Michael Sharpe skewered by @JohntheJack on Twitter

[Carolyn Wilshire]

Any reason you can't publicly name him?

No, no reason. The BMJ simply requested that we did not. They expressed it as an "expectation".

I also had certain "expectations" when I submitted work to their journal. They were not fulfilled. So I feel absolutely no obligation to fulfil their "expectations".

I did, however, say that I would not publicly name the reviewer. And I do like to be true to my word. So I will leave it to others to put two and two together if they so wish.

Still think its more powerful if its just "a Wessely crony", but on the other hand, there are a few of those cronies, and whatever their sins, I wouldn't want any of them to be wrongfully accused of this pile of garbage.

 

[Carolyn Wilshire]

Perhaps that is part of the litany whenever the original triumvirate meet.

!

 

[Carolyn Wilshire]

Is this a "normal" review in the field your paper was written? It feels very personal and pretty attacking. I/We never received something so...subjective.

No, not at all. In my 20+ year career as an academic, I've had nothing that even comes close to this. Some reviewers are supportive, some critical. Some are closely tied to their own interests or perspectives and want you to talk more about those. Addressing these kinds of criticisms can feel annoying, but usually ends up being good for the paper. Sometimes reviewers make a suggestion that wasn't thought through, so was a bit silly, but mostly, if you point out politely and reasonably why you can't act on that suggestion, they're fine with that.

Sometimes reviewers are critical and they turn out to be right. Their criticism really undermines your argument.

I can't remember any review - negative or positive - that didn't offer something useful, something I benefitted from. Other than this one.

I suppose it offers something useful. It shows this group of "researchers" for what they really are - acolytes that follow a belief system, and consider themselves to be the church bishops and therefore above scholarly criticism.

 

[Joh]

 

[Skycloud]

Well at least he's admitting he's not much help

eta:
A good response from @Keela Too :

 

[Lucibee]

He's really not paying attention, is he. Penny has previously tried to give him the benefit of the doubt over his email to Carol.

 

[Adrian]

I was extremely disappointed that Trudie Chalder didn't cite this incident when she gave evidence to the Information Tribunal.

She couldn't since it would just be heresay in the tribunal they asked for evidence. I think they had submitted comments from PR as 'evidence' but that didn't contain the threats they claimed.

 

[Barry]

I suppose it offers something useful. It shows this group of "researchers" for what they really are - acolytes that follow a belief system, and consider themselves to be the church bishops and therefore above scholarly criticism.

Exactly. In that light, and especially in the present political climate, that review could be a star of the show, for those very reasons.

 

[Joh]

 

[Sasha]

"All researchers in this area receive a truly huge amount of harassment"?

I wonder how much Ron Davis and Chris Ponting get.

Ironic that publishing misleading results to the detriment of the lives of thousands of patients isn't considered "harassment".

 

[Arnie Pye]

"All researchers in this area receive a truly huge amount of harassment"?

One way of reducing the "harassment" would be by MS giving up tweeting about PACE and ME or CFS. He is constantly prodding us just to get a reaction.

 

[Liv aka Mrs Sowester]

Dr Pullan does get MS to concede that point.
I'm at a loss to understand why MS thinks we would actually want BPS help after 30 years of us telling them thanks, but no thanks...

 

[Lucibee]

'Deaf dialogue'? He's the one not answering the questions!

I'll get working on my list of all the questions that have not been answered.

 

[large donner]

Dr Penny Pullan@PennyPullan
All? That's a generalisation which I suspect isn't true. I think you're talking about a subset of researchers only

That subset are not being harassed they are being held to account scientifically whilst they continue to live in denial and hide data.

 

[Indigophoton]

 

[large donner]

I suppose just telling everyone to read the paper, refusing to show data and running off to the SMC to spin out garbage, is considered dialogue.

They have refused to engage in reasonable dialogue for thirty years and only last week for 3 hours did it really get addressed in parliament.

He has had 3 decades to engage he refused.

 

[arewenearlythereyet]

I suppose just telling everyone to read the paper, refusing to show data and running off to the SMC to spin out garbage, is considered dialogue.

They have refused to engage in reasonable dialogue for thirty years and only last week for 3 hours did it really get addressed parliament.

He has had 3 decades to engage he refused.

Maybe that’s what he means by control?

 

[large donner]

Maybe that’s what he means by control?

Yes that really makes me laugh when he claims it was a controlled study, I am pretty sure he thinks that means, "we controlled the study really well." That usually satisfies an ill informed person who doesn't understand that to be a controlled study there has to be a control group.

 

[Barry]

"All researchers in this area receive a truly huge amount of harassment"?

I wonder how much Ron Davis and Chris Ponting get.

Ironic that publishing misleading results to the detriment of the lives of thousands of patients isn't considered "harassment".

It's way beyond harassment of patients. Mass abuse.

 

[Barry]

Maybe that’s what he means by control?

And maybe this what they mean by trial ...