Response to Michael Sharpe letter, Rowe, 2019

https://www.acpjournals.org/do/10.5555/comment1538/full/

Name: Peter C. Rowe
Email: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Affiliation: Johns Hopkins University
Pubdate: 12 April 2019
Title: Response to Michael Sharpe
Comment: To The Editor:

 

At the very bottom it says:

i.e.
https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/full/10.7326/M19-0643

I can't find Sharpe's letter at the moment.

 

https://www.acpjournals.org/do/10.5555/comment1557/abs/
https://www.acpjournals.org/do/10.5555/comment1538/abs/
https://www.acpjournals.org/do/10.5555/comment1529/abs/

 

FYI @dave30th @Carolyn Wilshire

 

? That letter from the guy at the HRA was full of bullshit, but I don't remember it saying anything like that.

 

Only able to skim ATM so apologies if I can't substantiate my concerns with regard to highlighting Rowe's response to MS.

We have discussed the evidence for similar claims and how to deal with them on this thread (currently members only), see this post. (*)

What @Esther12 quoted from Sharpe's letter is appalling.

Also, Rowe surely is right to criticize Sharpe for his ongoing defense and references to the PACE trial .

When referencing Sharpes' responses, @Tom Kindlon, I just would like to caution against highlighting Rowe's claims about biomedical findings in ME, also about circulatory abnormalities.

If I remember correctly, you'll also find some rigorous criticism about papers on OI and POTS, including papers by Rowe, on the forum.

@Snow Leopard @beverlyhills

(*) Edit: The linked post is not about OI but about the 2-days-CPET findings, so just an example of how results of biomedical research on ME commonly are misinterpreted -- and maybe often by the researchers themselves.

 

This post is in part responding to a discussion on the evidence for orthostatic intolerance in ME/CFS and potential treatments that have been moved to the Orthostatic intolerance thread.

I've not looked into the PoTS work, but respect to Rowe for calling Sharpe out, and prompting another misleading response. A lot of people working in research would not be willing to do that.

 

Very satisfying read, the opponent got blown out. Unfortunately Rowe is guilty of the exact same blind spots as Sharpe when it comes to his own aetiological claims (circulatory/orthostatic).