Clear evidence that the Cochrane report was biased The Tribunal on the release of PACE data noted, page 31: Cochrane is influential in ME/CFS treatment The Cochrane review of GET has been influential throughout the world in establishing GET as a useful treatment of ME/CFS. For example it is the basis for GET being recommended as a treatment for CFS in the Australian GP treatment guidelines. Cochrane is committed to independent bias-free reviews The Cochrane's Principle 4 notes that bias will be minimised: There therefore seems to have been a problem with the selection of the review panel for the Cochrane GET review given that three of the review panel are the researchers behind the key trial that supposedly provides evidence for the efficacy of GET and that these researchers themselves don't consider the Cochrane review was an independent process. Cochrane has a policy of changing its findings when new evidence is available Other Cochrane principles include: * open and transparent communication * keeping up-to-date by a commitment to ensure that Cochrane Systematic Reviews are maintained through identification and incorporation of new evidence * ensuring quality by ... being open and responsive to criticism Can we contact Cochrane to ask for an update on the GET review? Yes, it may be easiest to wait until independent analyses of the PACE data is done. But that will take time. And then the Cochrane update will take time. And then updating all the treatment guidelines that rely on the Cochrane review will take time... There is plenty of information already that Cochrane should take into account when assessing GET. There are the problems with PACE as set out in many places, including David Tuller's work. The new Addendum to the US Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality is important http://occupyme.net/2016/08/16/ahrq-evidence-review-changes-its-conclusions. This is especially so given Cochrane's Methodological Standards for the conduct of Cochrane Reviews includes http://editorial-unit.cochrane.org/...oads/MECIR_conduct_standards 2.3 02122013.pdf I don't know where to start in contacting Cochrane but I know others will. At the very least, drawing Cochrane's attention to this issue now will bring it to top of mind so that when other prompts for an update occur (PACE data reanalysis; CDC update of treatment recommendations), they are more likely to move.