Michael Sharpe skewered by @JohntheJack on Twitter

SW: "But I am pretty sure I wasn’t a centre leader." Huh? I know it's a while ago now, but is being a centre leader such a run of the mill role that someone would not - I mean really not - recall if they held that role or not? I'm finding this very hard to take seriously. Indeed I find it a little amusing.
 
Esther12 said:
Wessely evades the point again.



It feels like he's used to getting away with these tricks when a) he's speaking to people who don't really care about the details and just trust him and b) there's no written record of exactly what was said.
Click to expand...

I think social media is proving their undoing, because once upon a time the linguistic chicanery they keep trying here worked wonders for them. Seem to be finding it more difficult now though.
 
LightHurtsME said:
He is confusing PIP (a UK benefit to help cope with disability when one needs lots of care and has mobility problems - and which can be an in-work benefit) with ESA (which is an out of work due to ill health benefit... meant to replace some of the lost income, it is pitifully little). If someone doesn't understand basics of the UK benefits system, how can they make pronouncements on their research relating to it?
Click to expand...

That is pretty annoying, and quite an important misunderstanding on Wessely's part. Even with the null employment outcome PACE is still hurting how ME patients applying for benefits are treated.
 
Last edited:
MS: "Apologies. I wasn't suggesting you were. But sadly David Tuller is paid to trash this research. Ask him." Wrong again. @dave30th is being paid to expose the truth, and the truth is that the research is trash. If the truth were that we were all wrong, and PACE really was a magic cure (ha!) for ME, then that's what we would expect DT to uncover.
 
Barry said:
View attachment 3354
upload_2018-6-18_21-40-43-png.3354

Not seen that before. Surely that amounts to a form of fraudulent bias, in a supposedly independent journal?
Click to expand...

An editor will always need to carefully select the person who writes the editorial.
So no...

But on the other hand if the editor is jointly agreeing the 'PR exercise' with the authors, probably yes - if the paper has not yet been refereed that is.
 
Certainly it is very paradigm-challenging to learn that the thing that works to remediate some other conditions causes harm in the context of this one.

I think Mike Godwin is showing his lack of expertise here a bit. Just because the daily papers keep banging on about exercise being good for us there are all sorts of conditions made worse by exercise. Septic arthritis, hypertrophic obstructive cardiomyopathy and aortic stenosis (sudden death in those), sickle cell anaemia, altitude sickness, osteogenesis imperfecta, leprosy, ... in various ways scores of conditions.

And for people with motor neuron disease or muscular dystrophy you get nowhere by sending them to the gym because it makes no difference. They try as hard as they can all day long.

And everyone keeps forgetting that PWME do not actually need to exercise - they are not severely deconditioned as a whole. What they need is to be able to do ordinary activities without distress, not run marathons for the sake of it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom