Not out yet but there's this from the SMC, although it then got taken off-line: Removed from google, but saved by @maxwhd here: https://twitter.com/maxwhd/status/555130020939591682/photo/1 More of the pretence that patients are foolishly angry because they're just so misguided in their understanding of psychiatry and mental health, rather than because PACE are refusing to release results for the outcomes laid out in the trial's protocol and have instead being spinning things to make CBT and GET look better: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/pace_trial_recovery_rates_and_po Oh the cruel harassment of an FOI request asking for the release of important data! Imagine being so brutally attacked as to be accused of bias! Imagine - the very idea of researchers wanting to hype their results, and being aided by lazy journalists. It's heart breaking. I wonder if they'll do sad faces while talking about 'stigma', even as they try to promote and hide behind this bigotry. Maybe the British science press might be willing to do a bit of independent research... but I doubt it. The PACE 'Recovery' paper didn't get any press despite being promoted by the SMC, but I think that was largely because reporters remembered having uncritically parroted the even more positive claims about recovery when the first paper came out. "They're now saying only 22% recovered? What cautious researchers, I remember thinking that it should be a third, or maybe 30-40%!" The post-hoc 'recovery' criteria which led to the 22% claim has now been criticised as 'contradictory' by the recent P2P Evidence Review for defining 'normal' fatigue and disability in a way that overlaps with their own criteria for 'abnormal' fatigue and disability - maybe some 'experts' repeating the things patients have been saying for years will mean a couple of journalists actually take the time to think things through for themselves. Also, I like how they now use the dismissive 'all in the mind' phrase to encapsulate patient's foolish fears. This old discussion from Wessely and Shorter is of interest here imo: http://forums.phoenixrising.me/showthread.php?14523-1997-Wessely-thing-(minor-more-morality-and-philosophy-than-CFS) Just to remind people, this is how the PACE mediation results were presented earlier: Sounds like they've been sexed up since. I wonder if they'll mention the evidence from PACE that CBT and GET just lead to minor improvements in questionnaire scores in a nonblinded trial - like homeopathy and lots of other worthless interventions. When pushed to include more objective evidence as part of the PACE trial, as actometers were only used at baseline, they stated: "We have used several objective outcome measures; the six minute walking test , a test of physical fitness , as well as occupational and health economic outcomes . Although we originally planned to use actigraphy as an outcome measure, as well as a baseline measure, we decided that a test that required participants to wear an actometer around their ankle for a week was too great a burden at the end of the trial. We will however test baseline actigraphy as a moderator of outcome." http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2377/7/6/comments None of them showed imporovement for CBT or GET other than a statistically significant improvement for the 6mwt post-GET that did not meet the criteria for clinical significance that was used for the other PACE outcome measures. Since that point we've also had the public release of old data from CBT trials showing that CBT led to improvements in questionnaire scores, but not in the amount of activity patients could actually do when measured objectively with actometers: http://www.bmj.com/rapid-response/2...-released-showing-there-was-not-statistically What do we reckon the new results will be presented as? More confounds sold as breakthroughs? People who report improvements in symptoms also reported being more positive about treatment... therefore we must put the most positive spin on treatments possible in order to promote these empowering cognitions! People who report improvements in symptoms also reported feeling less depressed... important but controversial evidence that disability is perpetuated by emotional disorder in these patients. Sadly this will be rejected by some stubborn dualists! People who report improvements in symptoms will also report feeling less concerned by symptoms... we must convince patients not to worry about symptoms. The negativity around this condition is oh so very destructive! People who are most likely to believe that they have control over symptoms are most likely to report an improvement in symptoms.... there's no potential problems with bias in a non-blinded trial. Don't worry about that! People who think that their problems have a psychological cause are most likely to report improvements following psychological therapies... if only we could convince everyone of the importance of psychosocial perpetuating factors, then the NHS could devote even more resources to cheap and effective CBT!