Why is Queen Mary so scared, Of having the PACE data aired? Does her hostility, Hide her fragility, Knowing the work is impaired? While we are waiting for the ruling on Alem Mattees' FoI request by the tribunal, you might like to look at this to see what lies behind the attitude held by Queen Mary University. When the PACE trial was being set up, a STEP test was added to the list of assessments, and was touted as being able to provide good evidence that patients with CFS/ME truly were just reconditioned. But when the first report came out in The Lancet in 2011, nothing was said about this. It wasn't until late 2015 that the results appeared, and then only as a small graph of average group performances in a highly technical, statistical paper which looked at factors that affected the likelihood of improvement. It was quite clear, even from that small graph, that there were no differences between the groups that had undergone CBT or GET, and the groups who had not. I wanted to put together a summary of all the objective data on the effectiveness of CBT, so put in a request for the actual 32 data values used to produce the graph. It was refused. I appealed to Queen Mary, and this was rejected. I appealed to the Information Commissioner, who upheld the refusal. My request was "vexatious". I was sent a copy of a 14 page submission by Queen Mary as to why my request for the actual values of 32 items of data already published in graphical form should be refused. I have been assured by the Information Office that I am free to let others see this, so you may be interested to look through it. The fact that I am a member of Phoenix Rising is held to be a strong point against me. In fact most of the document contains crticisms of the members of PR rather than of me. Do you think that they don't appreciate my contributions to the Limerick thread?