| Revision as of 10:36, 21 October 2007 editRoadcreature (talk | contribs)4,347 editsm →Summary of previous discussion: wikilinks← Previous edit | Revision as of 10:42, 21 October 2007 edit undoRoadcreature (talk | contribs)4,347 editsm →Summary of previous discussion: more wikilinksNext edit → | ||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
| == 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 |
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: | ||
| * ''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: | ||
| "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 ], 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 ...." ] 10:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC) | "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 ], 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 ...." ] 10:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 10:42, 21 October 2007
 | Biography Unassessed | ||||||
| |||||||
|
|
This is a controversial topic, which may be disputed. Please read the talk page and discuss substantial changes there before making them. |
Archive: Talk:Simon Wessely/Archive 1
Archived
I have archived the lot, since in my view User:Angela Kennedy'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. Guy (Help!) 16:17, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
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 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: