Hi, Bob, thanks for the reference to this thread. If we are discussing nonsense, then the article that Dr. Enlander criticised is a perfect example. Having stated clearly that exercise does 'exacerbate symptoms' - instead of drawing the obvious conclusion that patients should therefore avoid exercise, it goes on to discuss ways of treating the, apparently, pathological, condition of avoiding exercise. (Would this work with people who have peanut allergies? Help them get over their 'peanut avoidance behaviour'?) This thread expresses the hope that, as we are all known to be rational human beings, the weight of evidence will eventually persuade the Wessely lot, the general public, the medical community, that ME is actually a physiological, not a psychological illness. I think this optimism is unjustified... More examples of how things actually work: On page 6 of the PACE Report, dropping the physical measurement, by actometer, of subjects' activities, which was used in the pilot study but not in the main study, is justified by reference to an article by Wiborg et al - which, according the the PACE author, showed a 'discrepancy' between physical measurements and 'self-reports' of increases in activity. This was cited as supporting the PACE researchers' decision to drop the physical measurement and rely only on self-reports. But the Wiborg paper stated that self-reports exaggerated levels of physical activity - a feature not mentioned in the PACE article. Is it unreasonable to speculate that the self-reports would be more likely to support the idea that CBT and GET produced improvements in levels of physical, and that that is why the physical measurement by actometer was dropped? It was shortly after several cogent criticisms of the PACE results were published in Lancet that Professor Wessely started complaining about death threats. It saved him from having to reply to these well-founded criticisms. Wessely knows extremely well how to manage the media - he could give lessons to PR people! The Hanlon article simply recreates that smokescreen of feeling sorry for the poor man, attacked by these unscientific patient terrorists - Hanlon states that Wessely was been doing research into the causes of ME. He wasn't - the PACE Trial was a comparison of treatment modalities, not research into the causes of ME. He is also said to have been knighted for services to veterans. These 'services' consist of having supported psychiatric treatment, along similar lines to that for ME, for veterans suffering from Gulf War Syndrome - they need psychiatric services in much the same way that ME sufferers need psychiatric services....(like a fish needs a bicycle). The research he did which 'proved' ('scientifically', naturally) that Gulf War Syndrome wasn't a physical illness was, according to the article I read, conducted at Porton Down, giving marmosets all the same injections that the Gulf War soldiers were given, and apparently the marmosets didn't get Gulf War Syndrome. (It doesn't say how they found this out - how can you tell whether a marmoset has Gulf War Syndrome? Give them a questionnaire?) Just to go back a moment to the 'science' involved in the PACE Report - according to an article by Professor Wessely, 'How to tell the Zebras from the Horses', ME/CFS is a consequence of people who have had a viral illness then focussing on very slight symptoms, getting very worried about them, avoiding exercise, and persisting in the false belief that they have a physical illness. If ME/CFS is caused by suggestible people forming false beliefs about their illness, how can they conclude that the 'self reports' of these individuals will be more scientifically reliable than physical measurements of activity? And so on and so on....