Michael Sharpe skewered by @JohntheJack on Twitter

[Snowdrop]

I suspect if Richard Feynman were still around, MS might be unwise to take his name in vain.

A student of his (from MIT), Danny Hollis, is on twitter.

 

[Suffolkres]

Yet again, no COIs mentioned for Sharpe, White or Chalder, in this 2006 publication, "NHS Plus Occupational Aspects of the Management of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome: a National Guideline "

Pages 3-4 lists those involved in producing the document.

Sharpe and White were external assessors, Chalder was a guideline development group member, as was Chris Clark, CEO of AfME who were at this time actively involved with the PACE trial and in receipt of a large DoH grant.

On p4 at the end of the list of those involved it states "Conflicts of interest: none declared"

They should be declaring all their COIs full stop but especially for a document which is "intended to assist occupational health professionals, managers and other interested parties in providing advice on fitness for work in employees with CFS."

It appears as if members of the BPS fraternity think it is OK to pick and choose when to declare their COIs.

From the executive summary:

http://www.nhshealthatwork.co.uk/images/library/files/Clinical excellence/CFS_full_guideline.pdf

Executive Summary

Chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) is a medically unexplained illness characterised by severe, disabling fatigue and other symptoms. Although there is a large body of research into CFS and its treatment, few studies have looked at the employment outcomes of individuals with CFS. This review summarises current evidence and is intended to assist occupational health professionals, managers and other interested parties in providing advice on fitness for work in employees with CFS.

Thank you so m uch for raising my pet issue which I discussed with NICE this week- They denied any reference to this in recent NICE Surveillance work- I know otherwise!

 

[Graham]

I've just read through all of this again, but can't find a comment on Twitter by Michael Sharpe along the lines of the PACE trial "just being a trial". Am I imagining it?

 

[Esther12]

You mean this one?

 

[Graham]

That's the one! Thanks. How do you manage to find things like that?

 

[ahimsa]

That's the one! Thanks. How do you manage to find things like that?

I don't know how @Esther12 found it but here's the advanced search link that I often use when I want to find something on twitter:

https://twitter.com/search-advanced?lang=en

 

[Graham]

Thanks @ahimsa , but the truth is that I've known @Esther12 for a long time now and can confidently report it is simply the result of a colossal brain, unbelievable organizational skills, and a susceptibility to flattery. (Only two of those are true)

 

[Esther12]

Nah, it was just 'advanced search'. That's all it has ever been...

 

[Andy]

Can only assume that Sharpe is being unintentionally (and doubly) ironic here.

First he posts this

which can be read here for anybody interested, https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2731897

and then posts this


or maybe he's trying to be useful, he posts a link to something that could have helped stop his medical misinformation, and then he finds another example of misinformation and shares it as an example? (No, I don't believe any of that either.)

 

[Woolie]

Oh god, its so transparent! Sharpe trying to imply that any scepticism directed at his research is due to "misinformation".

I think its rather obvious he has no real understanding of the material in this paper, probably hasn't even read it. He just retweets things based on the sound of them alone, whether they enhance his twitter "image".

Who's game to ask if he's read the paper?

 

[Hoopoe]

Sharpe should continue tweeting about the lightning process.

It makes him look like a raving quack. I think it also reveals how he really sees CFS: as choice and all in the mind.

 

[Sly Saint]

The article he tweeted is by a girl in England who 'recovered' after 3 years using 'graded activity' which, from her description, sounds a lot like pacing having been off school for a year and a half (post glandular fever).



maybe someone could ask him what happened to the
PACE 10 year follow-up: feasibility study
https://www.hra.nhs.uk/planning-and...ies/pace-10-year-follow-up-feasibility-study/

eta: also,there is no point getting the data if you won't share it!

 

[TiredSam]

Oh good, MS is back on twitter. Only a matter of time before he shoots himself in the foot again.

 

[Sean]

also,there is no point getting the data if you won't share it!

No point in getting the data because they stuffed up the randomisation. Any further outcomes data would be meaningless.

 

[Sly Saint]

Why won't Prof Sharpe answer my question? He keeps saying, "It's just a trial, it's just a trial"

but it's not just a trial.............it's an MS trial (queue music)

 

[NelliePledge]

but it's not just a trial.............it's an MS trial (queue music)

 

[Barry]

One thing I find confusing, is the claim that PACE only studied CFS. I assumed ME and CFS in a medical and legal sense are (regrettably) the same diagnosis - at least I thought so based on the ICD codes. Not that newspapers are the best source, but so often the line is, CFS also known as ME.

I know a lot of patients argue (fairly) that CFS is not ME, but I'm purely commenting on the operational status of the terms.

The rejection of ME based on the biopsychosocial theory, in the past was (based on some things I have read), the argument that ME was just a belief. In my case I prefer the term ME purely for historical purposes - in lieu of something like 'Ramsay's Disease' being made official. Actually diagnosing ME down to the very meaning of the words isn't done on the NHS.

The crux of this is, if Sharpe says he didn't study ME patients, on the basis the two are the same, that would just be an opinion that does not line up with the operational status of the terms.

This is what the PACE GET participant's manual says:


Although the PACE papers primarily refer to CFS, if the authors had really thought that their treatments should be confined to CFS, and not to ME, then why have they never, ever, spoken out about the existing 2007 NICE guideline which says:


If they really believed what MS is always banging on about, then they should have spoken out about how the guideline did not fit with their research. And that GET and CBT should not be being recommended for ME, only CFS, as MS is saying they perceived things. But they did not speak out ... why not I wonder .

 

[Suffolkres]

Yet again, no COIs mentioned for Sharpe, White or Chalder, in this 2006 publication, "NHS Plus Occupational Aspects of the Management of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome: a National Guideline "

Pages 3-4 lists those involved in producing the document.

Sharpe and White were external assessors, Chalder was a guideline development group member, as was Chris Clark, CEO of AfME who were at this time actively involved with the PACE trial and in receipt of a large DoH grant.

On p4 at the end of the list of those involved it states "Conflicts of interest: none declared"

They should be declaring all their COIs full stop but especially for a document which is "intended to assist occupational health professionals, managers and other interested parties in providing advice on fitness for work in employees with CFS."

It appears as if members of the BPS fraternity think it is OK to pick and choose when to declare their COIs.

From the executive summary:

http://www.nhshealthatwork.co.uk/images/library/files/Clinical excellence/CFS_full_guideline.pdf

Executive Summary

Chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) is a medically unexplained illness characterised by severe, disabling fatigue and other symptoms. Although there is a large body of research into CFS and its treatment, few studies have looked at the employment outcomes of individuals with CFS. This review summarises current evidence and is intended to assist occupational health professionals, managers and other interested parties in providing advice on fitness for work in employees with CFS.

NHS PLUS... the testing ground for NICE and PACE.... my very favourite publication!!!!! STILL trying to GET..this publication and report withdrawn..

 

[chrisb]

Does anyone know what Chris Clark's employment was before, and after, being CEO of AfME? The eassily available info specifies that he was CEO until 2006, but doesn't say when he started, or how.

 

[Suffolkres]

He went onto another Charity Role I think the Stroke Association https://www.theguardian.com/healthcare-network/2012/dec/28/stroke-association-five-minutes