This blog post from James Coyne focuses on couples therapy for cancer patients, but some of the themes sounded rather familiar: Some of the problems he was describing were even worse that that normally found in CFS work. Things like this ring a bell though: There's a section under the sub-heading 'The sandbagging' which mentions 'Hedges’ g' as a (perhaps flawed) way in which meta-analyses can try to account for the problem of small studies showing big positive affects while large studies are negative or show small positive affects - he mainly talks about the politics of this, but the statistical technique could also be interesting to some here. Using small studies to justify big claims is certainly a problem with CFS work, and seems a common problem in psychiatry - the results from PACE and FINE seem much more realistic, and it is only the spin which has allowed them to claim any consistency with past results. http://blogs.plos.org/mindthebrain/...s-interventions-for-cancer-patients-research/ I just cannot get my expectations low enough for academia. I'm so cynical about it all now... but am still regularly disappointed. At 20, I thought trusting expert academics was the intelligent thing to do, and was somewhat sneering about what I saw as anti-intellectualism amongst many of my peers. Actually, they just had a much more realistic view of the human and political nature of academia. Seeing James Coyne struggling to get his criticisms published is partially cheering (at least it's not just CFS), partially terrifying (it's not just CFS).