Michael Sharpe skewered by @JohntheJack on Twitter

https://twitter.com/user/status/1009940850418253825
know

 

I think being charitable is not how I’m feeling at the moment. I think the patient community have been nothing but charitable listening to his drivel over the years.

I will perhaps feel,differently if he apologised, retracted his awful and misleading work and retired from the field. Until those things happen I’m afraid my charitable thoughts will remain elsewhere

 

Now

It is entirely reasonable to feel that way. I am sure we all do. However it is a difficult time for assessing how to act upon the feelings. Some of the tweets directed at Sharpe look rather like bear baiting, and might reasonably be viewed unfavourably by a disinterested public.

 

One of the many things I had to give up because of ME was charitable work. When Michael Sharpe finally gets out of the way so that work on my illness can progress, if I ever recover to the point that I can take up charity work again, and I happen to find him in front of me hopefully holding up an empty soup bowl, I shall try to wield my ladle charitably.

 

Now this is interesting. As well as his "have you really read it?" meme, he also has a "are you really a scientist?" meme. Both just name calling, but interesting.

 

I wouldn’t know ...I don’t do face book twitter etc. And have no intention of doing so ....I don’t see any examples of bad behaviour being posted here (which is my only source of info) apart from the one that said asshole, for which of course I wouldn’t condone.

As far as being charitable ...that implies letting him off the hook and him avoiding answering the politely posed questions and not being held to account. This was my point.

So far over the last week I’ve seen a lot of reasonable questions asked but not much forthcoming other than ‘have you read the paper’

It might be worth totting up how many questions were asked and how many responses he gave that actually answered the technical questions about the paper?

Perhaps by not feeling charitable some may assume that the alternative is being rude and aggressive? I don’t ...I just wish that the damage done will be recognised and fixed so that no more people have to suffer unnecessarily. That can be achieved calmly and politely but with resolve.

That starts with recognising the problem, apologising and trying to make good in my book.

How is being charitable going to help this when he refuses to answer the questions or admit that he’s done wrong?

Personally I think people should stop trying. He has had his chance multiple times over.

Retirement from the field after his apology is a charitable solution I think.

 

I wonder if the MP’s could ask Lancet for a retraction?

 

https://twitter.com/user/status/1010027447713058816

https://twitter.com/user/status/1010055213007474689


https://twitter.com/user/status/1010055477747732480

So it seems Sharpe accused Carol M of, essentially, lying to Parliament, and he has now made that accusation public.

That's a very serious allegation by Sharpe.

 

Bingo!

https://twitter.com/user/status/1010079827385298944

 

More on FIBs...

https://twitter.com/user/status/1010071424936153088

 

One thing I find confusing, is the claim that PACE only studied CFS. I assumed ME and CFS in a medical and legal sense are (regrettably) the same diagnosis - at least I thought so based on the ICD codes. Not that newspapers are the best source, but so often the line is, CFS also known as ME.

I know a lot of patients argue (fairly) that CFS is not ME, but I'm purely commenting on the operational status of the terms.

The rejection of ME based on the biopsychosocial theory, in the past was (based on some things I have read), the argument that ME was just a belief. In my case I prefer the term ME purely for historical purposes - in lieu of something like 'Ramsay's Disease' being made official. Actually diagnosing ME down to the very meaning of the words isn't done on the NHS.

The crux of this is, if Sharpe says he didn't study ME patients, on the basis the two are the same, that would just be an opinion that does not line up with the operational status of the terms.

 

If I put that into google translate will it come out in English?

 

Any legal experts out there?

Sharpe keeps harping on about the context of his accusation to Carol Monaghan. But surely, any accusation of an MP's behaviour being "unbecoming" to their position (ie, that she is "unfit" to be an MP) is in itself libellous, whatever the context? I guess it depends whether the statement was conditional - but he needs to tread very carefully here.

 

As far as we know this statement was allegedly made in private correspondence. It was the recipient who chose to make it public. But I may be wrong, and am no expert.

 

Could this be an opportunity to push MS on the proposed independent reanalysis of the trial data ? Probably still a long shot but he's looking a little desperate right now, if he is as confident as he claims to be that it was all done properly then he should be all for it.

 

Why doesn't someone tweet him and ask him for the full context of the "unbecoming of an MP" email was?

Ask him to post it online. Surely he would want to do that to defend himself. Just show us the evidence Michael surely.

Personally if there's any confusion over the context I would like it see it now so that we can get on with other business.

We know anyway that he has been condescending to her publicly in a tweet telling her to read the paper as if she hadn't and the remarks about her being, "disappointing for a science teacher".

That remark was designed to say, "I am a professor of Psychiatry and you couldn't possibly understand the science its just beyond someone of your capacity".

 

https://twitter.com/user/status/1009829801832706048

 

"It was not about constituants (sic) or ME policy."

Carol Monaghan didn't claim that it was.

..."using parliamentary privilege so that they cant respond."

Of course they can respond! He's responding right there with that tweet! The only thing parliamentary privilege prevents him from doing is taking legal action against an MP for slander. But as he's failed so far to demonstrate how he - or any other scientist - was slandered during yesterday's debate, I fail to see how he's been disadvantaged in any way.