Never Give Up
Collecting improvements, until there's a cure.
- Messages
- 971
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, 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.
The nub of the issue for me is: is what Professors Wessely, Sharpe and co. do real science, and could it therefore make me well? As someone with a lifelong scientific academic rearing, I’m always aware of the importance of the principle of falsifiability. The problem (and for you, the strength) with your school’s proposition of what CFS by your various definitions is, is that it, like a religious theory, can seemingly fit any contradictory fact or form of patient behaviour.
I see that the winged monkeys have roused Carson from his crypt:
Nob.
It's worth reading the whole exchange, where Carson accuses Coyne of having a 'conflict of interests' (presumably because he disagrees with Sharpe ).Carson clearly hasn't bothered reading the piece. The author is at pains to say "I use the word “you” in the plural of course: your school of thought." She says "of course" there because she presumes it would be blindingly obvious that what she is engaging in here is the venerable scholastic tradition of imagined dialogue, which dates back at least to Socrates. Sharpe stands in for the Wessely school in this dialogue. Worth noting, too, that the author is writing in response to a comment left on her blog by Sharpe.
There are no attacks on Sharpe's character, only on the positions he and others of the Wessely school have publicly stated, as frequently referenced by the author.
I just tried, but as usual with Twitter I found the conversation impossible to follow #dinosaurIt's worth reading the whole exchange,
michael sharpe says:
June 26, 2009 at 5:18 pm
Dear all,
I came across this nicely executed site again. Whilst the textual analysis is most interesting can I please be allowed make quite clear what I actually meant and still mean by ‘undeserving sick’. The point is that UK NHS services tend to offer a rather poor deal to people who have physical symptoms but not an accepted disease diagnosis – that is they treat them as undeserving of care. And yes I actually do think they are deserving of care (otherwise why on earth would I bother researching treatments).
I really do hope that is clear. It surely must be time to clear up a misunderstanding that has gone on since 2005 !
Kind regards
Professor Michael Sharpe
I've read it before, and just read the conclusion again. Didn't surprise myself! I feel there are some huge, unjustified assumptions underpinning what Sharpe is saying. We'll have to agree to differ on that one.At the end of the day, all you need do to understand that "undeserving sick" quotation is go to the source material and read the original lecture transcript in context, then make up your own mind (as a minimum, you need to read the conclusion in its entirety). If you do this, you may surprise yourself.
I think you may have misunderstood me. There's almost nothing in that conclusion that I agree with (nor indeed in the lecture generally), but I accept that he, himself, is not labelling pwME/CFS as the undeserving sick.
Okay, I get you (now). And perhaps the explicit accusation is unfair. But to be honest, in the Fumblings piece the 'undeserving sick' thing felt peripheral, a springboard for a first rate rebuttal of the whole false illness belief thing and the bps position more generally. If people like Sharpe are going to co-opt me/cfs as fit subject matter for discourses on mind/body dualism, without first waiting for the nature of the illness to be explained, they deserve whatever they get.I think you may have misunderstood me. There's almost nothing in that conclusion that I agree with (nor indeed in the lecture generally), but I accept that he, himself, is not labelling pwME/CFS as the undeserving sick.
Gawd love ya, Silverblade. That's sort of what I wanted to say but I couldn't have put it half so succinctly!and they reply with cock-snooting puffed up bullshit designed to confuse and evade
in such circumstances, you wait until right moment...then kick the evil gobshyte right in the balls!
That I certainly agree with but I just wish that the springboard itself wasn't so dodgy. It weakens what was otherwise excellent.Okay, I get you (now). And perhaps the explicit accusation is unfair. But to be honest, in the Fumblings piece the 'undeserving sick' thing felt peripheral, a springboard for a first rate rebuttal of the whole false illness belief thing and the bps position more generally. If people like Sharpe are going to co-opt me/cfs as fit subject matter for discourses on mind/body dualism, without first waiting for the nature of the illness to be explained, they deserve whatever they get.