Notice the words: "can indeed be". The PACE Trial demonstrated that self-reported (subjective) symptoms can be moderately improved, and 11% to 15% of CFS patients reached the minimal threshold of a 'clinically useful' outcome, after treatment with CBT or GET. However, when it comes to objectively-measured physical disability, CBT had no therapeutic effect at all in the PACE Trial. The PACE Trial acknowledged that the self-reported primary outcomes are subject to bias, so, as self-reported symptoms can be moderately improved, but objectively-measured disability is not reduced by CBT, then this suggests that CBT does not 'reverse' illness, but it helps a small proportion of patients feel subjectively better about their symptoms. I've got no problem with that, if it is promoted transparently. CBT and GET "can help" a small proportion of secondary care patients deal with subjective feelings of illness, but do they not help improve disability, according to the PACE Trial results. The FINE Trial suggests that primary care patients are not helped by CBT or GET based therapies. The PACE Trial demonstrated that CBT and GET are 'moderately effective', not 'effective', for secondary care patients. And the FINE Trial demonstrated that therapies based on CBT and GET are not helpful, for primary care patients. Well, the PACE Trial was quite powerful evidence, so I'm not convinced that he changes his views according to the latest evidence, esp considering the objectively-measured outcomes in the PACE Trial, and the outcomes of the FINE Trial.