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

from the sharpe-text

illness = patients subjective experience
disease = pathology found

"illness without disease"
because pwmecfs feel rejected by medical-institutions, they then reject the med-institutions (suggesting cbt/get) ?

after all, cbt/get is for a number of diseases.
nothing specific.

 

Oh, I'm so tired of this.

After years of studying the condition, it's back to the same rethorics we've had going for years and years - that his science was supposed to find an answer for, one way or the other.

Even if you know nothing about PACE, him not mentioning his main work sure would indicate that either it was a total waste he don't want be associated with, or that it failed to prove his theory and he don't want to admit it.

Him not mentioning the main work of his career at all, but blaiming patients - again - is really not a good look. It should be obvoius for all now. Please leave the sceene with some grace?

As for his arguments, I can't be bothered. Link to commentaries on The mental elf or somthing, we've done that song and dance so many times before - the rethoric don't hold water.

Edit: missing word

 

Sharpe's missives are part of his farewell tour .. The large insurance company enhanced pension looms.

Peter White did the same & Simon Wessely will do it in turn.

 

Are they telling them that the fatigue is psychogenic and behavioral? Are they coerced into accepting treatment to be eligible for benefits and to avoid hateful treatment by doctors and nurses?

 

I actually can't bring myself to read this. Everything written by that man is pretty heinous.

 

I'm not even sure that is true when you look at the numbers of people who get cancer. And even if there's any truth that they are readily accepted that doesn't mean they work.

There's probably thousands of cancer patients who readily accept homeopathy, reiki, faith healing etc etc. So what.

Bad example anyway when cancer has real treatments running alongside hocus pocus ones.

 

I just noted the presence of "morals" in the title and have an urgent need to vomit.

The utter immorality and ethical bankruptcy of this madness is so much worse considering it is promoted and defended by medical professionals.

Do no harm has truly lost all sense or meaning. There will have to be a lot of soul-searching to wipe the slate of this physician-induced human rights disaster.

 

Their absence from not one but two major consecutive conferences right in their backyard shows unambiguously that they are rejected by the actual researchers in a field in which they have contributed nothing but confusion and misdirection.

This is really all there is to tell about the topic. None of them even comment on any of the research conferences, let alone participate. I don't understand how that does not make it obvious to any outside gullible observer who falls for the "muh patients are mean" trope. They are rejected by their "peers", although here the term is quite misleading.

 

The actual comparable research for cancer would actually be the cancer personality nonsense and it was obviously rejected and offensive.

 

Their entire careers have consisted of Machiavellian quest for power and denying patients the ability to survive in the world so that insurance companies and govt can save $ and they have the gall to talk about morals.

 

So they published it just for the controversy - clickbait style. How nice of them.....

https://twitter.com/user/status/1133817356306845696


https://twitter.com/user/status/1133820134081085442

 

It seems clear to me they are on a fishing expedition to find people who might respond intemperately providing a straw man to argue against for the factually challenged BPS view.

 

Have you tried to submit one? Sometimes comments can be pre-moderated and take a long time to appear. I remember years ago, a student doctor wrote a blog on the BMJ blog section and it took days for the comments to be approved.

 

The Oxford Compact English Dictionary defines "benign" as 1 kind and gentle. 2 not harmful or harsh; favourable...not malignant.

It does not say effective. Neither does the article.


Rather tedious, the same old argument - why do cancer patients welcome CBT and GET, and pwME don't?

Because CBT and GET are all that is on offer in the UK for ME! There is no biomedical treatment for ME, as there is with cancer.

If pwcancer were told they would get better merely from CBT and GET - there would be a great hue and cry!

 

It's funny how a handful of the entrenched older guard from a couple of specific medical niches cannot shake free from their perverse obsessions, even when the writing is on the wall, even when the world is increasingly watching and aware.

 

The piece's argument does seem utterly besides the point of the real controversies around Sharpe's work, so maybe most people will ignore it and they'll just get some misguided comments from people insisting that some old unreplicated and dubious study preves that ME is a 'real' disease?

The question of whether or not ME should be classed as a disease is one that lets them act all sophisticated, while most patients seem to realise it doesn't matter. What's important is whether patients are being spoken to honestly and provided with accurate information on treatment efficacy based upon rigorously conducted research. That there's so much dishonesty and spin around CBT and GET is going to make them rather controversial.

 

Is this blog a summary of an article somewhere else or is that just a mistake in the description?

Maybe I should write a reply? Or maybe leave it alone?

 

I suspect that the supportive variety of CBT can be a helpful tool.
The issue is that people are not aware that there is a different type, so will have more trouble understanding why someone would refuse it.
If the " special type" of CBT was explained, particularly as public awareness seems to be growing, the argument may be undermined.