Michael Sharpe skewered by @JohntheJack on Twitter

Re: this tweet from SW:

https://twitter.com/user/status/1007261229939937280


This is one thing that bothers me particularly about what they've done over the years, and I probably need to investigate further.
They claim to have looked into biological causes/treatments, and then abandoned them. It's almost as if they've done it so that they can say, "been there, done that, didn't work" - but what worries me is that they have found things, but then later referenced those findings as a dismissal, or even a confirmation of their theory, knowing that no-one ever checks the references.

They also have a habit of doing "clinical trials" to test aetiological hypotheses. You can't do that. In the LD hydrocortisone trial mentioned, they say,

They found that LD hydrocortisone did produce a small effect on lowering CFQ score. They claim it as a success, but right at the end, they say, "we would not recommend the widespread use of hydrocortisone as a treatment strategy." Reason, because they claim that CBT is more effective. Extraordinary.

They simply cannot let go of their theories in the face of any other evidence, and any other evidence is simply confirmation of their theories. It's all such a muddle.

 

I think he means independent in the same way that Cochrane is independent.

For anyone who is not aware, in 2106, giving evidence under oath in defence of QMUL, Chalder stated:
“disclosure to the Cochrane review does not count as disclosure to independent scientists as all three of the PACE principal investigators sat on the review panel.” (Kennedy B et al. First-Tier Tribunal, Information Rights. Appeal Number: ΕΑ/2015/0269. 2016: http://www.informationtribunal.gov.uk/DBFiles/Decision/i1854/Queen Mary University of London EA-2015-0269 (12-8-16).PDF)

He must be hoping he can keep Trudie Chalder’s mouth shut this time.

 

don't tell me she's still around then

 

Cochrane still needs addressing

 

It's people who have been treated like sh*t for many years, to some degree giving in to being human.

 

Yes, I've pondered this. I think some of them mistake this for putting their mind into the minds of others. For some there seems to be a built in arrogance that makes true empathy very unlikely.

 

Well that was an interesting scientific debate, thanks. We do realise you live a busy life and have to be off somewhere important.

I think he offered James Coyne a bottle of wine if memory serves, but only if Coyne could prove that Wessely had really said something.

An analysis of who he offers what drink to would be interesting - water instead of dinner, beer with a chat, wine for a bet - there's obviously some kind of scale in his head. I wonder what it would mean if he offered someone a cup of tea and a biscuit?

 

Get that alone in front of an independent enquiry, and SW will really have to hope he can substantiate what he says here.

 

A few years ago, there was a UK journalist Sonia Poulton whom he invited for coffee:

http://blacktrianglecampaign.org/20...esponds-to-journalist-sonia-poultons-article/

 

Hey, this is a thing! Maybe he has a rule never to offer the same drink twice? Or maybe only men get alcohol - wine and beer, and women get water or coffee. I shall develop this and write a paper.

 

Ok if anyone can find a reference to Simon Wessely offering a cup to tea to someone I'll donate $50 to #MEAction. $100 if the person he offered the tea to was a man.

I need data, dammit.

 

This is from a book by Wessely (Chapter: The patient who threatens violence):

 

I'm sorry I can't accept that, he has to actually offer a cup of tea to a real person.

Whilst researching the chances of me losing my bet my new paper - Gender Differences in the Incidence of Proferred Beverages, a Narrative Review - I came across the following paper, which is fascinating for the way in which Simon Wessely starts by constructing fantasy characters based on his prejudices:

https://academic.oup.com/bmb/article/69/1/197/523356

And goes on to write the following:

The whole paper is about as good an example of "just make shit up and call it science" as I've seen from him, and that's saying something.

 

It seems completely unnecessary that people are feeling the need to try to interfere with Simon and Mike's lunch plans on twitter. I think a few people need to stop being so overzealous.

 

By all accounts he invites you out then makes you pay. I wonder how strong the beer was he wanted you to drink.

 

If he invites me for a kebab and pays I'll throw the whole fucking lot of you under the bus.

 

I think Wessely is being left swiped alot. Is he mixing up twitter with a dating app?

 

'Such is the nature of large pragmatic trials. '

Oops, Wessely does not even seem to know what a 'pragmatic trial' is. The one thing you could not call PACE is a pragmatic trial. It was supposed to be gold standard watertight, definitive.

 

Is anyone else worried that the "solution" to all this will be, "the PACE trial was done so badly it all needs to be funded and done again"?

 

I'm not worried. The PACE authors know CBT/GET doesn't work. And no one else seems really interested in CBT/GET except perhaps Crawley, who is doing a fine job eroding her own credibility.

However I believe that unless the PACE authors don't face consequences or the UK adresses its junk science problem, there will be a risk that over time someone will follow the exact same recipe. The MUS and FND people seem to be already positioning themselves to take their place.