1. Click here to sign the "Publish the NICE ME/CFS Guideline Now" petition.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Guest, the 'News in Brief' for the week beginning 13th September 2021 is here.
    Dismiss Notice
  3. Welcome! To read the Core Purpose and Values of our forum, click here.
    Dismiss Notice

Nature publishes response from Sharpe et al

Discussion in 'General ME/CFS News' started by Daisymay, Feb 3, 2018.

  1. Daisymay

    Daisymay Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    622
    Inara, Indigophoton, Awol and 9 others like this.
  2. Luther Blissett

    Luther Blissett Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    1,678
    Dear Professor Sharpe,

    Kiss my arse.

    Love Luther. xo
     
  3. Philipp

    Philipp Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    222
    Is this really all they have to declare in this context? This is a genuine question btw, not a rhetorical one. Can we fault them for not mentioning e.g. that M.S. has (according to Coyne) been paid bounties to get people off benefits as an assessor or is this sort of stuff not relevant in this context and/or covered under 'academic writing'?

    Even if he may not have to declare this kind of stuff due to hard rules, I somehow feel it gives the proper context to how much he likely actually 'deplores' that people feel 'dismissed by the medical profession'.

    Edit: I archived the page as it appears now. This seems pretty serious to me in a broader context. We know that the financial interests these authors have are basically 'their entire careers and also covering our asses from potential lawsuits as soon as anyone notices what we have been doing all this time'. If it is acceptable to Nature that all they declared were some royalties from academic writing and self-help books we would have to re-evaluate everything they publish. I just cannot fathom how the editors could possibly be OK with this.
     
    Last edited: Feb 4, 2018
  4. Alvin

    Alvin Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    3,309
    Can we write a response to their response?
     
    Inara, EzzieD, Daisymay and 3 others like this.
  5. Snow Leopard

    Snow Leopard Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    3,175
    Location:
    Australia
    What evidence? That CBT/GET don't lead to objective improvements in functioning and no difference in self reports at the long term followup in the PACE trial. Sharpe needs to look at the evidence himself.
     
  6. Alvin

    Alvin Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    3,309
    People who are wedded to lies won't accept facts. It would destroy their egos to do so so they must defend their "alternative facts" at any cost :emoji_face_palm:
    To them, throwing us under the bus may not be a cost at all, it may be a benefit
     
    Last edited: Feb 4, 2018
  7. Esther12

    Esther12 Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    4,126
    Just so people know, there was some discussion of this in the thread about the Nature article.

    https://www.s4me.info/threads/natur...igue-syndrome-research.1766/page-3#post-39446

    This bit is particularly absurd:

    "We think that patients deserve the best research and treatments. In our view, there is no place for stigmatizing any avenue of research or therapy that might help us to improve the lives of people with this long-term debilitating illness."

    It's so annoying how they're able to use Cochrane to present themselves as all 'evidence based' while Cochrane ignores all of the problems with their reviews. So much of 'science' seems based more on brand-names than evidence.
     
    Inara, sea, Webdog and 18 others like this.
  8. Jonathan Edwards

    Jonathan Edwards Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    9,788
    Absolutely not. Trudie Chalder is paid a full time salary to be a 'Professor of Cognitive Behavioural Therapy'. Her livelihood is ENTIRELY dependent on showing that CBT is useful.
     
    Last edited: Feb 4, 2018
    Inara, sea, FreeSarah and 18 others like this.
  9. Cheshire

    Cheshire Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    4,316
    Reading the title again 'Don't reject evidence from CFS therapies', it appears like the plea of people in a dire situation.
     
  10. Sean

    Sean Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    3,676
    We are not rejecting it.

    We are pointing out that it offers no support for your claim that CBT & GET deliver a meaningful therapeutic benefit.
     
  11. large donner

    large donner Guest

    Messages:
    1,214
    Ye I think they meant to say "we reject evidence from CBT therapies".
     

Share This Page