Monday, October 26, 2009

What next for the psychologizers?

Will Dominos Fall?

John Herd

With the advent of the Whittemore-Peterson Institute's XMRV research 
we may be entering a new and more relevant era of research of our 

So will it put the medical fantasies about the illness to rest?

And what of the likes of Simon Wessely and Michael Sharpet whom have 
both created and perpetuated those fantasies under the guise of 
supposed science?

For decades the psychiatric profession has been increasingly trying to 
elevate itself by portraying psychiatry as pure science. They have 
been like the somewhat dysfunctional child who wants to be seen on the 
same tier as other medical professions, to elevate psychiatric and 
psychological conditions to the same tier as medical conditions.

Let's accept for the sake of discussion that the road to credibility 
is pure science.

So what of research psychiatrists such as Simon Wessely and Michael 
Sharpe now? They have professed to be using that 'pure science' to 
define ME/CFS. We've seen them generate lots of data shrouded in 
supposedly pure science.

What happens now that Simon Wessely's and Michael Sharpe's theories 
about ME/CFS and supposed science are being scientifically proven to 
be nothing more than tainted data conducted and created to support 
preconceived flawed theories?

What does the so scientifically oriented psychiatric research sector 
do now that it is becoming evident that two of their own have 
corrupted 'the science' so profoundly?

Do the psychiatric sector, academic medical sector and government 
health sector distance themselves from such corruptors of science?

That is usually what happens in science when an investigator is shown 
to have been generating corrupted data.

Will Simon Wessely and Michael Sharpe be cut loose, on their own to go 
down in history as having egg on their faces?

Or will the psychiatric research, academic medical and government 
health sectors rally around to protect their own, only making the 
whole matter more scientifically reprehensible?

As we enter this new era of ME/CFS research it is not enough to let 
the gradual progress of science illuminate the contradictory nature of 
Simon Wessely's and Michael Sharpe's decades long campaigns.

As research progresses we advocates, activists and patients must bring 
the contradictions to the doorsteps of psychiatric research, academic 
medical, government health, and media sectors.

Researcher's time is best spent researching. While under some 
circumstance we need their voices, the are wise to for the most part 
steer clear of the politics; that is up to us. If we do so effectively 
we can open the doors to more needed research in the days and months 

No comments: