Jonathan Edwards
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
Sharpe's reply is like being savaged by dead sheep
I think it is a bit unfair on Sir Geoffrey Howe to compare MS to him.
Sharpe's reply is like being savaged by dead sheep
The one on antidepressants is just badly informed. As far as I’m aware even the BPS enthusiasts now acknowledge that antidepressants are not effective treatments for ME/CFS.
Sharpe's reply is like being savaged by a dead sheep
Not only a very weak response from Garner but also notable for being significantly toned down from his previous outpourings.
Michael Sharpe’s treatment approach, graded activity-oriented CBT, doesn’t pay attention to patients’ fears & emotions. It’s a one-dimensional approach that tells all #MECFS patients to do more, promising recovery. When their own study found no increased recovery, they redefined recovery in a ridiculous way!Letters
Why ME/CFS is still so poorly researched and treated
Readers respond to George Monbiot’s article on the treatment and attitude of the medical profession to the debilitating condition
These are the responses in the Guardian so far. Among others, you can read one from Charles Shepherd but as always, you can also count on having one from Paul Garner and Michael Sharpe each (at the very end).
Edit: Sharpe's sounds more like a lazy tweet.
Like being savaged by an imaginary dead sheep?
I love Sharpe’s classic strawman. Why does he put “unreal” in quotes when the article makes no reference to anything being real or unreal?
Notable that that SW appears to have decided – probably wisely – not to draw any more attention to himself.
Not only a very weak response from Garner but also notable for being significantly toned down from his previous outpourings.
Disappointing references to “chronic fatigue” in first letter.
The one on antidepressants is just badly informed. As far as I’m aware even the BPS enthusiasts now acknowledge that antidepressants are not effective treatments for ME/CFS.
It is all rather subdued, especially compared to the tirades that have been unleashed in the past.
Sharpe's is rather flat.
It is all rather subdued, especially compared to the tirades that have been unleashed in the past.
Sharpe's is rather flat.
Well they can always try to sue the Guardian for defamation/sI wonder if their posts merit an individual response where possible, or that it's better to look at the bigger picture and go after the flaws in BPS-research and the misconduct that occurred over the last 50 years or so.
Yea, probably difficult after NICE found the evidence to be "low" or "very low" quality. Well done to those involved in achieving that result.It is all rather subdued, especially compared to the tirades that have been unleashed in the past.
Sharpe's is rather flat.
Yes, echoes of the RCP mindset and Fiona Fox’s bizarre article for LM in which she wrote:It attracts people who like the idea of having special insight and standing in contrast to the unenlightened masses.
They never had to. One universal thing you find about psychosomatic ideology is that nothing they say is ever criticized by their peers, with the only exception coming from the small number who understand chronic illness. Everything they say is taken at face value, accepted as a fact, never demanding any actual evidence. I don't remember in all the years with hundreds of papers, studies and trials, excerpts from textbooks, presentations or discussions seeing a single display of real substantial criticism. No one present ever demands evidence, or sees any concerns with the giant flaws in the reasoning behind it.Sharpe’s reply was pathetic. They’re not even trying anymore.
WowYes, echoes of the RCP mindset and Fiona Fox’s bizarre article for LM in which she wrote:
“I do feel that being one of the few people in the world who can really understand imposes a certain burden and definite isolation.”
See: https://www.s4me.info/threads/artic...he-revolutionary-communist-party-c-1996.3452/
As Adrian comments in the thread, “It reads as an early attempt at post truth politics.”