A definition of graded exercise (therapy) would also be useful so as we are all singing from the same hymn sheet I think. Depends a great deal of the kind of actual programme you may have been involved in - and not everyone is or has been. 'Graded' seems to mean different things to different patients - and practitioners. And the levels of personalisation and understand of the disease also play a key role in determining usefulness.
My understanding is that GET for CFS was originally created for a patient group who were
alleged to have a 'functional' (i.e. psychological) illness founded on symptom-focusing, maladaptive avoidance of exercise, and deconditioning etc. So, allegedly, there was no biomedical illness to treat, but it was simply maladaptive behaviour/cognition leading to exercise intolerance and deconditioning.
The theory behind the therapy was that patients were supposed to be introduced to exercise in a steady and progressive incremental fashion, and that fluctuating symptoms were to be ignored: If the therapist made allowances for fluctuating symptoms, then they would be complicit in, and encouraging, the patient's maladaptive behaviour, helping to validate the patients false illness beliefs and therefore the therapist would be helping to propagate the illness further. The therapist was not permitted to take into account the fluctuating nature of the symptoms. Awareness of symptoms was absolutely discouraged and fluctuating levels of symptoms were disregarded. Steady incremental increases in exercise were prescribed, regardless of symptoms.
But times have changed. I think that the UK's NICE guidelines now assert that sensitivity to fluctuating symptoms is good practice and to be encouraged. So, if GET is properly prescribed in the NHS in the UK, sensitivity to flare-ups and fluctuations is encouraged, and baselines/expectations are to be generously lowered whenever necessary or beneficial. So, these days, GET as prescribed by the NHS, should (if prescribed properly) incorporate strong elements of pacing.
However, I doubt if it is universally prescribed as it should be. Also, for many ME patients, GET simply isn't suitable. For example, when I first became ill, the very last thing that I needed in my first year, was to exercise in any shape or form, as I was extremely ill, and my symptoms were exceptionally reactive to any exertion. I literately only had to walk across the room, and my symptoms could flare up hideously. I was simply ill, and what I needed was to cease all activities, and to be inactive, while I got used to the illness. Only after I had learned to be inactive, could I start to think about increasing my extremely low levels of exertion.
The MEA and AfME patient surveys that I posted above are relatively recent (2008/2010), and I think they were carried out after the last NICE guidelines review. So, either GET is still having an adverse effect on some patients, or the harmed respondents participated in GET years ago.