Discussion in 'General ME/CFS news' started by Andy, Feb 18, 2019.
Huh...? That's - bold...?
Did he think the recivers of the requests wouldn't read the HRA-report? Did he not read it himself.....?
Quote from Sharpe's letter:
That's telling. He sent complaints about at least two articles, from 2017 and 2016, the very same day the HRA-letter was published.
So he either/or knew beforehand what their conclusions where (and could prepare), and/or have kept a list of articles at hand that he have issues with. Surely, he did not jump into action starting to read up on all the material that have been published about PACE in the years since that very day?
Edit: an important, forgotten not added
He thinks he can throw his weight around and prevent the truth from gaining traction
Given it is one of his Sharpe's standard responses to accuse critics of not having read what they obviously have read, this would seem an appropriate response to him.
Ideally one would wish to send him a list of things to read and insist he comments no further on anything to do with ME/CFS until he demonstrates he has read and understood them.
But thats censorship. People who believe themselves righteous are entitled to double standards.
It makes me wonder if we should be asking the HRA to speak out about the misuse of their report.
That's excellent to hear.
I wonder how many people SW forwarded/mentioned the report to?
Just in case anyone hasn't read this ( hi Prof Sharpe)
The HRA report does not exonerate the PACE trial, it merely confirms that its Research Ethics approval was in order"
My response is to just keep sharing 'em.
@dave30th Do you have any plans to write about your concerns with the HRA assessment and/or write to Norman Lamb to make him aware of those concerns?
On the same note, a link to the letter in question.
Also - when looking for this I first went to the SMC, their 'expert' opinions did not have any convenient direct link to the letter itself. That might have been 'convenient' for others
Edit: my bolding
I can smell the desperation from here.
@Jonathan Edwards @Brian Hughes @Carolyn Wilshire
Do you know of any other examples of researchers trying to shut down criticism in such a blatant way? Is it something frequent or very rare?
Good idea. What do you think, @dave30th?
I think this is a wonderful and very public example of how the PACE authors seek to suppress valid scientific critique by falsely accusing their critics of Ad hominem attacks. Clearly shows their attitude to genuine scientific debate.
I'm wondering if it would be a good idea to open a new thread to discuss the failings that happened with the PACE trial prior to starting. Since the HRA letter from Montgomery is out there the failings that happened in the process of approving the trial have come to the fore. I think what happened and how might be fruitful to consider.
I don't want to start this thread because I have absolutely nothing to offer by way of insight into the process.
So I'm hoping others here might.
And that weight outside the UK is basically nil.
That's the problem with mutual admiration societies. As soon as you step out of the circle jerk, nobody's jerking back.
I see where your coming from but science is a worldwide endeavour, so while he can't as easily bully organizations outside the UK since his power does not extend there keeping PACE on the books allows them to influence the overall ME debate in their favour. Technically its still on the books in a prestigious journal and has influence.
Their greatest fear is probably that a biomarker or treatment will be found, if they can't prevent biomedical research someday we may have a drug that treats ME and their house of cards will collapse. Though i expect more spin at that point, see we were right but like "antidepressants" treat depression this new drug treat the psychological disease thats ME...
Then they will be laughed out of the room
I have made my concerns known to Carol Monaghan. She's on the committee with Norman Lamb.
Separate names with a comma.