Personally, I think we have to refine and restrict our approach. I'm fully in favour of published studies/analyses showing up all the faults in PACE, but when we are presenting an argument to NICE, I think we have to keep it simple. There's little point in trying to convince the psychs, so we have to think what strategy to use on impartial assessors.
To my mind there are two stages in the argument.
The first is that using the Oxford criteria gives groups of patients that are unrepresentative of patients with ME/CFS. I think this is a difficult case to make, as reflected in discussions here. It's not that we can't see the problems ourselves, but that we are trying to convince a number of detached scientists. But the fact that the USA has dumped all such trials is important, and in doing so, has removed any claims that CBT is effective.
The second stage is to accept PACE as a significant, definitive trial with data that is informative, but an analysis that is deeply flawed, whatever group of patients they used. So when it shows that CBT produces no improvement in objective assessments, which is consistent with previous smaller studies, that is a key point. The improvements in subjective assessments are relatively small, especially considering that this was an unblinded trial where the comparison group was "neglected" and where CBT was actually designed to change the severity with which patients saw their symptoms. This shows that CBT wasn't even very effective in doing that. There is only one valid interpretation of these results: CBT did not actually improve symptoms, and only produced a small change in rating those symptoms. It is irrelevant whether this applies to patients with ME or not - it doesn't work.
I think we dilute our case when we attack PACE on too many fronts (even though there are so many fronts to choose from).
I've been thinking of an analogy, and have come up with this.
If we take a group of Seventh Day Adventists, who believe completely that God created the world in 6 days, and present them with the layers of rock and fossils in the Grand Canyon, they are forced to interpret the findings through their beliefs, and in doing so, have to ignore many scientific "truths". But of course, if you step away from their beliefs, a scientific analysis of the findings leads you down a very different path.
The psychs who fervently believe that ME/CFS is purely a psychological condition see the PACE trial as firm proof that CBT works. They "know" that all that is needed is for patients to change their perceptions, and they will, over time, be cured. So when the PACE trial shows a change in subjective reporting of symptoms, that is solid evidence that CBT works - as long as you only view the results through that belief. The failure to record objective improvements is ignored, in much the same way that the Seventh Day Adventists ignore inconvenient facts.
Again, NICE needs committee members who can step away from this unfounded belief and review the evidence as it is, not through some distorting lens of prior assumption.