michael sharpe@profmsharpe
The implicit moral meanings of calling an illness 'mental' that still blight understanding and acceptance
1. Not real or deserving of sympathy.
2. Your own fault you are ill
3. Up to you to get better.
michael sharpe@profmsharpe The converse dualistic moral implications of 'physical'' illness can be just as harmful as those of mental.
No psychological component and the responsibility is all the doctors.
I suspect that we should all agree with Sharpe's last quoted tweet about the implicit meaning of calling an illness "mental".
What I fail to understand is why we should feel differently if he calls it "neurasthenic" or "functional".
manipulation of the truth
Monism does away with all this BPS babble in one sweep, and the dualist dilemmas disappear. The problem is most psych theories rely on the dualist divide. As does BPS in how its usually used. Indeed I argue that in many cases blaming dualism without specifying monism is just another form of dualism.no mind separate from body (well that's what I believe/monism
As I have said before, its about showing the issues to everyone OTHER than them. They cannot concede. What they do not understand is that without treatment or cure, without social equality, we cannot concede either. We will keep struggling for good science and social justice as long as it takes, if necessary for generation after generation.or we can go after the bread and butter, skewer the real issues
You are correct but people even in this thread ask how we can convince him and why can't he understand. Engaging in good faith does nothing we should refute in good faith. A slight but powerful difference. He goes on about how PACE didn't do much, and the replies about how it did, then his denials, then more evidence, then more denials etc.As I have said before, its about showing the issues to everyone OTHER than them. They cannot concede. What they do not understand is that without treatment or cure, without social equality, we cannot concede either. We will keep struggling for good science and social justice as long as it takes, if necessary for generation after generation.
Fortunately the science is now at the point where we know many abnormalities and know what needs to be investigated to some extent. Politically we have seen the CDC and NIH change their advice, and there is a parliamentary debate in about two weeks in UK parliament on ME. Advocacy is now much more organised, though still very fractured and with sometimes conflicting goals, but this will most likely keep improving too.
PS We are winning more and more legal battles as well.
In a backhanded sort of way that is our 'ace'. We have no choice but to keep fighting until we get what we need.They cannot concede. What they do not understand is that without treatment or cure, without social equality, we cannot concede either.
I don’t agree with your timeline of events or motives but I think you were correct to say it would have been better in the later secondary paper to have included a sensitivity analysis with the different criteria.
As with everything he writes it could be ready two different waysDid I read that right?
Simon Wessely says to @Carolyn Wilshire:
So he's questioning her motives - which is offensive, and he's admitting they should have done a sensitivity analysis on the later paper - why not on the initial one I wonder? Could it be that 60% improvement sounds a hell of a lot better in publicity than a 20% improvement?
So he's questioning her motives
I think the issue is that it didn't change clinical practice. A proper, rational reading of the PACE results would have led to CBT and GET being ditched.