Michael Sharpe skewered by @JohntheJack on Twitter

'Btw I think David Tuller invented the term false illness beliefs.'

Maybe Dr Sharpe wakes up at night in a cold sweat thinking of David Tuller. I can't think why when David is such a lovely guy. The likelihood that it was David who thought up false illness beliefs is close to zero. Apart from anything else he is obsessive about getting quotes right.

Whoever used the two words in conjunction is irrelevant. Simon Wessely invented the idea when he said that ME is nothing more than thinking you have ME - a false illness belief. Maybe it was me that invented it - I doubt it but God knows.
 
Robert 1973 said:
That’s one of the possibilities I was alluding to – but I didn’t want to make myself look like a prat if it was a ridiculous suggestion. @Lucibee, who is much more knowledgeable than me, seemed to think it was more innocent that I was implying. Any thoughts @Jonathan Edwards @dave30th @Carolyn Wilshire?
Click to expand...

The odds are heavy on a Dutchman. I think it would have seemed more politic and no more difficult. Very possibly SW recommended the Dutchman.
 


Why should ME patients have the slightest interest in meeting any challenge from Michael Sharpe?

The only reason for having any interest in what he's saying at all is that he's been party to a trial that's a piece of absolute crap and he needs to admit that in order to stop it harming patients any more than it already has.

His idea that he's in a position to set challenges for people to meet to in order to win his approval is so bizarre I don't even have the words for it.
 
Jonathan Edwards said:
The odds are heavy on a Dutchman. I think it would have seemed more politic and no more difficult. Very possibly SW recommended the Dutchman.
Click to expand...

The last CBT/CFS study published in The Lancet before PACE was the Prins et al paper (2001). The second author was Bleijenberg. Knoop was probably also suggested too. It doesn't even need to have come from SW. All TL need is to believe that these are the "respected researchers in this field". That's all.
 
We need him to confirm he doesn't think its ok to re diagnose children with PRS like Esther Crawley does and while hes at it he could perhaps set the record straight with her claims of 60%? of people recovering in the PACE trial.

On the subject of "what treatments do you want then", it may be a last ditch effort before tomorrows hearing in parliament to get someone to tweet something about some unproven biomed treatment etc, so if he gets called to any hearing in parliament he can call double standards on the "activists" and claim to be the level headed one.

Can someone just tweet him back with, "we don't want faith healing, witchdoctory, GET or CBT any other nonsense treatments as part of healthcare policy and will just sit tight until something that works is on offer so that we are not made worse by a trial partly funded by the DWP".
 
Lucibee said:
Oops. Just accused @cfs_research of starting the whole "false illness beliefs" thing. (I've blocked him on Twitter.)

Should I unblock him just so he can see that?
Click to expand...

I'd be surprised if we could find anyone who coined the phrase. Seems like one of those things that's been floating around for ages. Pretty funny that Jameson's site is the one that shows up as having used it first though.
 
One of his lines is about the PACE trial being way back in 2011, but of course it isn't that simple. They strung out various publications over the years. The recovery study appeared in 2013: it wasn't until 2015 that we found out the results of the step test: and of course, in resisting the release of any key data, they prevented our analysis of it until 2016.

The key point is that during that long, slow trickle of information, they have never acknowledged any failings, nor, more importantly, shown any indication that they have learnt from them.
 
Graham said:
One of his lines is about the PACE trial being way back in 2011, but of course it isn't that simple. They strung out various publications over the years. The recovery study appeared in 2013: it wasn't until 2015 that we found out the results of the step test: and of course, in resisting the release of any key data, they prevented our analysis of it until 2016.

The key point is that during that long, slow trickle of information, they have never acknowledged any failings, nor, more importantly, shown any indication that they have learnt from them.
Click to expand...

Right, it's like "we managed to waste seven years of your lives with crappy papers, legal appeals and misrepresentations, so now you should just leave us alone. We won at the time, and there's no going back now."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom