Re the "balancing article".
Indeed, a bit bloody late. And, of course, the op ed piece is written by a freelance writer who normally writes about books, whereas the article that has done the damage was written by the paper's Science Editor (who, as I said earlier, appears not to be a scientist of any description).
The result? I spoke to my father at lunchtime. He happened to be calling in on me anyway. He's a lifelong Telegraph reader. Fortunately, I happened to have talked to him a lot about the illness of late and he's fairly well informed. He asked me about it, and I explained the background re PACE. He was quite taken aback, not by what I was telling him but that 'his' Telegraph would print that article at all. He said, and I quote, "That's very surprising, because the article gives the impression that science has settled the issue of whether the illness is all in the mind. It seemed quite definitive."
Indeed. That's exactly the impression it gives, and was designed to give. And that's exactly the impression most readers of the paper will now carry away from this.
I doubt that the author of that original article has any sweet clue of how much damage she has done.