What specific data from PACE do you think showed that pacing was helpful? For the Chalder fatigue score, the addition of APT to SMC was not associated with an improvement in fatigue scores at 1 year, and fatigue scores in these groups were worse than those reported in the SMC+CBT/GET groups. By 2.5 years there was no significant difference between groups, so data from PACE did not suggest it was helpful to add any additional treatment to SMC (which itself lacked any evidence of efficacy).
Although there are well known problems with them, here's there graphs for primary outcomes from the 2011 PACE paper:
View attachment 1368
Right now, I can only recall one significant difference for an outcome that the addition of APT to SMC was associated with:
"Deterioration in physical function was more likely after adaptive pacing therapy."
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022399914001883
As I expect you'll be aware, there are lots of problems with the way the PACE trial was designed, conducted and analysed, making it difficult to claim anything much about any of the treatments included, but I do not see how one can use the data from PACE to claim it showed that APT was helpful. I suppose one could reasonably arguing that PACE was such a humiliating disaster that it indicated the whole field around 'rehabilitation' and CFS is a quack-fest, and therefore patients should just be left to some form of 'pacing', but I doubt that would be the argument being put forth by someone being paid to provide GET.
"And if you actually look at the data in the PACE trial" - what data, specifically, are you referring to?
What evidence? You just mean your anecdote about what you've been told? No-one has doubted your reported experience - it's just that generally people are quite rightly sceptical of the value of anecdotes like these.
Do you think that there has been any problem with 'double speak' around the way CFS patients are treated by those promoting GET?
What do you mean by 'forcing'? Do you think that people here assume GET involves being tied to a running machine or something? The spin and misrepresentation around GET can mean that people are inappropriately pressured to engage in GET programmes, but I don't think that anyone has mentioned that here. You seem to occasionally be misinterpreting what others are saying.
Why do you think that medical professionals who see patient with other conditions are not making money from when they provide GET to CFS patients?
What specific studies?