Ms Stefanie Marsh states in her article -

―He (Professor Wessely) is Britain‘s foremost authority on ME, or chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) as it is also known

This is incorrect and misinforms the public.

Professor Wessely is not Britain‘s foremost authority on ME. How can a psychiatrist be a foremost expert in a neurological illness?

Again Ms Marsh repeats the term ―yuppie flu in relation to this disease. There is no need or reason to do this other than to repeat the biased propaganda put out by the media to denigrate ME patients. Would Ms Marsh or Mr Liddle refer to MS patients as suffering from ―women‘s hysteria or HIV/AIDS patients as having ―gay men‘s disease ? If they did the public outrage would be enormous as it indeed should be. The same should apply to ME.

Ms Marsh states that -

This is untrue. Professor Wessely has not done anything to allay the misperception that ME is an organic illness. We refer to the earlier quotes by Professor Wessely which were mentioned above and which corroborate this.

Ms Marsh states that

This is contentious, misleading and has not been researched properly.

There is no evidence to show that a third of patients make a full recovery. The Belgian government evaluated the outcome of CBT (and Graded Exercise (GET)) at their CFS centres. Their conclusion was that rehabilitation with CBT/GET could not be considered curative [3]. Patients were working less not more after these therapies. The recent publicly funded PACE Trial study published by the Lancet claimed that a third of patients showed improvement.

However the concept of ―normal used by this study does not mean good health or recovery. One also has to look at the diagnostic criteria used. Professor Wessely uses the Oxford criteria – which are criteria designed and implemented by psychiatrists and which exclude patients suffering from a neurological illness (remember the WHO and UK government position on this).

The statement by Ms Marsh is totally misleading for the public and is erroneous.

Professor Wessely has also stated elsewhere that his therapies are not curative.

Ms Marsh states

―Before his work, the standard treatment for ME was rest, with the result that many patients were left incapacitated. Many health professionals agree that he has done more for the sufferers of ME than any other individual, not just in Britain but worldwide.

There are many other patients, patient groups, researchers and clinicians and healthcare experts who would also agree that the views about ME which have been expressed by the "Wessely School" of psychiatrists have done untold damage in promoting ME as a somatoform illness, thus influencing healthcare services, research institutes, research funding and the media. The statement by Ms Marsh is, we feel, misleading. Patients have been left incapacitated by the enforcement of graded exercise treatment which is part of the legacy of this psychiatric approach to treating ME. In our opinion many healthcare professionals could also be said to agree that Professor Wessely has done more damage to ME sufferers than any other individual.

Ms Marsh allows this conjecture to continue as though they were facts. She writes –

―Such was the vitriol and the constant ratcheting up of the threats emanating from the fringes that, ten years ago, Professor Wessely chose to give up his research.

Why does the journalist not research properly and state that Professor Wessely is still involved in CFS and ME research – something Professor Wessely has stated is not the case? The reporter and editor have allowed misinformation to be published. This would have easily been avoided if the reporter had performed even a cursory glance at PubMed and research into ME. She would have seen Professor Wessely‘s name associated with recent research into ME.

Ms Marsh allows Professor Wessely to comment -

―They‘re (ME activists) not as bad as the animal liberation people, Professor Wessely tells me. ―But they‘re just as fanatical. It‘s constant stalking, harassment, attempts at intimidation.

This is extreme language by Professor Wessely which is allowed to go unchallenged by the reporter, the editor and the newspaper. This shows a lapse in editorial integrity.

―So there is no threat to their status or self-esteem. But CFS sufferers are in a different place.

These are just Professor Wessely‘s opinion and allegations. No proof is offered.

Yet these unchallenged remarks further denigrate sick and vulnerable people.

Ms Marsh writes -

―And the problem for some is that Professor Wessely is a psychiatrist at all. ―I think finally, fundamentally, it is that they cannot stomach the thought that this might be a, quote, ‗psychiatric disorder‘. By which they mean — not what I mean — ‗it‘s imaginary‘, ‗it doesn‘t exist‘, they are ‗malingerers‘.

This is Professor Wessely‘s view and the editor has not given an opportunity for an ME organisation to receive equal space to provide the correct view.

The fact is that ME is a neurological illness and is recognised as such by the Department of Health.

There is a legal obligation for the Department of Health to provide ICD data to the WHO for international comparison.

What classification does Professor Wessely use for ME and how does this affect the NHS Data Dictionary?

Why does Ms Marsh not state this in order to redress the balance between fact and opinion?

Ms Marsh writes

―There was a theory that ME was a retrovirus but it fell apart when tested.

This is misinformation and incorrect.

The research is still ongoing involving the National Institute of Health in USA.

Ms Marsh allows Professor Wessely to comment -

―Like it or not, CFS is not simply an illness, but a cultural phenomenon and metaphor for our times.

