Special Report - Online activists are silencing us, scientists say Reuters March 2019

Thanks - for some reason the 'Free sign up' option wasn't appearing for me, but I've found it now. Pleasing to see that - once again - a couple of early commentators have expressesed incredulity that a few comments on the internet caused him to abandon his research.

 

It's been published, so anybody with a Times account can up vote it.

 

I get 37 CTs 2010- 2014 incl (10 are Behavioural interventions)
and 23 CTs 2015 - to present day (4 are Behavioural interventions)

 

Please double check this but when I fact checked this from the Kelland article I could not find any of Sharpe's or Per Fink's from the same same periods listed on the site suggesting the list isn't comprehensive. (Which Kelland probably should have realised as her interviewees work wasn't registered).
Apologies for not mentioning this sooner - I have been very brainfogged and clearly just forgot to post.

EDIT: missing 'should' in sentence

 

I have upvoted. And left a comment of my own.

 

I would be very cautious with making any complaint. Make sure you have tripple checked any claim you make so that you are certain you can prove what you are claiming is accurate. It's important that any criticisms of the reporting are cautiously made. Given what we know of the UK media it's worth being aware that there are a lot of prejudices against us which would encourage the view than any complaint is vexatious and driven by the patients own unreasonable rejection of psychosocial approaches.

 

It's displayed now. Should be upvoted to top position I say.

 

On the advanced search screen there are various date search options at the bottom of the page.

ETA: cross posted with Sly Saint.

 

More fool them, they should be ashamed.........!

 

Have upvoted the sensible replies.

George Monbiot has asked

“Why would people who are sick attack medical researchers investigating their sickness?“ and this is all he says.

I think a specific reply to that question would help us get out our msg. There seem to be a few commentators recognising that ME is a real disease but misunderstanding why pwme would not welcome Sharpe’s research.

Am too fuzzy headed to attempt a reply but perhaps someone else can?

ETA: I did reply. Later post.

 

For anybody attempting a reply, make the point that we aren't attacking the researchers, we are criticising their science, which they are then taking personally.

 

It's a minor point of annoyance but it's, well, annoying that the word "troll" is being used incorrectly.

An Internet troll, by definition, is someone who is just annoying people, has no personal reason to be in the conversation and only seeks to annoy. Patients advocating for medical support are the very opposite of that. A "troll" is not just someone who is rude or says things you don't like. It has a specific meaning and the journalists who repeat it show not only how biased they are but how lazy the reporting is.

Sharpe knows the people he is accusing are patients suffering from the disease he claims to be an expert in. He knows they aren't "trolls", yet has no problem with that label.

But the fact that Wessely and Sharpe are content with labeling patients begging for help and pleading for medical support and research as trolls is very revealing and quite frankly completely unprofessional. This is not the way physicians should speak of people suffering from a serious disease. The contempt they hold for us is quite clear and it's a shame on the whole medical profession that this is acceptable discourse by medical professionals.

 

God that was hard to find, The Times Free access https://join.thetimes.co.uk/?pc=regacc&ILC=INT-TNL_Header_text_181017&gotoUrl=

 

@Trish and all

I have just responded- had not seen yours. It’s gone in the name of Mr B who has the account. My name is at the bottom.

Quick glance at yours. Mine has some similar points. I am shaking like a leaf. Will join you in the darkened room.