Richard Horton, editor of The Lancet, staunchly defended the PACE trial paper in a radio interview in 2011, insisting that “it’s been through endless rounds of peer review and ethical review” and that “the criticisms about this study are a mirage”.
The science journalist David Tuller commented:
The Lancet has not explained how this piece of nonsense could possibly pass peer review. It has not even acknowledged that it published a paper with outcome thresholds lower than entry criteria, so that you could be simultaneously “within normal range”–one of the study’s measures for improvement–and disabled enough to qualify the study. That is not hidden or tucked away! It's right there in the study. It should have been noticed by anyone who read the study carefully. For a paper to include this analysis is absurd. For a journal to publish it and then not acknowledge such a fundamental flaw after it has been pointed out repeatedly, including in correspondence in the journal itself, is also absurd”.
- Swann, Norman; Sharpe, Michael; Horton, Richard (18 Apr 2011), "Health Report - Comparison of treatments for chronic fatigue syndrome - the PACE trial", ABC Radio National (Australia) - Health Report
- Schneider, Leonid (2016-04-05), "Does The Lancet care about patients?", ForBetterScience Blog