Michael Sharpe skewered by @JohntheJack on Twitter

[Sean]

We submitted an earlier version of this paper to BMJ. It did not include as much reanalysis detail, it mainly focused on the recovery data and the arguments concerning the interpretation of subjective measures in non-blinded trials. The authors were myself, Tom Kindlon, Robert Courtney, Keith Geraghty, and Alem Matthees.

We had two reviewers, one reviewer recommended publication, describing our piece as a "very well-written and incisive analysis" and made some useful minor suggestions. The other reviewer, who is a Scottish psychiatrist that has previously coauthored publications with the Sharpe/White/Wessely group, was (unsurprisingly) very critical, and pretended that he wanted to see a paper this bad being made available publicly so he and his cronies could fully criticise it! It is worth reading the full rant, to really appreciate what passes for peer review at this journal. I would add that bits and pieces from this diatribe were quoted by the editor as justifications for rejecting the paper. What a shabby excuse for a journal.

Here is the full diatribe:

What a monumental prick.

Any reason you can't publicly name him?

 

[EzzieD]

Oh my, that's hilarious. I love someone's reply to Sharpe in that thread: "Watch the video", ha ha.

 

[Lucibee]

Any reason you can't publicly name him?

He names himself in the review.

 

[Sean]

It's "hilarious" how these journals court controversy, and then act all coy when real debate starts to happen.

[by "hilarious", I of course mean "utterly infuriating"]

Gutless scum.

Hope the rest of medicine is starting to understand the cesspit that these arse clowns are dragging them into.

He names himself in the review.

Ah, okay.

 

[TiredSam]

What monumental prick.

Any reason you can't publicly name him?

cough *Anthony Pelosi* cough

Oh may the good lord have mercy on my soul for that

 

[chrisb]

How times change. I got into trouble for suggesting that a quick google of psychiatrists in Glasgow would be revealing

 

[BurnA]

How times change. I got into trouble for suggesting that a quick google of psychiatrists in Glasgow would be revealing

I guess you just weren't specific enough

 

[TiredSam]

Maybe I'll get into even more trouble.

Did you remember to invoke the almighty when you sinned? Always helps.

 

[Esther12]

How times change. I got into trouble for suggesting that a quick google of psychiatrists in Glasgow would be revealing

If it was me who told you off, I'm still nervous about it!

 

[chrisb]

I guess you just weren't specific enough

I thought the names David, Wessely and Pelosi were deeply embedded in the brains of all ME sufferers. Perhaps it 's just me.

 

[TiredSam]

If it was me who told you off, I'm still nervous about it!

Oh good, glad it wasn't a moderation issue. Have at it @Esther12!

 

[Robert 1973]

Sharpe is no fool.

May God forgive me for my part in ruining the lives of some of these vulnerable psychiatrists but this claim is not supported by the data.

 

[Lucibee]

Damn. I thought he'd stopped.

 

[LightHurtsME]

Here is the full diatribe:

Shocking and thank you for posting it (hopefully one for @Jonathan Edwards notebook?).

The message of it, as I read it:
1. Nothing to address the actual paper.
2. Irrelevant questioning of the three authors' diagnosis and motives.
3. The reviewer having a need to proclaim why he/she is so great.

 

[large donner]

cough *Anthony Pelosi* cough

Oh may the good lord have mercy on my soul for that

I am sure he will let you off that one, its just all that other unbecoming online stuff that may add up against you.

 

[large donner]

Lucibee@_Lucibee
22 Jun
This is why unblinded, uncontrolled clinical trials that use self-reported subjective outcomes have unacceptable levels of bias and should be interpreted very cautiously.
michael sharpe@profmsharpeActually not uncontrolled as you know because you have studied it carefully.

Hilarious, he is only challenging the uncontrolled bit. LOL

Also he just switched from "read the paper", to "you should know better as you have read the paper".

The man should be doing the Edinburgh festival as a comic.

 

[LightHurtsME]

Hilarious he is only challenging the uncontrolled bit. LOL

Yes - but was it controlled? The trial had 4 treatment arms to compare (as MS pointed out earlier to someone on Twitter, IIRC) and no 'do nothing' control group.

Also, from the ABC interview soon after PACE was published:

Michael Sharpe:

We have number needed to be treated. I think it’s about 7 to get a clinically important treatment benefit with CBT and GET. What this trial wasn’t able to answer is how much better are these treatments, and really not having very much treatment at all?

http://www.meassociation.org.uk/201...n-abc-national-radio-australia-18-april-2011/

Also - the title of the trial doesn't say 'controlled':

Comparison of adaptive pacing therapy, cognitive behaviour therapy, graded exercise therapy, and specialist medical care for chronic fatigue syndrome (PACE): a randomised trial

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(11)60096-2/abstract

Dare I say that maybe MS should read his paper - or at least the title of his paper?

 

[large donner]

Yes - but was it controlled?

No. I think everyone except him knows that. Also they had mid trial literature claiming the favoured treatments had certain efficacy.

 

[LightHurtsME]

No. i think everyone except him knows that. Also they had mid trial literature claiming the favoured treatments had certain efficacy.

What??? Surely that would introduce bias and invalidate much of the trial!

 

[large donner]

What??? Surely that would introduce bias and invalidate much of the trial!

FOR GODS SAKE MAN READ THE PAPER!!