Seems like it's in the print version as well as online:
"A version of this op-ed appears in print on March 19, 2017, on Page SR4 of the New York edition with the headline: Wrong on Chronic Fatigue."
Which is great as a sign they're giving it real coverage. I am very happy!!
If I may, as a writer, register a small complaint it is that the writing is a little too dense to reach a vast lay audience. And this complex sentence, which is the hook for the whole piece, relies on the extremely unimpressive verb 'overstated' while burying it in the middle of the sentence amid a jumble of clauses.
"The
main study that has been cited as proof that patients can recover with those treatments overstated some of its results"
It's just not how you make a concept pop. Compare:
"One study has been cited time and again as proof that patients can recover with those treatments. But it has come into question. In fact, experts now believe some of its results were substantially exaggerated."
(Please forgive me this digression. I am simply a student of the craft of making writing effective, and mostly I am delighted to see the world's most respected newspaper publish this! I suspect it will have a tremendous effect on the status of PACE.)