In case anyone's interested (Simon's opposed to quackery this time): http://www.spike.com/video/alternative-medicine/3439367 He talks about the importance of being honest with patients, yet to me it seems that the version of CBT he and Chalder promotes is rather sly and manipulative. Certainly that was my experience of it, and that training video we have of Chalder has her encouraging GPs to be evasive and avoid clarity of communication with patients. He talks about the importance of randomised control trials for working out the impact of treatments and says: "I know my treatments do harm... but do they do more harm than good? Is overall the benefit greater than the risk?" I've always been amused by the emphasis he places upon psycho-social factors in maintaining CFS combined with a disinterest in the way in which his work has affected the psycho-social settings for CFS patients. By focusing only upon patients directly in receipt of his treatments and in trials he isolates himself from the impact his work has indirectly on patients - and it is here that it does the most damage imo: legitimising the prejudices many have about CFS, even if he does not intend it to. I'd also be very interested to hear him say what damage he thinks his CFS treatments do: again, there seems to be a desire to spin them as positively as possible to patients in a way that rather undermines his professed commitment to treating patients honestly. If he was urgently fighting to have those who claimed that any CFS patient who followed a GET program would fully recover stripped of their medical license (and ideally pension) it would be easier to take him seriously - but this sort of thing doesn't seem to bother him, despite the evidence showing that it is not true. (Started rambling there... off to bed).