"Missing the fizz: my long battle to understand the mysteries of ME" https://www.theguardian.com/society...long-battle-to-understand-the-mysteries-of-me The author has written a book on pursuing alternative healthcare. PACE bit, which does link to the new Wilshire paper: Pretty annoying to have Guardian's only coverage of the Wilshire paper written by someone who doesn't reveal an understanding the details. I guess the PACE authors only dare respond to people who don't display any understanding of the details? [edit: just to clarify my concerns - presenting PACE criticisms in terms of this 'physical vs psychological' debate plays into so many of the prejudices that are used to dismiss criticisms of PACE. Also, presenting patients as embracing interventions with a poor evidence base can make it more difficult to have patient concerns about the misleading promotion of CBT/GET taken seriously.] [edit 2: Also the "can there not be more collaboration between these two schools of thought?" seems like exactly the sort of thing that would appeal to the prejudices of Guardian readers ,but rather overlooks the fact that the PACE researchers have just spent a decade promoting smears and bigotry against the patients who dared criticise their work.] At the same time, he uncritically includes stuff from William Weir that looks too strong to me, so it's an even-handed lack of critical engagement, which may be the best we can hope for from the Guardian. Overall, I think that this piece is probably worse than nothing, but maybe I'm being unfair. I'm so pissed off with the Guardian's coverage of PACE in general, that this irritation is probably seeping into my reading of this article a bit, when it's not really fair to blame the author of this piece for it. At the same time, the fact the Guardian chooses to prioritise publishing pieces like this is frustrating.