Michael Sharpe skewered by @JohntheJack on Twitter

He should have asked his MP to represent his interests!

 

Michael Sharpe doesn't get to define what conduct is becoming for an MP. The presumption of the fellow! He should concern himself with what conduct is becoming of a scientist, because he has continuously fallen way short of the mark.

 

Personally I'm not keen on MEAction UK taking that kind of direction in their communication. I can understand the temptation to create such an attack on Sharpe, he pretty much deserves all that he gets, but I'm not convinced that this is an effective message. It seems to be an attempt at a meme just for the sake of it.

 

That's what *should* happen, but knowing The Lancet's entrenched position, it won't, unfortunately.

btw - did @Carolyn Wilshire et al submit their paper to The Lancet in the first instance? TL guidelines do say that you can request that certain people don't review your paper. Asking for independent review would have been reasonable in this instance. Then, if TL turn that down, they are the ones being unreasonable.

 

?

 

I second Andy on this. Unless they are aware of the substance of the communication in which Sharpe used the term this appears very risky. Sharpe is no fool. Unless they know what response Sharpe might have it would have been better to avoid this. Perhaps they have inside information and have assessed the risks and consider them worthwhile. Perhaps not.

I think there is a risky practice developing of using edited comments for short term gain. It is not a practice which is viable in the long term. I am still dissatisfied with the approach of leading members of Forward ME to this practice elsewhere.

 

We submitted an earlier version of this paper to BMJ. It did not include as much reanalysis detail, it mainly focused on the recovery data and the arguments concerning the interpretation of subjective measures in non-blinded trials. The authors were myself, Tom Kindlon, Robert Courtney, Keith Geraghty, and Alem Matthees.

We had two reviewers, one reviewer recommended publication, describing our piece as a "very well-written and incisive analysis" and made some useful minor suggestions. The other reviewer, who is a Scottish psychiatrist that has previously coauthored publications with the Sharpe/White/Wessely group, was (unsurprisingly) very critical, and pretended that he wanted to see a paper this bad being made available publicly so he and his cronies could fully criticise it! It is worth reading the full rant, to really appreciate what passes for peer review at this journal. I would add that bits and pieces from this diatribe were quoted by the editor as justifications for rejecting the paper. What a shabby excuse for a journal.

Here is the full diatribe:

 

For the benefit of those who may in the past have seen oblique references to Reviewer 2 and not understood them, this is he.

 

I think that warrants a formal complaint to COPE!

 

PS I know the reviewer's name, and have chosen not to disclose it, as I think its more powerful as it stands - a ridiculous non-scholarly diatribe by a Wessely crony. It is clear the man has no scholastic ability, but his belief in the righteousness of the BPS crew (of which he is a member) is genuine and unshakeable.

I found this entire enterprise very disheartening, not for me personally, or even for PwMEs (we expected rejection given BMJ's stance, but decided to give it a go), but because it was like the whole psychiatric profession suddenly had no clothes, nothing but the belief in their own authority and righteousness. The fact that we trust these people to care for, and make decisions about, some of the most vulnerable members of our society is chilling.

 

I also agree with this ...it represents us as infantile and crass, same for the one that says “thank Parliament”. You thank your MP not the legislative body?

I think MEAction is at risk of becoming disparate and disjointed in its communication if they don’t centralise their comms better.

 

Oh, woops, that idiot psychiatrist quoted some of his own work in that review. I guess his identity is now formally outed!

 

I started reading this and had to stop at the doctor shopping bit ...I can’t quite believe what I’m reading.

I think this should be taken further.

I am actually lost for words to express myself properly.

Utterly unprofessional and toxic ..it’s a good example of what we face. Dare I suggest this is sent to Carol Monaghan?

 

I have been doing my best informally.

One wonders how many other papers he must have reviewed for the BMJ. Do journals tend to use the same reviewers, or do they each have their favourites?

 

https://www.bmj.com/content/324/7328/7.1/rapid-responses
"
In 1992 Dr Anthony Pelosi , then Consultant Psychiatrist at the
Lanarkshire Health Board, Hamilton + East Kilbridge Unit, Glasgow, a
longstanding friend and collaborator of Professor Simon Wessely and Dr
Peter White, said in a personal letter to me :
‘ ...I am rediagnosing a substantial proportion { probably over 50% ) of
the [ME/CFS] patients who are referred to me. ..The diagnoses so far have
included thyroid dysfunction, breast cancer, chronic renal failure ,
severe endogenous depressive illness and severe anxiety states ...’....."

am I getting warmer?

 

Wow, that is truly disgraceful. I'm really sorry you and co-authors were subjected to such an unprofessional and offensive rant. Plus, who does he think he is, to ask "Dr Wilshire and Dr Geraghty – do you have any clinical training and experience?" and to question the credibility of your patient co-authors' diagnoses and that he would only believe it if he diagnosed them himself? He clearly doesn't even know what ME/CFS is, keeps referring to it as 'severe and prolonged fatigue', which shows his ignorance about diagnosing ME/CFS.

His smugly self-absorbed, self-indulgent writing style reminds me of 'someone else' we know in the BPS field...

I, too, feel lost for adequate words to express my disgust well enough. The well-worn phrase 'Wow...just wow' comes to mind. Ugh.