I guess I'll do our standard writeup this time!
On the part relevant to us:
The way this is worded it seems as if he was indeed studying ME, which is also called CFS, and his research found that a third of those patients with make a full recovery riding the cbtgettrain.
This confuses me because every time this is brought up with his group they seem to claim they were never ever studying ME, but CFS as defined by whatever they please on any given day, while 'recovery' can mean anything you want the word to mean from 'deteriorated a lot' to 'had a mild statistically insignificant fluctuation in symptoms'. But 'full recovery' when studying 'ME' is a weird claim because the evidence, as far as I can see, does indeed speak for itself. So he is either lying, misrepresented by the interviewer or referring to unpublished research he has lying around in his office somewhere which would be a bit unethical I'd think.
Given that this recovery claim is to the best of our knowledge a complete fabrication and somewhat central to his entire career - how high quality can his reports to advise the government on any issues really be?
On the point that needs to be hammered home with everyone outside our own bubble:
The way the whole interview is set up is interesting in the same way those things usually are. Be it Esther with her daddy issues, Trudie with her horrible heckling incidents that she claimed were extremely threatening (or am I misremembering this part? It is hard to keep up with what their weird version of reality is at any given point in time), Simon with his Holocaust thingy here or all the death threats that they made out of newspapers themselves to paint a picture of what a death threat might have looked like, it is always the same technique where they try to make themselves come across as pitiable victims.
This is a move that is used by psychopaths all over the world because they at some point in they lives must have noticed it makes people easier to manipulate. It is pretty devious because it is not necessarily completely disingenous - e.g. if Esther really had a weird relationship with her father (or whatever it was she was claiming exactly) it would really suck for her.
But that does not mean that researching sick kids standing on a bit of paper shouting STOP at it and finding that it does, in fact, not do anything and then going on to report it as the next big treatment almost ready to roll out is not malpractice.