Michael Sharpe@profmsharpeWould be bad if it were true. It isn't.Quote TweetDr. Rebecca Goldin@rebegol·Sep 26, 2017Replying to @davidtuller1Fact that patients had declining health + simultaneously hit "recovery" makes the orig scientific conclusions shameful. CDC shd have known8:59 AM · Sep 26, 2017·Twitter for Android3 Quote Tweets1 Like
MEmilitant@MEMilitant1·Sep 26, 2017Replying to @profmsharpeFor both primary outcomes 'recovery' criteria overlapped with entry criteria. Those 2 outcomes all that was used for Lancet recovery claim.116
Cosmicella@_Sue_W_·Sep 26, 2017Replying to @profmsharpePlease can u explain this @profmsharpe I have training in critical appraisal &can't see how @rebegol 's statement is untrue @davidtuller1429
Fried Fish@cheshfr·Sep 26, 2017Replying to @profmsharpePACE Entry criteria: a score of 65 or - on SF36 scale. Recovery criteria: a score of 60 or +. Could you explain?1320
Fried Fish@cheshfr·Sep 26, 2017Replying to @cheshfr and @profmsharpeSo, a score of 65 is indicative of disability and recovery at the same time. How is it possible?216
ilieksneks@ilieksneks·Sep 26, 2017Replying to @profmsharpeYou don't get to yell "fake news !" when the director of @STATSorg exposes the flaws in your study1137
uab9876@uab9876·Sep 26, 2017Replying to @profmsharpeCan you give an example of a set of questionnaire answers for sf36-pf that add up to 60 and represents recovered?210
Jamie McMillan@orchid_b·Sep 26, 2017Replying to @profmsharpeOh come on. #PACE is a scientific fraud on a par with Kammerer injecting ink into toads. 25 years of obstructing progress. Proud are you?318
Lou Corsius@LouCorsius·Sep 26, 2017Replying to @profmsharpeYou can't stop telling lies can you prof. Sharpe. You are too far in it. Please try to explain once more why we should take you serious?411
Rebeljew@Rebeljew1·Oct 4, 2017Replying to @profmsharpeWhen did it become fashion for professors to deny basic fundamental scientific practice? Which just aren’t fashionable it seems