I am glad that the first commentor EV on the blog points out what I was thinking about in relation to journalists having problems understanding why we/DT continue to point out the many methodological flaws of PACE. By using such lax criteria these studies are really not all that relevant to people with ME although they are used to direct policy with regards to our illness. A person with chronic fatigue maybe will benefit from GET a person with ME will not. The lines have been thoroughly blurred and we suffer as a result.
It is telling that journalists will validate those stories of recovery but pay no heed at all to the stories of people whose lives have been made worse by trying to get back to health using the authorised treatment. No, recovery is the only story worth telling (read--they are the deserving). And our plight is set against the fact that exercise IS touted as good for a whole range of health issues (although I expect some of the evidence is not as robust as is made out). We are programmed to think in terms of exercise benefit so any other narrative seems wrong.
Anyway, I thought it was a rather good and clear prebuttal. Hopefully any article that materialises will help direct traffic to the Virology blog.