Michael Sharpe skewered by @JohntheJack on Twitter

SW: "But I am pretty sure I wasn’t a centre leader." Huh? I know it's a while ago now, but is being a centre leader such a run of the mill role that someone would not - I mean really not - recall if they held that role or not? I'm finding this very hard to take seriously. Indeed I find it a little amusing.

 

Thank goodness we have all the written evidence for it then, else where would we all be ???

 

I think social media is proving their undoing, because once upon a time the linguistic chicanery they keep trying here worked wonders for them. Seem to be finding it more difficult now though.

 

Yes. Still post the links, but screenshots also.

 

Not to be picky - but I find the standard of English in the attachment quite poor. Also - "scientific journalist"?

 

Oops!

Worse than oops in fact.

 

That is pretty annoying, and quite an important misunderstanding on Wessely's part. Even with the null employment outcome PACE is still hurting how ME patients applying for benefits are treated.

 

MS: "Persistence is good up to a point and then becomes just annoying." Doesn't it just ... especially when the persisting person is right and you are wrong, so very wrong.

 

Is this the person Sharp was claiming was independently choosen ?
Or am I getting mixed up.

 

MS: "Apologies. I wasn't suggesting you were. But sadly David Tuller is paid to trash this research. Ask him." Wrong again. @dave30th is being paid to expose the truth, and the truth is that the research is trash. If the truth were that we were all wrong, and PACE really was a magic cure (ha!) for ME, then that's what we would expect DT to uncover.

 

Not seen that before. Surely that amounts to a form of fraudulent bias, in a supposedly independent journal?

 

Kno idea.

 

https://twitter.com/user/status/1008493025331372032

https://twitter.com/user/status/1008786679493210112

 

An editor will always need to carefully select the person who writes the editorial.
So no...

But on the other hand if the editor is jointly agreeing the 'PR exercise' with the authors, probably yes - if the paper has not yet been refereed that is.

 

Is the editorial the same as the commentary or are they different things?

ETA :
https://twitter.com/user/status/1008417214108758017

 

Certainly it is very paradigm-challenging to learn that the thing that works to remediate some other conditions causes harm in the context of this one.

I think Mike Godwin is showing his lack of expertise here a bit. Just because the daily papers keep banging on about exercise being good for us there are all sorts of conditions made worse by exercise. Septic arthritis, hypertrophic obstructive cardiomyopathy and aortic stenosis (sudden death in those), sickle cell anaemia, altitude sickness, osteogenesis imperfecta, leprosy, ... in various ways scores of conditions.

And for people with motor neuron disease or muscular dystrophy you get nowhere by sending them to the gym because it makes no difference. They try as hard as they can all day long.

And everyone keeps forgetting that PWME do not actually need to exercise - they are not severely deconditioned as a whole. What they need is to be able to do ordinary activities without distress, not run marathons for the sake of it.

 

https://twitter.com/user/status/1008459396299583488

 

I assume so: @Lucibee ?

 

In this case, yes. In the TSC minutes, editorial=commentary.