I was just reading this fun publication: 'Stepped care for functional neurological symptoms A new approach to improving outcomes for a common neurological problem in Scotland.' I came upon a section that reminded me of CFS spin: I decided to try to find the trial to have a look, and it seems that it was a Sharpe one that found no difference between treatment and control groups in their primary outcome measure at six months, and the 'control' group was just usual care. What a great 'opportunity'. Full text available here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3149156/ The failure to attempt proper control groups for psychological RCTs just seems crazy (or corrupt), especially if you're relying upon subjective self-reported questionnaires as an outcome measure. That they still failed to reach significance at six months is embarrassing.... that this is still being presented as good evidence to justify the expansion of services is mystifying... and people are complaining about NHS cutbacks? Maybe we should be focusing on treatments where there's good evidence of efficacy at the moment? Also, I was quite proud of this little bit from the Scottish report: I'm probably fooling myself, but I imagined the writer thinking: "We know you weird CFS patients go around checking up on the claims in reports like these and getting angry... we're not saying that you don't fall within what should be our remit, but we're leaving you alone, so just leave us alone too. We'll even put the ME bit first!!"