Michael Sharpe skewered by @JohntheJack on Twitter

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

Sharpe now seems to be just tweeting random patients and telling them that he disagrees with how they're living their lives. Is this sort of thing normal on twitter?

 

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.

 

I think you need to define ‘normal’

 

He's denying the existence of POTS now...

 

Wow, passive aggressive tweeting at @Lucibee now
https://twitter.com/user/status/1002936798455173120

 

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.

 

Yet they like to special status to preview articles and have special rights to reply in journals.

 

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.

 

"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.

 

He's getting very defensive
https://twitter.com/user/status/1002944166849019906

Which can only be a good sign.

 

Looking at that exchange, I think Sharpe was saying that the tweeter had mischaracterised the content of the manual in the earlier tweet.

 

Heresy? Really?

 

Yes I think he was trying to do that, but I don't think it worked.

 

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.