And the Rituximab was a much smaller, early study. A less pleasing comparison for Rituximab would be with early CBT trials which seemed to have serious flaws, but that there researchers claimed showed really big improvements. Hopefully the double blind nature of the Rituximab trial will mean that it's more likely to lead on to something worthwhile. That's increasingly what I find myself thinking with the biopsychosocial stuff. If they were cheeky scamps in a novel I'd be impressed and respectful of their daring. Unfortunately they're real people who are in important positions of influence over how I am treated, which makes it all rather less fun. Also - they've been making claims to patients about 'recovery' for a rather long time. But it's only after they saw how bad the results from PACE were that they decided they had to come up with a new definition for it? What did they mean by 'recovery' prior to this new paper? What did they think their patients thought they meant? I think it's fair to assume that they were using the definition of recovery which they laid out in their protocol, and that's one of the reasons why it is so important that this data is released.