Michael Sharpe skewered by @JohntheJack on Twitter

michael sharpe@profmsharpe
Well. That is how the illness is defined. I am inclined to believe patients.
Click to expand...

I think hes mixing up, "how an illness is defined" and what symptoms a patients reports to a doctor with and how the doctor puts those symptom claims to the test.

People in the PACE trial turned up with a symptom set, they were tested on their physical capabilities and told they would be tested again at the end of the trial to measure potential improvement.

That didn't happen, at least it wasn't reported like that in the conclusions. What actually happened was that halfway through the trial the investigators changed the protocols and dropped objective measures as outcomes.

Does he believe patients over the possibility of getting worse yet still being defined as recovered when they used the revised protocol?
 
Barry said:
In which case what other interest(s) of @dave30th's does MS have a problem with? An interest cannot be in conflict with itself; there have to be at least two for there to be any possibility of conflict between them.
Click to expand...

I can see the point that Tuller's crowd-funding is for "PACE-busting" not "PACE investigation". One could argue that this could make Tuller less amenable to persuasion from the PACE researchers, or defences of the trial.

I think it's important that this has already been going on for a number of years, and the PACE researchers have long evaded engage seriously with their critics. This has led to a growing recognition that the arguments have already been had, and that what is needed now is 'PACE-busting" rather than yet more investigations of the same old issues with the same old excuses.
 


Yes, the trial's results are indeed what they are, but:
  • The published results are an interpretation of the trial's results, and that interpretation was deeply skewed.
  • The trial's results were arrived at from a trial using deeply flawed methodology, so inevitably the trial's results are flawed.
So basically we had a deeply flawed published interpretation of already deeply flawed trial results. So the comment "Move along, nothing to see here" was in a way very true; there was absolutely nothing worth seeing at all.
 
Esther12 said:
I can see the point that Tuller's crowd-funding is for "PACE-busting" not "PACE investigation". One could argue that this could make Tuller less amenable to persuasion from the PACE researchers, or defences of the trial.

I think it's important that this has already been going on for a number of years, and the PACE researchers have long evaded engage seriously with their critics. This has led to a growing recognition that the arguments have already been had, and that what is needed now is 'PACE-busting" rather than yet more investigations of the same old issues with the same old excuses.
Click to expand...
Yes, the PACE pantomime has long past the point where there is any point considering the possibility that they actually got it right after all - because they quite simply didn't. So DT is unequivocally targeting wider recognition of the truth about PACE.
 
Jonathan Edwards said:
Is it that as a professor at Oxford University he is used to arguing with those he considers lesser mortals and prefers to stick with that?
Click to expand...

I don't think it's who it is, but the level of argument he is presented with that's the problem. Despite directly challenging people, he seems to drop out of every conversation when people take up his offer and attempt to pin him down on specific points.

For example, on the trial itself,


Another attempt to get answers from Clare Lagan, who describes herself as a medical scientist in the areas of pathology and the microbiome,


And physicist Sten Helmfrid has been blocked, as @Lucibee noted,
 
Lucibee said:
Jonathan Edwards said: ↑
Why doesn't Dr Sharpe call me out for my conflict of interest?
Click to expand...

Because you're not on Twitter?
Click to expand...



He would be like an annoying schoolboy who gets last hit on your back, then jumps on the back of the bus as its pulling off.

I wonder if there is some kind of speed record on twitter for blocking someone who doesn't even have an account yet?
 
Allele said:
I wouldn't want someone tweeting my posts without asking me
Click to expand...

Indeed. But we all need to be aware that there is nothing to stop anyone doing just that, apart from politeness.
(I say that as someone who has come unstuck in the past when someone decided to share my thoughts on a platform I thought was private. I'm still dealing with the consequences of that.)
 
I don't understand why Michael Sharpe keeps going. He has been pulverised ( metaphorically in case of confusion) but still keeps arguing as if there is an argument to be had or won. When will he realise it is over?
 
Daisymay said:
Yes, and ME/CFS patients at the start of the trial are not to be believed as they by definition have wrong illness beliefs, but following CBT/GET miraculously their perceptions are to be believed, well at least those who say they are better on subjective testing.But presumably those who fail to improve must still have wrong beliefs and so can't be believed.
Click to expand...
If confirmation bias that they induced helps them then they will use it, otherwise patients are wrong and what they define as correct is :facepalm:

large donner said:
I really doubt he can show us a dubious biological study on ME that has shaped healthcare, treatment and disability benefit policy for the last 3 decades? Which one has lead to the NICE guidelines etc?
Click to expand...
Your original question did not state ME. That said i typically avoid asking such questions because sometimes there is another example your not aware of that can be used against you and detracts from your point.
In recent history MS, Narcolepsy and other diseases were considered psychosomatic :(

Binkie4 said:
I don't understand why Michael Sharpe keeps going. He has been pulverised ( metaphorically in case of confusion) but still keeps arguing as if there is an argument to be had or won. When will he realise it is over?
Click to expand...
His reputation and legacy is tied to his work.
I suspect this means he can't admit or even see fault because if he does then he has to admit he has done fraudulent work.
Typically such people will stop at no psychological trick to keep their house of cards alive, his self worth, reputation and even employment/credentials would be at risk if he admits malfeasance. Alternative facts, feigning ignorance, attacking critics, blaming others, calling patients names and so on are small prices to pay if it keeps his position intact :emoji_face_palm:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom