I just read this is paper from Hans Knoop, who appears (from a distance) to be Gijs Bleijenberg's heir apparent at Nijmegen. He has been involved in all sorts of frustrating papers incl. PACE Trial commentary (they talked about the strict criteria for recovery used!), CBT is safe for CFS (post-hoc study with dodgy definitions of/reporting of harms), CBT leads to full recovery in CFS (v. dodgy definition of full recovery), etc. In this paper, one gets a one-sided view of the evidence, with virtually no mention of any other opinions - the only one that comes to mind is: By the end of the paragraph, after quoting Heins study and PACE Trial, he says: As well as the one-sided review of the current evidence, one is also given an insight into other research that could be done. Not very exciting at all. Biology is only mentioned that I can recall in this one-sided paragraph: No mention of the fact: - de Lange had no control group. - This study: - Jason studies which found presence of biological abnormalities tended to predict a poor response from non-pharm interventions incl. CBT. Even though their review found that CBT patients weren't do more than the controls after CBT, he suggests this might not have been true during therapy: There is no talk that if people aren't do any more than controls at the end of treatment, that this is important. And generally no talk of possible problems with outcome measures used. All in all, frustrating.