http://www.ayme.org.uk/documents/10228/11022/Your%20child%20and%20M.E..pdf Largely full of waffle and anecdotes but I thought I'd post it in case anyone is interested. Only really one piece of data, and that's rather misleadingly used: Trivially, it was 40%, not 41%. More importantly, 25% of those receiving just SMC reported feeling "much" or "very much" better - so the addition of CBT or GET to patient's medical care, with a large amount of additional therapist time, led to an additional 15% rating themselves as much or very much better. That seemed a bit weirdly phrased to me. Not all participants saw mild to moderate improvement, and we didn't have something like an appropriate placebo control that would let us say that the treatments themselves were of real value. Really? Maybe they just have really low standards. Quackery that, by the standards of AfME, AYME and Esther Crawley, is competent, ethical and caring? I guess that if they do judge themselves by the moral standards of homeopaths, that would explain a lot. Is that it? No 'we don't know what holds back recovery, as we don't know what causes the illness'? I've just quoted that because it's the only other bit of data provided. The novelty of having them refer to some evidence made it jump out to me. Also, I thought I'd compare the descriptions of CBT and GET given in the PACE trial to those given in this document, as to me the AfME/AYME document seems more like a sales pitch than something intended to educate and allow patients to make informed decisions about their own care. (I saw this posted on @maxwhd's twitter feed - he retweeted Phil Hammond, who works at Crawley's centre).