not a reliable source for this particular article. Information on specific cases of ] / ] was shared. It was furthermore argued, that Simon Wessely's role in a controversy regarding the classification and treatment of ME/CFS should be clarified in the article. Potentially appropriate sources were mentioned:
* ''David A, Wessely S, "Chronic fatigue, ME, and ICD 10", Lancet 1993:342:1247- 1248'', where the authors claim that the WHO was wrong to classify ME as a neurological disorder under G93.3, ]. * ''David A, Wessely S, "Chronic fatigue, ME, and ICD 10", Lancet 1993:342:1247- 1248'', where the authors claim that the WHO was wrong to classify ME as a neurological disorder under G93.3, ].
* ''Song, S, Jason, LA, "A population based study of CFS experienced in differing patient groups. An effort to replicate Vercoulen et al.'s model of CFS", Journal of Mental Health, 2005, 14, 3, 277-289'', where the authors show that the data do not support Vercoulen's model, which is based on Wessely's views: * ''Song, S, Jason, LA, "A population based study of CFS experienced in differing patient groups. An effort to replicate Vercoulen et al.'s model of CFS", Journal of Mental Health, 2005, 14, 3, 277-289'', where the authors show that the data do not support Vercoulen's model, which is based on Wessely's views:

Revision as of 10:52, 21 October 2007

WikiProject iconBiography Unassessed
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
???This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

This is a controversial topic, which may be disputed. Please read the talk page and discuss substantial changes there before making them.
Please read this message from William Pietri before piling in

Archive: Talk:Simon Wessely/Archive 1

Summary of previous discussion

The value of the Gibson report was discussed at length. It was argued that this report is not a reliable source for this particular article. Information on specific cases of myalgic encephalomyelitis / chronic fatigue syndrome was shared. It was furthermore argued, that Simon Wessely's role in a controversy regarding the classification and treatment of ME/CFS should be clarified in the article. Potentially appropriate sources were mentioned:

  • David A, Wessely S, "Chronic fatigue, ME, and ICD 10", Lancet 1993:342:1247- 1248, where the authors claim that the WHO was wrong to classify ME as a neurological disorder under G93.3, post-viral fatigue syndrome.
  • Song, S, Jason, LA, "A population based study of CFS experienced in differing patient groups. An effort to replicate Vercoulen et al.'s model of CFS", Journal of Mental Health, 2005, 14, 3, 277-289, where the authors show that the data do not support Vercoulen's model, which is based on Wessely's views:

"In part, due to the lack of a biologic marker, several theorists have proposed psychogenic approaches for understanding CFS (Wessely, Hotopf & Sharpe, 1998). For some, CFS was assumed to be a psychologically-determined problem (Manu, Lane, & Matthews, 1988). These views ultimately affected some physicians who believed that CFS was similar to neurasthenia, and that CFS would eventually have a similar fate once people recognized that most patients with this disease were really suffering from a psychiatric illness. Complicating this situation was the fact that psychiatrists and physicians have also regarded fatigue as one of the least important of presenting symptoms (Lewis & Wessely, 1992). ... These biases ...." Guido den Broeder 10:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Categories: