Michael Sharpe skewered by @JohntheJack on Twitter

TiredSam said:
All winnings donated to David Tuller of course. What odds am I getting?
Click to expand...
I have not made my donation yet but either way its getting donated, and my odds are that now he has discovered the bock button you are correct, so my bet is for you and not against you.

Maybe we should start our own forum betting pool, all profits donated to Tuller and a lottery ticket bought every now and then, if it ever wins donate to David and OMF? :woot:
 
TiredSam said:
Ok if @Robert 1973 gets blocked by MS before the end of April I'll donate 50 to David Tuller in addition to what I'm already going to donate. You the same @Alvin?

Mind you this does put @Robert 1973 in the ethical dilemma of whether to get himself blocked or not. Hmm, unintended consequences ...
Click to expand...
I don't have an additional 50 to spare, but i will move up to the next donation level from my original intention :)
 
Inara said:
Do you maybe have a link or so for the entire text? Something to save for later.
Click to expand...
I have edited the post to include the reference. It was one of those situations of get it finished and posted or it won't get done.

On reflection I think I can justify the post as being not off topic. It indicates clearly how personal experience and philosophy may affect ones views of circumstances in such a way as to make them uniniterptetable to others. It reinforces the need for disclosure of interests.
 
TiredSam said:
Ok if @Robert 1973 gets blocked by MS before the end of April I'll donate 50 to David Tuller in addition to what I'm already going to donate. You the same @Alvin?

Mind you this does put @Robert 1973 in the ethical dilemma of whether to get himself blocked or not. Hmm, unintended consequences ...
Click to expand...

Dear Sam,

I am writing to formally state that I do not have any conflicts of interest of financial or other nature regarding my communications with Professor Sharpe.

Furthermore, I should like to take this opportunity to emphasise that despite my previous activities in this field I am in a position of equipoise as regards to whether or not the learned professor decides that I am worthy of being blocked.

Sincerely,

Robert

PS Just spotted that split infinitive – another egregious error!
 
Actometers would have also greatly helped identify overall energy consumption, and guard against misrepresenting trading off one activity for another, such doing less at home in readiness for any trial activities - including attending and undertaking the trial itself.
 
Lucibee said:
Although that may be true about the interview itself, we still don't know who briefed RH
Click to expand...

I agree, there is likely to have been some discussion. That said, language employed by RH is, in places, grossly incautious. It may be possible to envisage MS or PDW cringing:

"Richard Horton: Yeah, I mean adaptive pacing therapy essentially believes that chronic fatigue is an organic disease which is not reversible by changes in behaviour. Whereas cognitive behaviour therapy obviously believes that chronic fatigue is entirely reversible and these two philosophies are kind of facing off against one another in the patient community and what these scientists were trying to do is to say well, let’s see, which one is right."

I guess it was only a matter of time before CBT gained self-awareness and began communicating with other therapies.

In the wake of the MMR debacle, following The Lancet's publication of the Wakefield et al., (1998) paper, in an essay entitled 'Vaccine Myths' in his book 'Doctors, Diseases and Decisions in Modern Medicine', RH said:

“All in all, my attitude was far too laissez faire. If this is what critics meant—and still mean—by reckless, then I am guilty of that charge. I failed to do enough to manage the media reaction to this work. Until the Wakefield paper, I had not seen this media management role as one for a scientific medical journal editor. I now see it as one of my main responsibilities.”

A bit more on RH on the MMR fallout:

An insightful piece by Brian Deer, the journalist who conducted the Sunday Times investigation into the Wakefield et al., (1998) paper:

https://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.c7001.full.print

By Deer's account:

'Horton, at the time, was at the Royal Free with Walker-Smith, Murch, and Humphrey Hodgson, the vice-dean. In Hodgson’s basement office they "reviewed the allegations," Horton told the GMC panel, and" decided on a course of action.” Then “we all went up to the department of paediatric gastroenterology,” where the doctors “investigated” the children’s records. He explained that Walker-Smith went to look at a biopsy book “to establish questions about referral patterns.” Then “a view was formed about the evidence in support of, or not, the allegations." '

'In short, the accused were investigating themselves—an investigation that Horton would say "cleared Wakefield." '

Elsewhere, Horton subsequently artfully maligned the 'investigation' by allusion, whilst divesting himself of any notional involvement in it:

"We rely on the processes within institutions to investigate allegations of fraud, and if they are found to be wanting, that is extremely disappointing".

(https://www.theguardian.com/society/2010/feb/02/lancet-retracts-mmr-paper
 
Last edited:
So I guess by patient burden he means that wearing a fitbit (or whatever was available at the time) was more burdensome than constantly having to lie to yourself and your therapists about feeling better.

Sure, that makes sense. :confused:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom