It's interesting how different people can make such different criticisms of PACE. This piece seemed to really focus on some details I can think are less interesting, but miss out other important areas.
It's great to have this from a source that many will see as authoritative, but also, it's another illustration of how hard it is to summarise the problems with PACE. People new to the topic are only going to be getting 1/4 of the story... yet it's so long and dense many will not slog through it.
tbh, reading that has left me feeling a bit down about the prospects of ever getting the mainstream media to take an interest. It's just so darn complicated! (The diagram on fatigue scores was a pretty nifty way of simplifying that issue).
In multiple interviews and in the papers in which the changes were discussed the PACE authors noted that these changes were made before any data had been seen, and under the approval of an oversight committee.
About this claim... how come QMUL stated, after the 2011 Lancet paper, that the results for the recovery criteria laid out in the protocol was due to be released in an academic paper, and then these results never appeared. To me, that would seem to indicate that a decision to not release those results was made after data had been seen.
Also, I am half-asleep, but I didn't understand some of the points made about "
The ME/CFS criteria for recovery." so am going to have to re-read that tomorrow.