Unless they come out and say 'I intentionally wrote the guidelines to hurt ME patients', and then cackle evilly, direct redress is basically impossible. (criminal action or compensation either from NICE or the insurers of those involved).
Those involved in drawing up the guidance will argue 'we believe on the evidence we looked at'...
Those involved in specifying who looked at the guidance will argue 'followed best practices that have worked well'.
Perhaps with a topping of 'non-evidence based criticisms', and sidelining PACE for other studies that are less overtly criticised, but just as bad.
NICE (as a corporate body) is further isolated, because the recommendations will include 'patients right to refuse treatment' in there, and that they do not directly mandate treatments, only issue guidelines that individual doctors can ignore.
Judicial Review in principle can get them to look at the guidance again, if anyone is harmed. This is not redress for the individual though.
http://www.meassociation.org.uk/200...rt-rules-that-a-judicial-review-can-go-ahead/ (ultimately failed).
I note that Wakefield - who published a now wholly discredited paper on Autism and Vaccines, and from a settled medical view of history has indirectly caused several thousand deaths due to vaccine preventable diseases, suffered only the loss of his medical licence, and no other sanction.