Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Roadcreature (talk | contribs) at 18:18, 21 October 2007 (→Summary of previous discussion: please keep the summary apart). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Biography Unassessed

This 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.

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)

Sources

Both sources you advance are already part of the CFS article. The role of the subject in the CFS/ME controversy is already well established by the present source. JFW | T@lk 11:47, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I disagree. The historical angle is missing, and for the sake of neutrality, it should be made clear that Wessely's views are not mainstream. Guido den Broeder 13:54, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Not mainstream? That is quite an accusation, given the fact that the guideline National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Clinical guideline 53: CFS/ME. London, 2007. seems to strongly subscribe to the view that you argue is "not mainstream". If an NHS-wide consensus guideline is not mainstream, then what on earth is? JFW | T@lk 17:35, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd hate to burst your bubble, since you'd fall so deep, but no, this is not a consensus document, and England does not rule the waves. Guido den Broeder 18:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

• Unassessed biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics