Anonymous
Not logged in
Talk
Contributions
Create account
Log in
Search
Editing
Talk:Michael Sharpe
(section)
From MEpedia, a crowd-sourced encyclopedia of ME and CFS science and history
Namespaces
Page
Discussion
More
More
Page actions
Read
Edit source
New topic
History
Warning:
You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you
log in
or
create an account
, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
Anti-spam check. Do
not
fill this in!
==Duplicate info sorted == [[User:Sisyphus]] I've sorted out the duplicate criteria, although there's still a few new references I want to add that I found when reviewing it. Links to other pages also need adding. I am tagging you to review - feel free to add a cleanup tag if you see issues to be addressed. I am not sure if you have other content to add. I also wondered about reducing the length of the PACE trial section while keeping the references in, reducing the non-ME/CFS research or just rewording it to condense. I think we also don't need a main heading just for the 2 definitions - they would be better on the level above. [[User:Notjusttired|Njt]] ([[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]]) 18:34, September 19, 2019 (EDT) Thanks[[User:Notjusttired|Njt]] will try to look at this later. --[[User:Sisyphus|Sisyphus]] ([[User talk:Sisyphus|talk]]) 15:09, September 22, 2019 (EDT) Sorry for the delay. Here's my take: '''Oxford criteria''' I still think the sentence: “and Deale, Chalder and Wessely (1995), the cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) study given the highest evidence rating in the York Review of evidence used to justify the recommendation of CBT in the UK's NICE guidelines used by the NHS.” Should be deleted because it is not relevant to Sharpe’s page. :''OK. ~[[User:Notjusttired|Njt]] ([[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]])''' I think it’s good that you refer to the Nacul et al. 2017 paper, but you’ll probably have to rephrase it because currently it gives the impression that the authors did their own prevalence study, when in fact they just made an observation based on the prevalence studies that are already out there. An alternative version could be: “Nacul et al. 2017 noted large difference in prevalence estimates, indicating that only 1 in 15 patient who meet the Oxford criteria can be suspected to also meet the Canadian Consensus Criteria for ME/CFS.” :''I will check into that, but I don't think your suggestion is that clear, especially the word "suspected" - makes them sound uncertain. ~[[User:Notjusttired|Njt]] ([[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]])''' :: OK. I was mostly concerned about overstating because the prevalence estimates of the Oxford criteria and Canadian criteria were done in different studies using different methods. In fact, I myself would probably not want to make such a statement, don't think it's sound. But that's Nacul and colleagues' problem. What about: “Nacul et al. 2017 noted large difference in prevalence estimates, indicating that only 1 in 15 patient who meet the Oxford criteria '''will''' also meet the Canadian Consensus Criteria for ME/CFS.”--[[User:Sisyphus|Sisyphus]] ([[User talk:Sisyphus|talk]]) 18:40, September 30, 2019 (EDT) '''PACE trial''' I’ve deleted the words “even for” cause I don’t think investigator bias is worse than misrepresenting the trial results. I don’t mind shortening the text on the PACE trial. The section on James Coyne and the PLOS should stay in, but could be clearer - the expression of concern was about not sharing the data - abs Sharpe was principle investigator and against the release of the data so directly connected. Coyne's PLOS blog is already excluded from this. Perhaps also leave out the sentence that refer to Ross Anderson and go directly to the reanalysis of the data? If you agree, I would have a go to shorten the PACE trial section a make it more readable. I think it's worth taking out the University of Oxford statement since it's not notable, and the PACE tribunal wad about data release not "professionalism" so it disputes events that were not considered in the tribunal, and which aren't referenced. In fact, it is a diversionary statement that attempts to avoid mention of portray requesting data and represent the tribunal as a personal character attack, which if you read the transcripts it was certainly not (the Information Commissioner's Office does not decide on such things, only on dates release / access). :''"Even for" does not imply one is worse, but could be changed to "also for". Ross Anderson is key and must stay in because it relates to the representation (misrepresentation) of activists by Sharpe, although I might change this to clarify it is relevant because the claims of investigator harassment were found to be grossly exaggerated (claims which Sharpe himself made repeatedly). ~[[User:Notjusttired|Njt]] ([[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]])''' ::Ok, just be careful and neutral in describing things. What section do you want to leave out then? The one on Coyne and the economic analysis? '''Other research''' I had another look at the text on non-ME/CFS research and don’t think much can be shortened here. His research on MUS is directly relevant to ME/CFS (MUS-proponent Chris Burton, who worked under Sharpe is now on the NICE committee). The same can be said about his work on somatic symptom disorder, fatigue after cancer/stroke, and functional neurological symptoms. I think these all have direct relevance to ME/CFS. These are also topics that frequently come up on ME/CFS fora or Facebook groups. You also have to realize that a smaller proportion of Sharpe research deals with CFS compared to for example Peter White, so it's an accurate reflection of his work. :''I don't see the relevance. Many illnesses include fatigue, but several definitions of ME don't even list fatigue as a symptom. None are comorbidities, and FND is actually a psychological illness with physical symptoms, ME/CFS is a physical illnesses without psychological symptoms (unlike, say, Lyme disease such is physical with psychological symptoms too). ~[[User:Notjusttired|Njt]] ([[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]])''' :''Looking again, what about shortening the section about Hysteria to FND? It's a bit repetitive and more info history. The heading could be changed to also include Conversion Disorder too. The "new name" for MUS part could be shortened a lot, and I think the heading could be better/clearer - perhaps Changing the name of MUS. ~[[User:Notjusttired|Njt]] ([[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]])''' :: Ok, I've deleted a large section on FND (see recent changes) and inserted the word conversion disorder in the title. Also changed the title on the section about a new name for MUS to 'Functional somatic disorder' and shorted the text a little. I do think it's worth briefly mentioning his work outside CFS, certainly if it includes strong statements such as on hysteria. I also think there's a connection between these topics and CFS for example because the ideas behind it are similar (post-cancer fatigue, non-epileptic seizures) or provide insight into his thinking on CFS (bodily symptoms, MUS) or because ME patients might be misdiagnosed (with SSD or FND), given the way Sharpe has defined or used these diagnoses. So I think this should stay on the page. I also want to mention that I didn't pick out these things to highlight them. I tried to get a broad overview and make the summary an accurate and comprehensive reflection of his work.--[[User:Sisyphus|Sisyphus]] ([[User talk:Sisyphus|talk]]) 18:40, September 30, 2019 (EDT) '''Controversies''' I disagree with the claim that “Sharpe has also been paid by a number of health insurance companies seeking to deny or minimize disability health insurance claims or ill health retirement pensions, including Unum and has repeatedly claimed that ME/CFS patients are more likely to improve when they don't have access to disability benefits.” It’s not very neutral to say Sharpe was paid by insurance companies seeking to deny or minimize disability. Why say that these companies are seeking to deny or minimize disability? Just state the facts. I also do not think that Sharpe has ever claimed that ME/CFS patients are more likely to improve when they don't have access to disability benefits. What he might have said is that for some patients receiving disability benefits can be a perpetuating factor or barrier to recovery, as is perhaps the case for other illnesse. I prefer this to be rewritten more carefully. I also think the undeserving sick quote needs to be removed because it’s not relevant there. This has been misinterpreted in the past, see our discussion above. :''I think this was a topic that I was seeking further references for, and some is the opinion of certain people who we should name. Unum wishing to minimise their payments is hardly in doubt. ~[[User:Notjusttired|Njt]] ([[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]])''' ::I think the facts are already mentioned in the previous section (Paid work for insurance companies) and that these should be merged. I think this can easily be done by deleting these exact words: "Denial of illness or disability benefits. Sharpe has also been paid by a number of health insurance companies seeking to deny or minimize disability health insurance claims or ill health retirement pensions, including Unum and has repeatedly claimed that ME/CFS patients are more likely to improve when they don't have access to disability benefits.[92][85][86][93] In Sharpe's 2002 Unum article" --[[User:Sisyphus|Sisyphus]] ([[User talk:Sisyphus|talk]]) 18:40, September 30, 2019 (EDT) I think the sentence “However, the article was published less than a week after the publication of Sharpe et al.'s response to the PACE trial re-analysis by Wilshire et al.” should be removed. I’ve already explained this above: the submission date indicates the delay was due to the journal instead of Sharpe. Responding to criticism of your work in CFS is also not the same as doing research on CFS. There’s no contradiction or hypocrisy in his retirement statement as far as I can see. --[[User:Sisyphus|Sisyphus]] ([[User talk:Sisyphus|talk]]) 07:46, September 30, 2019 (EDT) :''It was the newspaper not the Journal that delayed publication, and Sharpe did a live national radio interview on exactly that week, which is referenced, on the UK's biggest talk radio show. He clearly is responsible for the timing there. I might try to clarify the link more clearly or name some of those who pointed it out. ~[[User:Notjusttired|Njt]] ([[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]])''' :: What do you mean it was the newspaper, not the Journal that delayed publication? I personally do not see a contradiction. Suppose you're a retired researcher and someone attacks your work. If you write a response, that doesn't mean that you have come out of retirement. Opinion pieces are a different thing than doing research IMHO.--[[User:Sisyphus|Sisyphus]] ([[User talk:Sisyphus|talk]]) 18:40, September 30, 2019 (EDT)
Summary:
Please make sure your edits are consistent with
MEpedia's guidelines
.
By saving changes, you agree to the
Terms of use
, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the
CC BY-SA 3.0 License
and the
GFDL
. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license.
Cancel
Editing help
(opens in new window)
This page is a member of a hidden category:
Category:Pages with reference errors
Navigation
Navigation
Skip to content
Main page
Browse
Become an editor
Random page
Popular pages
Abbreviations
Glossary
About MEpedia
Links for editors
Contents
Guidelines
Recent changes
Pages in need
Search
Help
Wiki tools
Wiki tools
Special pages
Page tools
Page tools
User page tools
More
What links here
Related changes
Page information
Page logs