LOL at their FAQ. Frequently asked by who? I love the way that they have conversations with imagined patients who only ever ask questions in a way that they want to answer. The PACE leaflet with the "How many patients got back to normal?" question to set up their absurd re-defintion of 'normal' is still the classic example. I'd be interested to know if the researchers were aware of the Bleijenberg results, which showed CBT did not increase the levels of activity in CFS patients, at the time that they decided this would be the obvious measure to reject. Did they communicate this information to the patient charity involved? The most common complaint I've seen has been about the re-definition of 'normal', in a way that overlaps with their criteria for CFS and severe and disabling fatigue. No response to that. They describe CBT and GET rather differently here than they did in their paper. I can't be bothered to go through it... it doesn't seem to say anything interesting. I had another point I wanted to make about this... but have forgotten it.