Article conclusion:
In my view, the PACE trial is not controversial because of lay ‘misunderstandings’ or the  rejection that stress may play a role, but because it is a poorly designed study with missing
data, based on a narrow view of the illness with an emphasis on one symptom, and a lack of respect for alternative approaches and scientists who disagree. Science relies on attention to detail as well as accuracy. But the culture surrounding the PACE trial permits researchers to ignore evidence which undermines either the theory or the reports of improvement. There’s also a bias and hostility that does not belong in science.

Dr Shepherd of the ME Association summarised his view of the results as ‘bunkum’. Let me offer you my bite-sized response. A treatment like GET is simply not appropriate for a  disease like ME which is linked to infection and metabolic abnormalities. Given the close  relationship between exertion and symptoms, it follows that asking a patient to increase their activity levels is as logical as advising smokers with lung cancer to gradually increase the number of cigarettes they smoke. There’s more to ME than fatigue, we don’t have the  evidence to show that graded activity is effective, and finally, not all the critics of the PACE
trial are prejudiced laymen who are unfamiliar with treatments such as CBT.

Read more: “ME can be beaten by taking more exercise,.” Really?’ , by Ellen Goudsmit MSc PhD FBPsS, 18 February 2016