It is best to let David Tuller and James Coyne argue with him in my opinion. They are both in powerful position to argue and defend what they wrote and defend us patients.
Every argument coming from a patient will be discounted and/or interpreted as abuse.
Actually, this bunch is extremely thin-skinned.
I looked for the examples of "abuse" the PACE researchers claim that are getting online, and to me it looks like your average Twitter banter. It may be a generational thing, their lack of familiarity with how unrestricted free-speech works on the Internet, or the fact that they are used to receiving nothing short of reverential treatment from those around them.
Unless there's something I'm missing, I haven't seen the horrible abuse" they are receiving in social media. Questioning their flawed methodology is not abuse. Even heated exchange is not abuse.
For example, when Tuller asked for all their PACE research data via FOIA, the PACE authors called it a "vexatious" act. So we are to believe their thesis without question; questioning their methods becomes an act of humiliation.
I don't think it's just that they suffer of an incredibly thin skin; I think they have been 'crying wolf" every time time someone criticized them in the last few decades. If anything, Wess and Co are great PR managers and were successful at characterizing criticism as "abuse" and their critics as an irrational "angry mob" out to get them.
Now that other scientific peers are parsing and questioning their methods, this strategy of "crying wolf" doesn't work anymore, but they sure keep using it. One-trick ponies with very thin skin.