Michael Sharpe skewered by @JohntheJack on Twitter

Esther12 said:
For a psych trial PACE was unusually good at monitoring harm. Their measure for 'harm' relied upon subjective self-report outcomes, and there slightly more adverse events in the GET group, which the PACE researchers then decided were not related to GET, and there have since been participants who've said that their condition seriously declined while doing GET as a part of PACE, but 'harms' is still not a great place to criticise PACE imo.

Kindlon wrote this good summary of the issues: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1359105317697323

We've since had those minutes @adambeyoncelowe mentioned released - there seem to be some worthwhile quotes in there, but I'd still be cautious on this whole issue.
Click to expand...

From the minutes, the whole thing looks like it was manipulated. I don't trust that they acknowledged harms properly from the minutes. However, I've removed my comment anyway, given your objection.
 
adambeyoncelowe said:
From the minutes, the whole thing looks like it was manipulated. I don't trust that they acknowledged harms properly from the minutes. However, I've removed my comment anyway, given your objection.
Click to expand...

Sorry - I don't think I'd meant to object to what you'd said! I can't remember exactly what you wrote now, but I think I'd meant to just say that I thought you'd raised a relevant issue, but that it still did not fully undermine claims that PACE seemed to indicate GET (as carried out within the unusual setting of the PACE trial) did not seem to lead to a big increase in harms. Sorry for any confusion, I'm still getting my brain together for the day.
 
In any exchange like this its important to realise you are very unlikely to sway someone like MS. Its not about that. Its only to a lesser extent about reaching the general audience. Its most important to reach any scientists and medical practitioners. You don't even have to convince them. You just have to induce them to start asking questions and finding out for themselves.

This is not a scientific exchange, either. Its political, an aspect of medical politics. So evidence is important, and that does include scientific evidence, but clearly showing an issue is more important.
 
alex3619 said:
In any exchange like this its important to realise you are very unlikely to sway someone like MS. Its not about that. Its only to a lesser extent about reaching the general audience. Its most important to reach any scientists and medical practitioners. You don't even have to convince them. You just have to induce them to start asking questions and finding out for themselves.

This is not a scientific exchange, either. Its political, an aspect of medical politics. So evidence is important, and that does include scientific evidence, but clearly showing an issue is more important.
Click to expand...

Yes - exactly. And that all means it's well worth being cautious and utterly rigorous in ones criticisms. There's no benefit in saying anything that could be viewed as remotely exaggerated.
 
Esther12 said:
Yes - exactly. And that all means it's well worth being cautious and utterly rigorous in ones criticisms. There's no benefit in saying anything that could be viewed as remotely exaggerated.
Click to expand...

I wonder if Sharpe’s motivation for these exchanges is to induce inaccurate criticisms and abusive comments so that he can use them to discredit/smear his critics. I am torn between challenging him and ignoring him for reasons given by others above. It’s a shame he can’t be persuaded to discuss these issues in a formal public debate with academic critics rather than with random anonymous tweeters with varying degrees of knowledge and understanding.

My impression is that he seems to be trying to row back from some of the more extreme BPS rhetoric and ideas, which is perhaps an indication that he is starting realise that he and his colleagues may be on the wrong side of history.
 
Last edited:
Robert 1973 said:
I wonder if Sharpe’s motivation for these exchanges is to induce inaccurate criticisms and abusive comments so that he can use them to discredit/smear his critics. I am torn between challenging him and ignoring him for reasons given by others above.
Click to expand...
After one attempt to engage I gave up. He is clearly trying to provoke a reaction. Criticising the actions of very sick people is just plain cruel. He should be ashamed of himself. That comment sounds deranged.
 
I see @Lucibee already tried to 'censor' Sharpe by pointing out that corrections aren't censorship.

If they thought that correcting people who misrepresent important issues is some sort of censorship, that could help explain their outrage at criticism of the PACE trial.
 
Esther12 said:
I see @Lucibee already tried to 'censor' Sharpe by pointing out that corrections aren't censorship.

If they thought that correcting people who misrepresent important issues is some sort of censorship, that could help explain their outrage at criticism of the PACE trial.
Click to expand...

Yet they like to special status to preview articles and have special rights to reply in journals.
 
Robert 1973 said:
I wonder if Sharpe’s motivation for these exchanges is to induce inaccurate criticisms and abusive comments so that he can use them to discredit/smear his critics. I am torn between challenging him and ignoring him for reasons given by others above. It’s a shame he can’t be persuaded to discuss these issues in a formal public debate with academic critics rather than with random anonymous tweeters with varying degrees of knowledge and understanding.

My impression is that he seems to be trying to row back from some of the more extreme BPS rhetoric and ideas, which is perhaps an indication that he is starting realise that he and his colleagues may be on the wrong side of history.
Click to expand...
As I've said in the past, I think most people model their world in terms of truths and untruths, and interact with others on that basis. But others, and MS very possibly, seem to model the world in terms of cause and effect, and interact with others primarily on that basis. I don't see his comments as being in the slightest bit concerned with engaging in real dialogue, nor even reality necessarily. I see his comments as all about aiming to manipulate those he is engaging with. One day, it could be exceedingly enlightening (we may get the chance) for all these comments to be analysed by (don't laugh!) a forensic psychologist, because I think MS is giving much much more away about himself than he realises, despite his professional credentials.
 
Last edited:
DeoRX7_WsAAFFom.jpg

upload_2018-6-2_17-3-44.png

"Is that what that says. Really?"

Intriguing response to him seeing what was written in the very manual the PACE GET therapists followed. Almost as if MS is a bit surprised to see it out in the open himself, and not knowing how to react. My gut feeling is the PACE manuals could be their real weakness, because they were a clear statement of intent and mindset before the trial began, and which they couldn't twist to suit after the fact. And the investigators can hardly argue they didn't adhere to what was laid down in the trial's manuals.
 
Barry said:
DeoRX7_WsAAFFom.jpg

View attachment 3178

"Is that what that says. Really?"

Intriguing response to him seeing what was written in the very manual the PACE GET therapists followed. Almost as if MS is a bit surprised to see it out in the open himself, and not knowing how to react. My gut feeling is the PACE manuals could be their real weakness, because they were a clear statement of intent and mindset before the trial began, and which they couldn't twist to suit after the fact. And the investigators can hardly argue they didn't adhere to what was laid down in the trial's manuals.
Click to expand...

Looking at that exchange, I think Sharpe was saying that the tweeter had mischaracterised the content of the manual in the earlier tweet.
 
Professor Sharpe avoids all direct questions with counter-questions or pseudo-responses. Classic strategy. Poor guy. He's seems seriously misguided or perhaps even deluded. Someone should stage an intervention before he causes himself even more rhetorical damage.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom