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

Yes, I insisted on this.

I didn't want to go into the arguments by Greco & Sharpe as I thought these were mostly beside the point. So my text wasn't a direct comment on their paper but a separate perspective on the same subject.

 

Then I'm even more confused.

There were supposed to be 2 types of responses, I guess that's the difference, but that makes for lousy conversation.

 

The problem with this though is that the Greco/Sharpe paper isn't linked either to your blog post or from it, and because it's a blog, it won't appear in the PubMed record.

 

I know, but I prefer it this way.

 

I'm obviously being a bit dense ... where is the Responses tab?

 

No, it isn't a blog. They did publish a pre-commentary of the article in blog form, but that was essentially an advert for the main paper.

Responses appear on the tab to the left of the main article.

 

Only on the Agardy response, not Michiel's.

The Agardy response is available on the main article by Sharpe/Greco, accessible by the tab or linked from here: https://mh.bmj.com/content/early/2019/06/18/medhum-2018-011598.responses.

 

It's alternative discussion!

 

https://twitter.com/user/status/1146720589413064704

Code:

https://twitter.com/MedHums_BMJ/status/1146720589413064704

 

Maybe someone needs to make a response to the paper citing Michiel's blog, so that the two are more clearly linked? It's helpful to have everything in one place.

 

It *is* confusing - but that's them, not you. Their linking and site organisation is very poor.

The article itself is due to appear in their June edition (I know it's July already), which is previewed in yet another blog here: https://blogs.bmj.com/medical-humanities/2019/07/05/june-2019-special-issue-psychosomatics/

All the links are to the blogs about the papers and not the papers themselves, which doesn't help!

 

Is this simply to expand a fan base; we seem to be moving forward on basis of a personality cult.

 

Just have enjoyed comparing the number of retweets and likes...
https://twitter.com/user/status/1133753380210450433

(8 retwets, 12 likes)

Code:

https://twitter.com/MedHums_BMJ/status/1133753380210450433

https://twitter.com/user/status/1146720589413064704

(21 retweets, 48 likes in 2 days)

Code:

https://twitter.com/MedHums_BMJ/status/1146720589413064704

(Didn't see a bmj medical humanities tweet on Sharpe's/ Greco's full article)

 

From what I can glean from their tweetings, it seems that their policy is to not publish links to the main articles until the print version has been published, even if those articles have already appeared on their website.

 

Also the ratio. If you have more comments than likes, that's usually see as a bad thing.

 

And Michael Sharpe tweeted it twice.

Live look at Sharpe being sad that people don't pay attention to his pathetic attempt at philosophy-without-thought about his medicine-without-morality:

 

Err... What? That isn't Sharpe, so I'm clearly missing a joke somewhere.