Special Report - Online activists are silencing us, scientists say Reuters March 2019

I suspect this "report" has been cobbled together from an old Reuters news release and from existing texts on other sites, with no or little input from Sharpe, himself.

"...Dr Michael Sharpe, an Oxford University professor of psychological medicine, has told Reuters..."

"Dr Sharpe, according to his own Oxford University profile, focuses on complementary psychiatric care for patients with medical conditions..."

About Us
Scott Gentry founded the Stock Daily Dish in early 2019 and had gradually built a following of avid investors and traders. Our staff consists of a number of independent contributors from various backgrounds and experience. In order to get in touch, email us at contact@stockdailydish.com.

----------------

OP's choice, but I wouldn't waste too much energy on it.

 

This is becoming the longest goodbye since The Who announced their Farewell Tour in 1982.

 

How did you find the article OP? It doesn't appear in any of the sub-menus on the website, and curiously there is no other actual content on the website.

I think it's best not to click on the link. It's really rubbish, I mean:

Which is it? Many, or some?

 

I got it from a google alert. You can get email alerting you when the keywords you enter are published on the web.

 

Is it a brand new article, or a recycling of old ones? I couldn't tell.

As expected, the dreaded "social media aggression" is already at it again.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1201053983890137088

 

I don't think we should blame Sharpe for this unless evidence emerges that he has spoken recently on the subject. This looks to be the "work" of someone who has just got round to reading months' old "news".

 

Yes, as I've said above, it's citing a Reuters release (for which, unhelpfully, no link is given by the author) and Sharpe's Uni profile page:

"...Dr Michael Sharpe, an Oxford University professor of psychological medicine, has told Reuters..."

"Dr Sharpe, according to his own Oxford University profile, focuses on complementary psychiatric care for patients with medical conditions..."


And not exactly a mainstream media site.

 

And since another Michael Sharpe (the Scottish Labour general secretary) is currently in the news, this "Business" site may pick up some traffic because of searches for the Michael Sharpe who is Scottish Labour general secretary.

 

'Researcher'...

 

The content is likely a rehash of the March 2019 Times report:

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/trolls-force-oxford-expert-to-stop-research-into-me-ttnb8gznv

Trolls force Oxford expert to stop research into ME

I'd recommend not giving the site traffic.

 

I completely misread this on a first pass.

 

I did too. It was desperately in need of a comma.

 

It's a mostly a cut and paste of the 15 March 2019 Daily Mail article that I will not be linking here.

 

This thing about pretending Sharpe is a "top researcher" is seriously cringeworthy. He's not even a middling researcher, he's been saying the same thing (singular, not even worth a plural) for 30 years and has pretended to have left the field huffing and puffing for almost half that time, even though colleagues like Chalder are basically continuing it unhindered and with limitless funding. He hasn't brought anything new to his own thing, let alone the entire field, from his very first incompetent attempts at describing something he doesn't understand.

It's just a rehash but still the line about "top researcher" is always there. What's ironic is that much of the substance here is accurate. He is the very definition of a charlatan, out of his depth facing a very hard and complex problem, and this is the nature of criticism aimed at him and his flawed research. That's generally how people talk about charlatans who step outside of their skills. But the conclusions are detached from the facts, almost as a tribute to Sharpe's and his colleagues' own pattern of doing that.

I'm sure he will make a great commiserating partner to Wakefield and other disgraced scientists.

 

Timing is usually key - it's a distraction. Usually coincides with conference / publications / to counter positive developments and try to control narratives .

 

It may well be a rehash, but when the same misleading message is being broadcasted over time, it becomes a smear campaign.

 

I think it's much better without . I guess the men carrying the barn would have had their hands full ...

 

MS has retweeted the original reuters article *again* (2 days ago)