I'd go further and say they if they were genuine they wouldn't have used the word "recovery" in the first place.
The use of "recovery" was a distortion of English. In the text, they said that "recovery" in their use only meant "recovery from the current episode." So they meant "remission" at best. And they deflected criticism of their use of "recovery" at one point by saying, well, we explained what we meant in the paper itself. But of course they didn't object to headlines proclaiming that "recovery" is possible.
In their use of language, words like "recovery" have no fixed meaning. They mean whatever White et al want them to mean at that moment.