Michael Sharpe skewered by @JohntheJack on Twitter

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?

 

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.

 

https://twitter.com/user/status/985438466103300096


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.

 

Voila!!

 

Because you're not on Twitter?

News just in... another blockage:

https://twitter.com/user/status/985592911969517569

 

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.

 

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,
https://twitter.com/user/status/985543126470283270

https://twitter.com/user/status/985548460865806337

Another attempt to get answers from Clare Lagan, who describes herself as a medical scientist in the areas of pathology and the microbiome,
https://twitter.com/user/status/985481216714473472

https://twitter.com/user/status/985547093371768833

And physicist Sten Helmfrid has been blocked, as @Lucibee noted,
https://twitter.com/user/status/985595238042480643

 

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?

 

https://twitter.com/user/status/985597922988486656

 

Did they ask JE's permission to tweet that?

 

JE gave blanket permission recently. In fact he said he often posts hoping someone will tweet it.

 

Also, this forum is public.

 

This remains the case but thanks to @Allele for asking.

 

Yes, I understand that completely, but I wouldn't want someone tweeting my posts without asking me (not that anyone would want to,) especially if they were directing it at a specific person. I think it's fair to respect one another in this way despite this being a public spot.

 

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?

 

If confirmation bias that they induced helps them then they will use it, otherwise patients are wrong and what they define as correct is

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

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

 

He clearly has an ulterior motive - why would he suddenly respond now after years of ignoring us?

Perhaps he is trying to collect "evidence of harassment" to share with others?

 

That is possible, though its probably more likely he now sees his work going down the drain and is trying to fight a losing battle to save it.

 

https://twitter.com/user/status/985641783202844672