―A metaphor that does not apparently translate into non-English speaking countries. ―ME is virtually unknown in France, Italy and Spain. Only a small number of doctors will make this diagnosis. So most doctors will not call it this. They will call it neurasthenia, they might call it depression, they might call it stress. …….When we gave them descriptions of our typical clinical cases here in Britain, they didn‘t recognise them. They said, ‗Nah, we haven‘t seen that‘.

And again –

―Certainly we know that in Italy we do know only a small number of doctors will make this diagnosis.

These statements are totally incorrect and could have been refuted with some cursory research by the journalist. We direct you to the letter to the Times by the European ME Alliance (EMEA) [4] which shows that ME is known and accepted in these countries. The reporter should have verified this instead of passing on misinformation.

The editor of the Times did not allow the EMEA letter to be printed. This is gross negligence by the editor and the reporter. It allows the public to be misinformed.

European governments, as with the UK, must adhere to the WHO classification of ME as a neurological illness.

Mr McKie continues the media panoply of pro-Wessely publicity with this article and repeats much of the distortion which the previous articles have created.

He writes -

―A similar hate campaign was triggered by a study published in the LANCET earlier this year. It suggested that a psychological technique known as cognitive behavioural therapy could help some sufferers. This produced furious attacks on the scientists involved, including Michael Sharpe, professor of psychological medicine at Oxford University. He had already been stalked by one woman who was subsequently found to be carrying a knife at one of his lectures.

Why has the legitimate critique of the Lancet publication not been reported?

"The tragedy is that this tiny group of activists are driving young scientists from working in the field," said Sharpe. "In the end, these campaigns are only going to harm patients."

―But there was. The more I saw, the more convinced I became that the condition was a genuine, serious, debilitating illness.

This, we feel, is disingenuous and not supported by Professor Wessely‘s recorded comments. We repeat the earlier quotes which were mentioned and

made by Professor Wessely –

―In 2007, some 20 years after we started, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence approved both treatments as safe and effective.

Professor Wessely does not state, and neither does the editor, that practically every ME patient organisation (except those accepting money to toe the line with government policy) objected to and rejected these NICE guidelines.

Professor Wessely does not mention that NICE were taken to a judicial review by ME patients objecting to the NICE guidelines. Professor Wessely does not mention that NICE ignored all biomedical research into ME. This is fact.

We believe this article misleads the public.

The editor allows Professor Wessely to continue –

―The evidence is that, like most illnesses, CFS is a mixture of the physical and the psychological.

Where is the evidence? It is here that we need to have the views of patients represented and of other scientists and researchers who disagree with Professor Wessely‘s views.

Also this goes against Professor Wessely‘s stated comments which were mentioned earlier.

The editor allows Professor Wessely to continue –

―For the outraged minority, however, being referred to a psychiatrist or psychologist is tantamount to being told that the symptoms are imaginary.

Patients object to being referred to a psychiatrist when they have a neurological illness that needs to be examined and treated accordingly. MS patients, for example, are not primarily referred to psychiatrists.

The editor allows Professor Wessely to continue –

―At present, the treatments pioneered at Queen‘s Square are the best we have.

This is just opinion – not borne out by facts. It misleads the public.

The editor allows Professor Wessely to continue –

―And last, the malign tactics of the minority have helped to delay scientific progress: numerous scientists in other fields, including neurology, immunology and virology, have dipped their toes in the water of CFS, been scalded and given up.

It is also true to point out that many scientists would be willing to perform ME research had the ―Wessely School of influence not stopped funding by MRC into biomedical research. Why in all of these articles have the editors not sought quotes from these immunologists, neurologists and virologists to find out the real reason of them leaving the field?

Professor Wessely is allowed to write -

―The worst is the deliberate falsification of what we have said or written: quotes are circulated with the essential word ‗not‘ deleted, for instance. And transcripts of our speeches are sometimes altered so that ‗yes‘ becomes ‗no‘.

Professor Wessely‘s views and comments about ME are on public record.

Asking questions from ethics committees is a legitimate avenue for patients to express their concerns and seek clarification on matters that affect them.

Professor Wessely writes -

―The World Health Organisation, which runs something known as the International Classification of Diseases, a Sisyphean attempt to bring order to diagnostic chaos, is now working on yet another revision. They should think seriously about following the MRC lead and merging psychiatry and neurology into one category. This would rid us of the 'all in the mind‘ slur, and let us get on with our jobs — improving the treatment of patients and their illnesses.

―We‘re not going to go on doing more and more tests to find what was the virus, because frankly even if we found it there‘s nothing we‘re going to do about it, we‘re in the business of rehabilitation. [6]

It would seem that Professor Wessely would not change his methods of ―improving the treatment of (ME) patients no matter if neurology were to be

merged with psychiatry. Professor Wessely rejects objective neurological testing for ME patients.

We submit that by allowing Professor Wessely to publicise his views in this article, without allowing the ME community to respond, that the Spectator has contravened the Editors‘ Code of Practice on a number of points. This article has allowed the public to be misled and risked denigrating further a section of the public who suffer from a neurological illness as categorised by the WHO and officially accepted as such by the UK government. The Spectator has allowed prejudiced views on ME to be publicised without proper attention to detail. The public have not been served by this article. A section of the community has been discriminated against without an opportunity being given to respond.

Mr Pemberton writes -

―That people feel threatened by the idea that ME has a psychological component says a lot about the stigma of mental illness. 

There is no evidence to support this statement. Where has this been proven that ME patients feel threatened?

Mr Pemberton writes -

―The reason for their behaviour is that research is focusing on the psychological basis of the condition; as a result of the findings, ME is now considered to have a significant psychiatric component. While the protesters represent only a tiny fraction of those with ME, it is true to say that many others feel strongly about the suggestion that it has any basis in psychology at all.

This is totally incorrect. There is no scientific evidence for this statement. If Mr Pemberton had researched and reported the evidence he would have seen that objections to Professor Wessely are due to the statements and actions of Professor Wessely over the years – where he consistently denies that ME exists.

Professor Wessely studies the so called Oxford Criteria defined CFS (not used outside UK) which has nothing to do with the Department of Health and NHS endorsed ME as classified in ICD10-G93.3

Mr Pemberton writes -

―Many claim that their condition is the result of a viral infection or exposure to environmental toxins. Research to date has failed to support conclusively this hypothesis, much to the chagrin of sufferers, who feel frustrated and angry that doctors remain sceptical that this is the actual cause.

This is untrue. Much biomedical research does support this and many researchers believe the cause of ME is of a virological origin.

Mr Pemberton writes -

―In addition, years of research have already been undertaken, which has produced underwhelming, inconclusive results to support a biomedical cause. It wasn‘t until psychiatrists such as Prof Wessely started treating the condition psychologically that real progress was made.

This misses the point completely that the evidence is not underwhelming – the funding for biomedical research is underwhelming. The psychiatrists who share Professor Wessely‘s views have taken the lion‘s share of the funding on ME research – totally for their psychiatric theories which remain unproven.

Mr Pemberton writes -

"The current gold standard for treatment, as supported by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (Nice), is a combination of supervised exercise and talking therapies."

This is untrue. Practically all ME patient organisations rejected the NICE guidelines. They cannot be said to be a gold standard, or current.

Mr Pemberton writes -

―A major British trial published in The Lancet found that at least one in three patients with ME improved or recovered using this approach. The biggest hurdle faced by doctors is persuading people to actually attend and engage with treatment. They resist because they refuse to be seen as mentally unwell. It does seem bizarre that those with such a debilitating disease would refuse treatment because it was given by a psychiatrist.

Mr Pemberton omits the fact that the Lancet publication is based on flawed research which moved the goalposts for the research criteria midway through the trial. One only needs to compare the trial registration documents and the final published research to see the flaws in this expensive publicly-funded study and the claims they make.

Mr Pemberton writes -

―Microbiologists and immunologists have been unable to help ME patients, and so psychiatrists have become involved. But that is considered outrageous. People refuse to go to outpatient appointments and refuse treatment, despite evidence that it works. Accusations are thrown around that the medical profession is not taking them seriously. But, just because doctors frame a condition in terms the sufferer does not like, does not mean doctors are not taking it seriously. That people feel threatened by the idea that ME has a psychological component says a lot about the stigma of mental illness.

This is just misinformation based on ignorance, poor research for the article or manipulation/cooperation to promote a view of ME which is incorrectly supported by research. ME patients are not threatened by the idea that ME has a psychological component. ME patients just do not want their health treated with misinformation and obfuscation of the truth.

Mr Pemberton writes -

―It‘s an attitude that dogs the lives of many people living with mental health problems. Yet, for me, a psychological explanation is a very real one. It doesn‘t mean someone is faking it; it doesn‘t mean the illness oesn‘t exist. It also doesn‘t mean that people should be able simply to pull their socks up and get better, or that it‘s under conscious control. However, it is testament to the complexity of the brain that the mind is capable of such stark physical symptoms. As a model for understanding a condition, it‘s as valid as any other.

The implication in this article is that ME patients object to a psychological explanation because they are threatened by some stigma toward mental illness.

The WHO and the UK government officially classify ME as a neurological illness.

Why would ME patients fear any stigma to a disease classification unconnected to their own disease?

This is just misinformation and biased reporting and does not serve the public interest. It misleads the public and no chance is offered by the editor to redress this imbalance between fact and opinion.