My conversation on twitter with cfs research and prof. Michael Sharpe

No serious answer from the Professor or his twitter troll ally at cfs research are they just searching for evidence of abusive patients when unable to substantiate claims made at the FOI tribunal.
I think what they are achieving is a very good audit trail of some very competent questioning and critiques of their work, interspersed with some very shallow response from themselves.
 
Bias, even if it existed in this case, is irrelevent to a certain extent.

If you find an irrefutable technical flaw in a study, it is a flaw regardless of the motivation for doing so.

Also if PACE found CBT+GET to be harmful, but significant numbers of patients were claiming to have recovered after treatment with CBT+GET and the reports of harm on patient surveys were minimal, then I can say with absolute certainty that a similar level of scrutiny would be applied as patients would be desperate for the NHS to support meaningful treatments.
 
Michael Sharpe:
I just wonder if you would find so many ‘serious flaws’ if the trials had found CBT and GET to be harmful ? Just a thought.
https://twitter.com/sfmnemonic/status/1006879008800301056
He's missing the point here, they haven't released the true data for harms found. Also CBT was used as a brainwashing tool to illicit a required response. Namely "I'm better cos if I don't say I am I wont get better and wasn't ill anyway."
 
Back
Top Bottom