I don't think it's fair to criticise the timing of this letter. It takes time to look at exactly what the paper showed, understand the measures used, etc, etc. I wouldn't have been able to provide a sensible criticism of Pace on the day it was released, and I don't think others here should be so quick to assume that they could. I think that patient organisations would have been better off not commenting if they'd not have access to the paper in advance... but many would have then attacked them for their silence. We didn't know what White etc were going to claim, or what evidence they had in support. Some patient organisations rejected CBT/GET out of hand, and were portrayed as being anti-evidence for doing so... even though it was White etc who were spinning the evidence. It's hard to reply rapidly to a 5,000,000 study that has been spun by experts who have had access to the raw data for over a year.