To recap on the saga of the Lancet, for those not in the loop: There was a fantastic open letter to the Lancet that outlined a number of flaws with the PACE trial. The letter was signed by various esteemed names in science and medicine. However the editor of the Lancet, Dr Richard Horton, did not willingly reply to the concerns outlined by the signatories. Eventually enough pressure was applied that Dr Horton commissioned a letter from the signatories to again outline the criticisms of PACE, which he said would be published in the Lancet. Despite having commissioned the letter, the Lancet then went on to ghost the authors: rejecting their letter without informing them of this decision. An explanation was finally extracted for this action: I've never heard of the authors of a discredited piece of work being consulted on whether or not criticisms of that work should be published. Nevertheless, onwards we must forge. We now have the data that can add something "substantially new" to the discussion, as per the request of the Lancet. That data has been analysed by two recent publications  . We are fortunate to have two of the esteemed signatories of the earlier letter here on the forum, @Jonathan Edwards and @charles shepherd. I am keen to know what you thoughts are, Prof Edwards and Dr Shepherd, on initiating a new round of pressure on the Lancet via the medium of an open letter, using the recent reanalyses as the basis for a renewed effort?