Michael Sharpe skewered by @JohntheJack on Twitter

@Barry Do you have the link to that exchange between MS and Carol Monaghan? I'd like to see the rest of the thread but your picture is just an unclickable image as far as I can tell.
 
It's here. It was just a tweet from MS to CM:


I subsequently quoted it and commented that he left out the words "perpetuating the" disability.

Elsewhere he said he'd written about CFS not being a "psychological" condition. I'm going to have a look for that...
In fact, I'm going to ask him. It might actually be the only question that he answers.
 
Last edited:
@Robert 1973 attempted to get Sharpe to engage in greater depth,



I wonder if Sharpe would prefer a video Q&A, similar to that with Montoya? He keeps saying on twitter that he shouldn't be held to things said in the past - because ideas/thinking/understanding evolves - so maybe he'd like to clarify his current thinking on ME?
 
Inara said:
I like it! Well-said @Keela Too
(But don't hope to tease emotions where none are...)
Click to expand...

It was just such a condescending playground type of reply, I couldn’t let it sit there without saying something.

Agree, I don’t expect it to change his views. Yet I hope the comment highlights the distain with which he regards all of us.

He keeps trying to come across as Mr Oh-so-reasonable. But here the facade slipped.
 
"Are you assuming something went wrong?"

Seriously, the trial is being taught at Berkeley as the way NOT to do a study.
There have been lengthy dissections of the many flaws and improprieties of PACE by fellow scientists, but these are "assumptions"?
This guy is the king of gaslighting. Too bad there isn't a special Razzie for that, he would win it.
 
Allele said:
"Are you assuming something went wrong?"

Seriously, the trial is being taught at Berkeley as the way NOT to do a study.
There have been lengthy dissections of the many flaws and improprieties of PACE by fellow scientists, but these are "assumptions"?
This guy is the king of gaslighting. Too bad there isn't a special Razzie for that, he would win it.
Click to expand...

LOL - this is what he thinks research looks like when everything has gone well?
 
Allele said:
"Are you assuming something went wrong?"

Seriously, the trial is being taught at Berkeley as the way NOT to do a study.
There have been lengthy dissections of the many flaws and improprieties of PACE by fellow scientists, but these are "assumptions"?
This guy is the king of gaslighting. Too bad there isn't a special Razzie for that, he would win it.
Click to expand...

The trial didn't go wrong, politically speaking, for some.
 
The question I would most like answered is: "who most influenced your early views of CFS, or ME as it them was, and why did they not wish to be associated with the subject?"

Unfortunately I do not know the answer and therefore should not ask it. But I suspect Gelder, otherwise it is difficult to understand his interest in the Oxford conference.
 
For those unfamiliar with Gelder (like me 'till now):

https://www.psych.ox.ac.uk/news/professor-michael-gelder-1929-2018

Gelder was quick to realise the limitations of a purely behavioural approach and encouraged exploration of the value of adding cognitive strategies,..........

New and highly effective forms of cognitive-behaviour therapy were developed for Panic Disorder, Generalized Anxiety Disorder, Social Anxiety Disorder, Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder, Hypochondriasis, Post-traumatic stress disorder, Chronic Fatigue Syndrome and Bulimia Nervosa.
Click to expand...
 
Esther12 said:
I don't think that you'd be able to find a quote of them saying this. They normally phrase things carefully, giving themselves plenty of wriggle room, and if people then go too far in their criticism it can easily back-fire. I think that it's so difficult to get the language right on this issue that it's normally counter-productive to even raise it (unless you happen to be writing some 100 page document that has time to go into all the details, but that sadly few people will ever read!)
Click to expand...
I wasn't really saying they quoted it that way, but as a statement how far wrong is it?
 

No, no assumptions needed at all. PACE is its own proof. It's clear MS 'engages' in this because for him it is a macabre infantile game. He clearly doesn't give a flying f*ck for the detrimental effects his bloody trial has actually had for PwME the world over. One day when this eventually comes home to roost - an enquiry of some sort would be great - his callousness toward the people he is supposedly oath-bound to help, all will be a fabulous audit trail. He seems unable to help digging a deeper and deeper hole for himself, and is in fact very revealing.
 
Barry said:
I wasn't really saying they quoted it that way, but as a statement how far wrong is it?
Click to expand...

I think it's too strong. They often leave room for the potential for a range of causes of ill-health to be included within CFS/ME, even if they do not emphasise the potential for physical problems that cannot be reversed through rehabilitation. It's so easy for the topic of ME/CFS causation to back-fire on us, and there are so many other serious problems with PACE, that I think we're largely best avoiding that area (or at least being very careful, and taking the time to provide lengthy quotes, deal with all the ambiguities, uncertainty, etc). Maybe that will change if research leads to a better and simpler understanding of ME/CFS, but right now the topic is such a mess that it seems hard to win over undecideds in any debate on the matter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom