PACE Self Owns

In a continuation of the ideas from the PACE intimidation thread this thread is about times PACE pushers shot themselves in the foot
One example that comes to mind is the Sharpe-Godwin incident

http://www.virology.ws/2018/06/18/trial-by-error-sir-simon-scores-an-own-goal/

Any other examples?

 

Sharpe asking for retraction of older articles, making sure it got a new readership and us new allies?


http://www.virology.ws/2019/02/18/trial-by-error-professor-sharpes-retraction-requests/

https://twitter.com/user/status/1097566637866119168


https://twitter.com/user/status/1098266126860066816

 

And who was it that made sure Tullers crowfunding got extra support...?

 

Jennie Spotila blogged about my crowdfunding, and then Sharpe tweeted her post and wrote something like, "this is what we researchers have to put up with."

 

That's nice of him, promoting your crowfunding I poked around

http://occupyme.net/2018/04/07/return-on-investment-david-tuller/

https://twitter.com/user/status/982888678170222592


https://twitter.com/user/status/983221467637780481


http://www.virology.ws/2018/04/16/t...g-david-tuller-is-not-a-conflict-of-interest/

 

But Larun getting Struthers involved - and starting Struthers awareness of and criticing her Cochrane review - must be my favorite


https://twitter.com/user/status/1097531710366011393


https://twitter.com/user/status/1097747916796628993

 

I wonder why Larun felt threatened by a critical article about a study that she wasn’t involved with.

This is indeed interesting. It makes it look as if she had a very vested interest in the conclusion of her review. It fits, perhaps, with the frontispiece of her PhD where she says how wonderful she thinks physio is.

For me the most obvious faux pas was when Peter White presented at CMRC in 2014. He did not seem to realise that a diatribe against patients criticising his work might not go down too well with a real scientific audience. Especially when his description of the work was so sketchy that we could not judge whether or not the criticism was justified.

There was also the episode when Dr Sharpe accused me of being disloyal to a colleague, when of course he should have realised that our loyalty as doctors is to patients, not colleagues.

And then the episode when Simon Wessely expressed surprise that I should say that unblinded trials with subjective endpoints were invalid. He pointed out that many trials with subjective endpoints are sound and many unblinded trails are sound - thereby demonstrating that he did not understand that it is only the combination of the two that matters, because there is no need to blind when endpoints are objective.

And finally there is the 2008 paper by Knoop et al (including White) that says that CBT works the same way as a placebo and that there is no significant placebo effect in ME. Which of course predicts that CBT does not work in ME. (Which of course may be right.)

 

I love the first one--Mike Godwin. But Professor Sharpe also tweeted out a Guardian essay about denialism in science. Then it turned out the author--also an academic--had suffered for ME for a decade and had previously written about the flaws of the psychiatric model of the illness. then I touched base with him and he signed one of the open letters.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/aug/03/denialism-what-drives-people-to-reject-the-truth

https://twitter.com/user/status/1025280485122027521


http://www.virology.ws/2018/08/15/trial-by-error-the-bps-brigades-score-another-own-goal/

 

There are some good examples in this thread, thanks everyone
Now i need to figure out how to start an article on this on MEPedia
Also if there are more examples please keep them coming