Search results

@Andy

No, he was named as Michael Sharpe, more than once.

The last one was in Hansard so I would think yes, and very quickly.

The minister was sounding very promising at the beginning in terms of his understanding and attitude but was disappointing in what he was able to offer, IMO, at least on the spot. I wonder if it's likely he'll go away and make better things happen. I don't know how much to expect from a...

I missed the first half hour - is there any way to watch from the beginning?

Minister also wants Michael Sharpe to apologise to Carol Monaghan.

Minister praising Unrest and #MillionsMissing and sticking the boot into the Ricky Gervais sketch. and says he should retract and apologise on Twitter.

Who is the woman talking now?

MP talking now named Michael Sharpe and called on him to apologise for this. Not the only MP in the debate to giving Sharpe a verbal kicking for this.

Guy talking now named Michael Sharpe and called on him to apologise (about his email to Carol).

Namecheck for Sally Burch from her MP!

I got as far as the silent slides and didn't have a clue what to do next, so gave up. Incredibly piss-poor provision for brain-fogged patients.

It doesn't matter how many years ago it was - we're still talking about it because it's still doing harm.

Why should ME patients have the slightest interest in meeting any challenge from Michael Sharpe? The only reason for having any interest in what he's saying at all is that he's been party to a trial that's a piece of absolute crap and he needs to admit that in order to stop it harming patients...

A bump for this, which starts at 9am East Coast Time (2pm UK time, I think).

The great irony in all this is that it's the PACE authors themselves - Michael Sharpe included - who give the appearance of not having read the Lancet paper. People who read their own papers tend to notice screaming errors such as 'improvement' thresholds that fall below the trial entry thresholds.

An individual donor could make a lot more difference with their money by giving to an underresearched disease than one that's relatively awash with cash, and I think that could be spelled out. Also, I think we tend to underestimate how many people personally know someone with ME and want to...

BTW, I think this fundraising issue could do with its own thread - it's very important and people with an interest in it might not notice it under the current thread title.