Michael Sharpe: Mind, Medicine and Morals: A Tale of Two Illnesses (2019) BMJ blog - and published responses

@Michiel Tack

I've never seen anyone with cancer clamouring for psychological treatments. (Not that I've ever looked for it.) Do you know of any links that might back this up?
To be fair I knew a good friend/colleague who lost his long hard fight with cancer some while back now. He and his wife openly told me and others that the counselling they both received was of tremendous help with their coping; said they did not know how they would have been managing without.
 
The argument by Sharpe & Greco has been used by Simon Wessely in the past. A 2011 interview with The Times reads:


The reason that CFS sits in uncomfortable territory between medicine and psychiatry is because Wesseley and his ilk have put it there.
The fact that PwME are uncomfortable with psych therapies is that they are promoted as curative not supportive.

I do not think that even W & Co are promoting psych therapy in cancer as anything more than supportive/coming to terms with/talking things through.

The arrogance of the guy is once again ASTOUNDING!
 
The arrogance of the guy is once again ASTOUNDING!

It is not merely arrogance. It is a deliberate tactic to discredit critics of his approach.

First it misleads the reader into thinking that CBT for cancer is comparable to CBT for CFS. Then in effect he says that critics object to CBT for petty reasons.

I suppose that makes him arrogant in the sense of not being willing to recognize criticism of his approach as deserving an honest answer.
 
The reason that CFS sits in uncomfortable territory between medicine and psychiatry is because Wesseley and his ilk have put it there.
The fact that PwME are uncomfortable with psych therapies is that they are promoted as curative not supportive.

I do not think that even W & Co are promoting psych therapy in cancer as anything more than supportive/coming to terms with/talking things through.

The arrogance of the guy is once again ASTOUNDING!
I think it's more than arrogance @MEMarge, I think it's cold, calculating misdirection. Making a false comparison with one very reasonable thing, hoping your audience do not notice there is a difference and only see the apparent similarity. Then argue your case based on the presumption of a valid comparison. These are the psychological tactics seen in abusive relationships, and in that context are seen as predatory. I find it despicable to see it used here like this, by people professing to have only their patients' interests at heart. As my daughter would have once said: "Yeah, right!".

ETA: I see @strategist got there ahead of me :).
 
I think it's more than arrogance @MEMarge, I think it's cold, calculating misdirection. Making a false comparison with one very reasonable thing, hoping your audience do not notice there is a difference and only see the apparent similarity. Then argue your case based on the presumption of a valid comparison.
What you are describing is a straw man argument.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
Wikipedia said:
The typical straw man argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition through the covert replacement of it with a different proposition (i.e., "stand up a straw man") and the subsequent refutation of that false argument ("knock down a straw man") instead of the opponent's proposition.[2][3] Straw man arguments have been used throughout history in polemical debate, particularly regarding highly charged emotional subjects.
Never a sound way to win an argument but, nevertheless, often employed.
 
What you are describing is a straw man argument.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Never a sound way to win an argument but, nevertheless, often employed.
Yes it is a straw man argument, and a very subtle one. These people excel at presenting them in extremely plausible-sounding ways. It is often the case that people use straw man arguments without realising they are doing so. But these people do it with cold diversionary precision, which I find revolting. Of all people, they know exactly what they are doing, and one day I hope the law makes it their undoing.
 
Michael Sharpe trying to provoke responses to add to his 'abusive' file(?)



(he retweeted [@cfs_research] link to the article over a week ago but there were only two replies)

maybe leave it that way. Not really worth replying to.

Only one reply by Erik and it's a pretty apt.

Can't really fish for replies he could pretend are abusive since he blocked nearly everyone who would bother. Victim mentality only works when you convince others of it, that's all he's trying to do. But his rambling article is so bad that I doubt anyone will engage beyond a quick like. It'd be embarrassing to appear to give credibility to this high school level attempt at philosophy filled with logical fallacies.

He's probably reading this thread, though. Michael, your attempt at philosophy is puerile and as inept as your life's work on a disease you don't understand the first thing about. Using big words incorrectly never actually sounds smart, there has to be genuine substance to give them weight. Stay in your lane, whatever that actually is. Toy models, maybe?
 
Merged thread

Commentary by Michiel Tack

Why Graded Exercise Therapy and Cognitive Behaviour Therapy are Controversial in Chronic Fatigue Syndrome

Sharpe and Greco ask the interesting question of why cognitive behaviour therapy (CBT) and graded exercise therapy (GET) are controversial in the field of chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS).

One reason is that the type of CBT prescribed for patients with CFS differs from the CBT used in other illnesses. CBT in CFS assumes that patients’ medical condition is reversible through cognitive and behavioral changes. In some trials, participants were encouraged to no longer see themselves as CFS patients.1 If persons suffering from cancer or multiple sclerosis were told that CBT could reverse their illness, one might assume this treatment would be controversial as well.

A second reason is that CFS is considered to be an “exertion intolerance disease”.2 The most characteristic symptom of CFS patients is not fatigue but post-exertional malaise. This means that patients suffer a relapse when they exceed their activity limit. If CFS patients try to push through and do more, they report getting worse.3 This is however what treatments such as GET and CBT aim to provoke. Patients are instructed to increase their activity level time-contingently and to no longer respond to an increase of symptoms by resting. Most of the randomized trials have not adequately addressed the possible harms of GET and CBT but in multiple surveys, patients report to have been harmed by this approach.4

https://blogs.bmj.com/medical-human...re-controversial-in-chronic-fatigue-syndrome/

@Michiel Tack
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top Bottom