Michael Sharpe skewered by @JohntheJack on Twitter

OMG, that's wonderful!

 

Even better, Mike has signed the new open letter to the Lancet, calling for a re-analysis, https://www.s4me.info/threads/david...-open-letter-to-the-lancet-two-years-on.4671/

 

Is anyone able to flag up Graham's video for Mike Godwin. And ask in the friendliest of teasing terms why we need to bring in Popper or even 'models' when Graham has got it sorted.

 

Precisely, Wessely is so accustomed to being feted and lauded by UK establishment it simply would not have crossed his mind that summoning an old pal into the debate would work against him.

 

Mike Godwin retweeted this,
https://twitter.com/user/status/1009144170634776576

 

And also this,
https://twitter.com/user/status/1009143350971076609

 

Whew, this ride is moving pretty fast!

Interesting observation. For sure. The Type A personality + lazy, support-seeking slug comes to mind. Activity-phobic plus boom and bust, too.

I'm sure they'd explain this by saying there are many types of patients though. You can come to the same 'false belief' many ways, or be faking, or whatever explanation suits their purposes at the time.

You have unlocked a new achievement!

I'd be happy to donate. I note that @Keela Too already started doing it but nothing to say we can't set up a quick gofundme to compensate for her efforts.

Might be good to upload to a Google doc that anyone can access with link, but no one can edit (except you).

Absolutely agree. The focus is on pathological behavior.

 

I emailed them to Adrian, who has put them on here somewhere, and linked them up thread.

I have got as far as post #600 in this thread. I've been putting screen shots of all the tweets in each batch of 100 posts into a document at a time.

Does anyone else want to do a few too? Maybe some one could start at post #1000 and work upwards whilst I catch up?

 

Not necessary.

 

As for narratives, my way of describing this is they put persuasive rhetoric over evidence and reason.

 

I would agree. In fact, there's been a movement in Psychology recently to dispense with the traditional logic of null hypothesis testing (is the hypothesis supported or not?), and adopt a more Bayesian approach. So without going into boring detail about Bayes, what this means in practice is that instead of testing whether there's enough evidence to favour a particular hypothesis, you can actively compare two different positions.* You decide if the evidence for one position outweighs that for the opposing position, and if so, by how much.

(* It sounds like the same thing as standard null hypothesis testing (NHST). But in practice, there's a difference. Standard NHST allows you to conclude your hypothesis is correct, if the evidence is strong enough (p < .05). But it doesn't ever allow you to conclude with certainty that the null hypothesis is correct. The best you can do is say there's not enough evidence yet to reject it. If you use a Bayesian approach, you could potentially conclude that the null hypothesis is overwhelming favoured by the data, that is, you can safely accept the null hypothesis.)

According to a Bayesian approach, then, the model/idea/narrative underlying CBT and GET is looking less and less likely as the evidence accumulates.

In the "Rethinking" paper, we tried to be really, really careful making this argument. We recognised that according to traditional scientific logic, the PACE trial was not capable of testing the model underlying CBT and GET, only the efficacy of the treatments themselves... BUT that if the model were true, then we would have every reason to see lots of cases of full recovery. And there weren't any really, not where there was objective evidence of a full return to society. So this casts doubt on the model, etc. etc...

 

@Esther12 thanks for the transcript. I never really twigged before that Simon Wesselys missus was also 'in on it'.

One of the key things was for me Tylee saying:
"
Tylee: "Right, now on that idea about alienation, this is something
that we often find in primary care you know we're trying to tell this
person that it's a psychological problem, they're trying to tell us
it's a physical problem, how do we manage that situation?"

to my mind everything about PACE flows from there no matter how they try to disguise it or dress it up.

 

This shows he has never trained himself, never spoken to people who have AND are sick (e.g. ME, MS, Mitochondriasis etc) or never has been sick himself and trained.

It is an absolutely different feeling to start training as an unfit person and to train with ME. It is so clearly different that I feel it's difficult to view someone not as dumb who keeps on saying unfitness is the underlying problem in ME.

 

https://twitter.com/user/status/1009379651733590020

 

He doesn't seem to know much about what the MEA do all day

 

wow reading that tweet actually made me feel nauseous. gaslighting much?