• Welcome to Phoenix Rising!

    Created in 2008, Phoenix Rising is the largest and oldest forum dedicated to furthering the understanding of and finding treatments for complex chronic illnesses such as chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), fibromyalgia (FM), long COVID, postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), mast cell activation syndrome (MCAS), and allied diseases.

    To become a member, simply click the Register button at the top right.

St Cross Special Ethics Seminar with Michael Sharpe, June 1, 2017

Obviously not a recommendation.

St Cross Special Ethics Seminar with Michael Sharpe
Thursday, June 1, 2017
Event type:
Academic
Date: Thursday 1 June, 17:30 – 19:00

Venue: The Lecture Theatre, St Cross College, St Giles, Oxford

Title: Science, Politics and the Internet: Challenges for Research into Contested Illness

Abstract: Some areas of scholarship are politicised. That is, organised groups of people have developed strong views for or against certain fields of research and certain findings arising from these.

Whilst we may generally regard openness, interconnectedness and the patient voice the internet offers as a good thing, it also present a major challenge for researchers in ‘contested fields’. The use of such co-ordinated pressure group action against science was prominently seen in the field of climate change research but is now emerging in other areas.

Chronic fatigue syndrome or myalgic encephalomyelitis (CFS/ME for short) is one of these. The particular issue is the role of psychiatric or psychological approaches in the treatment of such patients. Protest against this form of enquiry has been present for decades. However, the increasing use of social media and blogs have co-ordinated and expanded the protest to an international one. It also provides the tool for the coordinated harassment of researchers by email, the issuing of repeated and co-ordinated freedom of information requests and the publication of comment on numerous blogs.

The implications of these internet-enabled protests for the future of science will be explored.

Speaker: Michael Sharpe is Professor of Psychological Medicine at the University of Oxford, consultant psychiatrist and Fellow of St Cross College. After initially studying Experimental Psychology in Oxford he trained in Medicine and then in Psychiatry in London, Cambridge and Oxford. His research has focussed on how best to integrate psychiatric and medical care for people with chronic medical illnesses, especially cancer and chronic fatigue syndrome. Professor Sharpe was the UK Royal College of Psychiatrists “Psychiatric Academic of the Year” in 2009 and ‘Psychiatrist of the year’ in 2014. He received the Don R Lipsett award for achievement in integrated care from the American Academy of Psychosomatic Medicine in 2015 and the Alison Creed award from the European Association of Psychosomatic Medicine (EAPM) in 2016.

Booking: INTERNAL. This event is open to members of Oxford University only. Email rachel.gaminiratne@philosophy.ox.ac.uk to reserve a place.
http://www.stx.ox.ac.uk/current-members/events/2773

Those false harassment beliefs don't seem to have gone away...
 
Messages
2,391
Location
UK
Michael Sharpe: "The particular issue is the role of psychiatric or psychological approaches in the treatment of such patients."
No Mr. Sharpe, the misdirection inferred here is simply not true, even though the statement itself forms a partial truth. (It's why in a court of law the oath is to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth - partial truths can infer untruths).

What the particular issue actually is, is claiming psychiatric/psychological treatments can lead to recovery from the primary condition underlying ME/CFS, or even significant improvement. This is what strongly people object to, including a great many of the world's leading scientists who have signed an open letter to that effect; it is very disingenuous to suggest these scientists actively engage in "coordinated harassment" and "protest" - promoting good science is their goal, as indeed is the goal of the vast majority of all ME/CFS patients and their carers.

It is of course very possible that psychiatric/psychological treatments may help with coping strategies and secondary symptoms, the same as with many other debilitating physical conditions, such as cancer etc. This is not disputed, despite your inference above that it is.
 
Last edited:

Ysabelle-S

Highly Vexatious
Messages
524
Some areas of scholarship are politicised. That is, organised groups of people have developed strong views for or against certain fields of research and certain findings arising from these.

We didn't politicise ourselves, our illness was hijacked, and by people with connections to insurance and the likes of the DWP (though it had a different name before).

Whilst we may generally regard openness, interconnectedness and the patient voice the internet offers as a good thing, it also present a major challenge for researchers in ‘contested fields’.

ME is a contested field because people with no expertise in this area moved in and claimed it for themselves, taking an eraser and rubbing out earlier research and knowledge. They were medical squatters, and they are refusing to be evicted in the face of mounting medical science.

The use of such co-ordinated pressure group action against science was prominently seen in the field of climate change research but is now emerging in other areas.

People who know nothing about the field of ME will fail to understand the similarities between Sharpe and cronies to the world of climate science denial. The last thing they want their audiences to know is what the international research community makes of them. There's a fortress Britain mentality going on here, and all they can do is engage in projection of their own anti-science behaviour and co-ordinated pressure actions (the various talks and slide shows that have been going on recently) on to patients.

Chronic fatigue syndrome or myalgic encephalomyelitis (CFS/ME for short) is one of these.

ME is a serious neurological disorder affecting many systems in the body, and has been known to kill. These facts are contested in the same way epilepsy as a disorder might once have been contested by those who believed in demonic possession.

The particular issue is the role of psychiatric or psychological approaches in the treatment of such patients. Protest against this form of enquiry has been present for decades.

Of course, it's the patients who have the problem, rather than the fields of psychiatry and psychology being founded on some seriously out of touch beliefs. Add to that dollops of ableism, misogyny and professional arrogance for the patient whose role is to indulge the psych's saviour complex and delusions. Next patient, kerching!

However, the increasing use of social media and blogs have co-ordinated and expanded the protest to an international one.

The internet has always upset someone or other, often those in power. It opens the gates to citizen-led critiques of various groups - politicians, the medical profession, and others. When you're a member of a cult which has almost a parent-child view of the psych-patient relationship, it's hardly surprising you're getting upset. Especially when international critics from academia and science are joining in, threatening the lucrative little bandwagon. The recent newsletter that went out to physicians in the state of New York, effectively warning about the PACE trial and the nature of exercise intolerance in ME must have been a bitter blow. How dare those activist groups cause this much trouble.

It also provides the tool for the coordinated harassment of researchers by email, the issuing of repeated and co-ordinated freedom of information requests and the publication of comment on numerous blogs.

Still playing martyrs and victims while patients periodically have to read another memorial post for another ME sufferer who has passed away. Meanwhile patients are defamed, subject to gaslighting, and even medical abuse in far too many cases. The behaviour of these 'professionals' almost reminds me of the Victorian attitude to children - that they should be seen and not heard. ME patients should be seen by psychs, and not heard. Our life experience, our day to day experience of illness which conforms to growing knowledge of energy and exercise intolerance issues is to be dismissed. Doctor knows best. Doctor knows nothing.

The implications of these internet-enabled protests for the future of science will be explored.

And now we finish with the lofty and laughable pretence that PACE can in any way be described as science, let alone anything connected to the future of science. "A pile of doggy poo" was how David Tuller once described it, and he should know having dissected the utter shambles piece by piece.
 
Last edited:

Jonathan Edwards

"Gibberish"
Messages
5,256
Obviously not a recommendation.


http://www.stx.ox.ac.uk/current-members/events/2773

Those false harassment beliefs don't seem to have gone away...


There used to be a good word for this - humbug.

So now I have clear confirmation that Dr Sharpe is as dim witted and dysfunctional as White, Wessely and Chalder.

The extraordinary thing is the po-faced way it is presented. Anyone with any gump will see this man simply does not understand what is going on. It is curiously reminiscent of Mrs May.
 

Ysabelle-S

Highly Vexatious
Messages
524
There used to be a good word for this - humbug.

So now I have clear confirmation that Dr Sharpe is as dim witted and dysfunctional as White, Wessely and Chalder.

The extraordinary thing is the po-faced way it is presented. Anyone with any gump will see this man simply does not understand what is going on. It is curiously reminiscent of Mrs May.

You don't mince words, lol.
 

jimells

Senior Member
Messages
2,009
Location
northern Maine
Dr Sharpe,
What are the ethics of trying to disappear an illness???

"I predict that fatigue itself will remain the subject of considerable interest but the notion of a discrete form of fatiguing illness will evaporate. We would, then, be left with Chronic Fatigue that can be distinguished as Idiopathic or Secondary to an identifiable medical or psychiatric disorder.

I consider this a desirable outcome."
-letter from NIH official Dr Stephen Straus to CDC's Dr Keiji Fukuda
 

taniaaust1

Senior Member
Messages
13,054
Location
Sth Australia
There used to be a good word for this - humbug.

So now I have clear confirmation that Dr Sharpe is as dim witted and dysfunctional as White, Wessely and Chalder.

The extraordinary thing is the po-faced way it is presented. Anyone with any gump will see this man simply does not understand what is going on. It is curiously reminiscent of Mrs May.

Im SURE he knows what's going on.. He's part of the whole coverup .. (what insurance company pays him?)

............

http://www.meactionuk.org.uk/Quotes_from_Mike_Sharpe.htm

"
On 17 May 1995, Sharpe was one of the main speakers at a symposium entitled “Occupational Health Issues for Employers” held at the London Business School; the advice presented included informing attendees that ME/ CFS has also been called (quote) “the malingerer’s excuse”; Wessely spoke on the “myths” of ME; Sharpe spoke about anti-depressants and CBT and Trudie Chalder ( a Registered Mental Nurse who works with Wessely) spoke about “Selling the treatment to the patient”. Another speaker at this symposium was the Vice President of UNUM, the UK’s largest disability insurer, whose Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Management Plan dated 4 April 1995 states about ME/CFS

(i) Diagnosis: Neurosis with a new banner

(ii) UNUM stands to lose millions if we do not move quickly to address this increasing problem

(iii) Attending Physicians – work with UNUM in an effort to return the patient / claimant back to maximum functionality with or without symptoms.

[ In February 2000 a Conference on Insurance Medicine was held at The Royal College of Physicians in London, attended by Simon Wessely and Michael Sharpe, at which it is believed Sharpe advised that he was recommending to insurance companies that claimants with ME/CFS should be subject to covert video surveillance. "

Does UNUM secretly pay him on the side to keep ME/CFS buried??? He's been a guest speaker at conferences where heads of insurance company also are.. he's probably good friends with these insurance guy heads at the very least.
 
Last edited:

taniaaust1

Senior Member
Messages
13,054
Location
Sth Australia
It kind of blows my mind to see one of the Wessely croonies, Micheal Sharpe lecturing on "ethics".

I guess this whole thing is another attempt to try to downplay the results of PACE...and make people think it is us with the issue. They want to distract from what is really going on, they want to stop people looking further by stopping them from listening to us

I wish this blame the patient group thing would stop. Its harrassment of us. We wouldnt of been putting in many FOI requests if the info from the bad science wasnt being hidden from us.
 
Messages
2,125
Was surprised to find this post retweeted by Sharpe:
Trish Groves‏@trished Jan 23


We need less research, better research, research done for right reasons http://www.bmj.com/content/308/6924/283… from 1994 @BMJ_Latest Now truer than ever

http://www.bmj.com/content/308/6924/283

"
The scandal of poor medical research
We need less research, better research, and research done for the right reasons


...What, then, should we think about researchers who use the wrong techniques (either wilfully or in ignorance), use the right techniques wrongly, misinterpret their results, report their results selectively, cite the literature selectively, and draw unjustified conclusions? We should be appalled. Yet numerous studies of the medical literature, in both general and specialist journals, have shown that all of the above phenomena are common.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 This is surely a scandal."

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
eta: followed this link a bit and found this:

BMC Medical Evidence‏@MedicalEvidence Jun 7


ICMJE announce data sharing statements for clinical trials:
"
A requirement of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors

The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) believes there is an ethical obligation to responsibly share data generated by interventional clinical trials because trial participants have put themselves at risk. In January 2016 we published a proposal aimed at helping to create an environment in which the sharing of deidentified individual participant data becomes the norm."
http://www.bmj.com/content/357/bmj.j2372
https://twitter.com/MedicalEvidence?lang=en
DBn6NJvWAAAUlrv.jpg:large
 
Last edited: