+1 to all of that, with the added notes that I personally believe (i) Wessely et al. are playing a conscious clever con-game and (ii) one reason - of very many, very well discussed by Malcolm Hooper (thank you very kindly, sir! GREAT work!) - they are not even decently scientific and fair is that they systematically leave out all or nearly all references to biomedical findings & explanations and (iiii) Wessely is important due to the positions of power he has, and his formal standing. But sure: No doubt quite a few of his kind may replace him and spout the same drivel till their pensions, and even after, to feed the sick twists in their tiny minds.