The day before releasing the figures to Matthees, the PACE trial authors themselves published two new papers with a new interpretation of the figures using the original trial‘s protocol [10,11]. Even though the number of improvers fell from 59% and 61% to 20% and 21% for CBT and GET, respectively (so that it was 3 times higher in the original paper due to the extensive endpoint changes made during the trial), the authors still concluded that “these outcomes are very similar to those reported in the main PACE results paper” [11], even though 59% and 61% are not “very similar” to 20% and 21%. The current analysis found that the number of objective improvers was actually 3.7% and 6.3% for CBT and GET, respectively (and if the effect of SMC was deducted, the rates would be 0% and 1.3%). Therefore, it could be said that the initially presented figures for improvers were inflated 16 and 10 fold for CBT and GET, respectively. This was a consequence of using subjective instead of objective primary outcomes and making an extensive number of endpoints changes during an unblinded trial (without taking the SMC effect into account; if SMC was considered there would have been a 47-fold increase for GET and no one objectively improved due to CBT alone).