"As a scientist with 12 years research experience I am shocked at the lack of high quality research in the area of ME/CFS particularly in the area of CBT and GET.
What is extremely worrying is that NICE have used this research to draw up guidelines which will have far reaching implications for patients, and which patient groups strongly reject.
Of particular concern are the small sample sizes, the lack of a systematic approach to aspects of the treatment protocol, such as frequency and number of treatment sessions, and differences in the treatment, if any of the control group.
Rather more worrying is the range and efficacy of the methods used for evaluating the outcomes of the trials, making direct comparison between RCTs (randomised control trials) difficult.
In fact the use of self-reporting questionnaires in ME/CFS studies is in itself controversial, with recent reports showing that there is no correlation between activity scores recorded on an actometer used to measure physical activity (which were lower after treatment with CBT and GET) and the SF-36 scores (self-reported data) 
It is extremely concerning that such poor scientific data is being used to recommend treatment that can, as has been shown by a number of patient surveys from the ME Association , Action for Me and the 25% group for severely affected to make at least 33% of people more ill.
While such a mismatch between the opinions of patient groups and adequate scientific data exists, patients will, quite rightly continue to reject these guidelines and continue to campaign for higher quality scientific research into this condition.
 Friedber F, Sohl, S. Cognitive-behaviour therapy in chronic fatigue syndrome: is improvement related to increase physical activity? J.Clinical Phsychol. 2009 April (in press)
 ME Association survey involving over 4,000 people
Dr Anna Sheridan"