David Tuller: Trial By Error: The Cochrane Controversy

alex3619 said:
Of course. But in BPS-speak (BiPspeak?) its all bundled under social, as finances are an aspect of society.
Click to expand...
I still think the dramatic effect on retirement income is sometimes worth spelling out explicitly as part of that though, because it is usually overlooked. It is a serious, cumulative, long delayed, long term harm. A sort of "financial PEM".
 
Barry said:
OK, I'll have to come back to that. I was certain when I looked at this a few years back there was an issue of some kind, but maybe something has changed, or I was simply wrong. Will dig a little more in due course.
Click to expand...
I think I must have been coming at this from the perspective it's probably much harder to convince officialdom you are unfit for work, and thereby entitled to benefits, if your condition is labelled as psychiatric, especially if medical 'wisdom' suggests if you just tried harder you would get fit enough to return to work again.
 
Barry said:
I think I must have been coming at this from the perspective it's probably much harder to convince officialdom you are unfit for work, and thereby entitled to benefits, if your condition is labelled as psychiatric, especially if medical 'wisdom' suggests if you just tried harder you would get fit enough to return to work again.
Click to expand...

Maybe you were thinking of many ill health policies that won't pay out long term if you have a psychological illness. This is precisely the ones that Wezzles and Co were/are advising insurance industries about.
 
It's absurd for Sharpe to try to present the planned IPD review as independent of the PACE authors. Chalder argued in court that it was not independent. White funded the meeting where the protocol was devised. That Sharpe is trying to get away with that is just ridiculous.
 
Last edited:
Sharpe never disappoints because he constantly reveals how disingenuous he is.

How can authors of studies provide expert advice to independent quality assessors?
Presumably the advice was on how to notice the good bits of the studies and not the bad bits.
It is a bit like a job applicant giving expert advice to interviewers on who to appoint.

Sharpe does not appear to realise that he makes it abundantly clear that he lives in a world outside that of practice of scientific method. He really is like the emperor with no clothes, believing that his tailor has made him look magnificent.
 
Kalliope said:
Here's another tweet I thought was interesting, but left it at the Monaghan thread.
https://www.s4me.info/threads/how-t...debate-in-westminster.2513/page-5#post-104495

I don't know if the phrase was "not becoming of an MP" or "unbecoming of an MP", but he now claims it was becoming? :confused: Gee, this is hard to follow with brain fog..

Click to expand...


I think Sharpe is right on this one. He said it was not becoming or it was unbecoming of an MP. That means that it is inappropriate behaviour for an MP with their public position. It has nothing to do with gender. Where he was wrong was to suggest that it might be unbecoming of anyone to point out that poor science is poor. MPs are fully entitled and indeed expected to do that where needed.

If that makes sense.
 
Kalliope said:
Here's another tweet I thought was interesting, but left it at the Monaghan thread.
https://www.s4me.info/threads/how-t...debate-in-westminster.2513/page-5#post-104495

I don't know if the phrase was "not becoming of an MP" or "unbecoming of an MP", but he now claims it was becoming? :confused: Gee, this is hard to follow with brain fog..

Click to expand...

Jonathan Edwards said:
I think Sharpe is right on this one. He said it was not becoming or it was unbecoming of an MP. That means that it is inappropriate behaviour for an MP with their public position. It has nothing to do with gender. Where he was wrong was to suggest that it might be unbecoming of anyone to point out that poor science is poor. MPs are fully entitled and indeed expected to do that where needed.

If that makes sense.
Click to expand...
Yes, this is clearly frivolous. That tweet just gives him an actual example of being unfairly accused of something.

It might be ethical for the tweeter to remove the tweet, and issue an apology and clarification explaining that the word was taken out of context.

This is such a charged issue, and this sort of allegation can be quite poisonous; I'd rather not see this sort of thing distracting from the actual scientific issues.
 
Jonathan Edwards said:
I think Sharpe is right on this one. He said it was not becoming or it was unbecoming of an MP.
Click to expand...
I agree. It is not a gender issue and is counter productive to fabricate one. It just detracts from the real issue (and plays into MS's hands) of MPs being entitled and expected to call out bad science where it is in the public interest to do so.
 
Robert 1973 said:
I agree with @Mithriel but I think there is another aspect of harm which is often overlooked. It is indisputable that CBT and GET have caused many ME patients a great deal of distress, both directly and indirectly. If a treatment doesn’t work and makes many patients feel more stressed, anxious or depressed, it is harmful. Period. That such treatments are devised and delivered by mental health professionals who appear to be disinterested or dismissive of such negative psychological effects is deeply concerning.

Thankfully, I have never been subjected to GET, and I was lucky to be subjected to a more sympathetic form of CBT than that which is recommended by PACE, but the promotion of these therapies and the assumptions upon which they are based has been enormously stressful (ie harmful) for me in many ways, including damaging relationships with friends and family, and preventing me from being able to access appropriate support to help me deal with both the psychological and physical challenges of being so unwell and disabled for so long.

Another important indirect harm is the impact that false claims about the efficacy of CBT/GET have had on inhibiting other avenues of research etc.

I don’t know if any of this is what @alex3619 was alluding to.

[Edit - typos]
Click to expand...

You are absolutely right, Robert - those most damaged by GET/CBT are those pwME who were coerced into it, but the rest of us are damaged too by its very existence. It was not a therapy when I was diagnosed in pre-Wessely/CFS days - and I am so grateful for that. I would have been far too ill to do GET anyway, but had it existed as a concept it would surely have undone me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom