Michael Sharpe: Mind, Medicine and Morals: A Tale of Two Illnesses (2019) BMJ blog - and published responses

@Michiel Tack

I've never seen anyone with cancer clamouring for psychological treatments. (Not that I've ever looked for it.) Do you know of any links that might back this up?

 

To be fair I knew a good friend/colleague who lost his long hard fight with cancer some while back now. He and his wife openly told me and others that the counselling they both received was of tremendous help with their coping; said they did not know how they would have been managing without.

 

Nope, sorry. I was just quoting Wessely.

 

The reason that CFS sits in uncomfortable territory between medicine and psychiatry is because Wesseley and his ilk have put it there.
The fact that PwME are uncomfortable with psych therapies is that they are promoted as curative not supportive.

I do not think that even W & Co are promoting psych therapy in cancer as anything more than supportive/coming to terms with/talking things through.

The arrogance of the guy is once again ASTOUNDING!

 

It is not merely arrogance. It is a deliberate tactic to discredit critics of his approach.

First it misleads the reader into thinking that CBT for cancer is comparable to CBT for CFS. Then in effect he says that critics object to CBT for petty reasons.

I suppose that makes him arrogant in the sense of not being willing to recognize criticism of his approach as deserving an honest answer.

 

I think it's more than arrogance @MEMarge, I think it's cold, calculating misdirection. Making a false comparison with one very reasonable thing, hoping your audience do not notice there is a difference and only see the apparent similarity. Then argue your case based on the presumption of a valid comparison. These are the psychological tactics seen in abusive relationships, and in that context are seen as predatory. I find it despicable to see it used here like this, by people professing to have only their patients' interests at heart. As my daughter would have once said: "Yeah, right!".

ETA: I see @strategist got there ahead of me .

 

What you are describing is a straw man argument.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Never a sound way to win an argument but, nevertheless, often employed.

 

Michael Sharpe trying to provoke responses to add to his 'abusive' file(?)

https://twitter.com/user/status/1145288448120688640


(he retweeted [@cfs_research] link to the article over a week ago but there were only two replies)

maybe leave it that way. Not really worth replying to.

 

He's probably already blocked most of the people who'd be likely to respond!

 

Yes it is a straw man argument, and a very subtle one. These people excel at presenting them in extremely plausible-sounding ways. It is often the case that people use straw man arguments without realising they are doing so. But these people do it with cold diversionary precision, which I find revolting. Of all people, they know exactly what they are doing, and one day I hope the law makes it their undoing.

 

Only one reply by Erik and it's a pretty apt.

Can't really fish for replies he could pretend are abusive since he blocked nearly everyone who would bother. Victim mentality only works when you convince others of it, that's all he's trying to do. But his rambling article is so bad that I doubt anyone will engage beyond a quick like. It'd be embarrassing to appear to give credibility to this high school level attempt at philosophy filled with logical fallacies.

He's probably reading this thread, though. Michael, your attempt at philosophy is puerile and as inept as your life's work on a disease you don't understand the first thing about. Using big words incorrectly never actually sounds smart, there has to be genuine substance to give them weight. Stay in your lane, whatever that actually is. Toy models, maybe?

 

Susanna Agardy’s response to Sharpe and Greco’s article has been published.

https://mh.bmj.com/content/early/2019/06/18/medhum-2018-011598.responses

 

It says it was published on the 23 June, but I've been checking the website daily since the article was published, so that can't be true.

 

Yes, that's weird. It was probably submitted instead of published on 23 June.

 

@Michiel Tack 's response has now appeared: https://blogs.bmj.com/medical-humanities/2019/07/04/why-graded-exercise-therapy-and-cognitive-behaviour-therapy-are-controversial-in-chronic-fatigue-syndrome/

eta: Well done for quoting Sharpe's own research back at him

 

Merged thread

Commentary by Michiel Tack

Why Graded Exercise Therapy and Cognitive Behaviour Therapy are Controversial in Chronic Fatigue Syndrome

https://blogs.bmj.com/medical-human...re-controversial-in-chronic-fatigue-syndrome/

@Michiel Tack

 

Very good. Especially ...

 

Excellent response!

Ignores the pretend argument by Sharpe and focuses on the real points of controversy.

 

I don't see Michiel's response in the "Responses" tab of the article, only Agardy's.

Not impressed with their publishing system. Bit awkward for a publishing company.

 

It's a separate blog.