http://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(17)30458-9/fulltext In part. Contrast with: The argument of course is that criticisms of CBT/GET are misguided, and that we should be properly respectful of the scientific method that lead to them, following the defences by White, Wessley et al in their FAQ, for example.(failing to note the obvious fact that that FAQ fails to address most of the criticism) Neglecting that the argument is not against the conclusion, but about the terrible methodology, and the fact the effect sizes for CBT or GET are utterly trivial compared with the headlines in the abstracts.Or comparing them with the fatigue score changes when double-blind rituximab is given (after a delay in onset of several months). The comment in the middle is comedic. A retraction is in no way 'expunging the record' in a manner which makes the work unavailable. It is possible to submit comments to editorials, but not online.