Dear Dr. Yes,
+1 to all of that.
And I think Wessely is a sadist and he knows it. He probably also is a fairly spineless person who adores authorities and wants to be one himself. There is probably something sick in his family background, what with his father in a train to Treblinka (a German Endloesungs-lager). Anyway... clearly he is very dangerous because of his power, position and government support.
Little personal background:
I gave up on reading - scientifically - about ME/CFS 20 years ago ca. 1990 because (i) most of what I'd read (there was no internet then) was waffle (constructed around "may" and "can") and (ii) I'd been given Gijs Bleijenberg's Ph.D. which I considered total rot - intellectually: rot, stylistically: rot, logically: rot, scientifically: rot, medically: rot, psychologically: rot, morally: creepy stinking rot - by the kind of person that never should have been admitted into a university anyway for sheer lack of intelligence, but that could get entrance in Dutch universities over the past 30 years because of great levellings of the total Dutch educational system (that I have protested 30 years against, as a lone individual, but was strongly supported at long last in 2008 by a Parliamentary Committeee that drew most of the conclusions I'd drawn and argued).
Dutch readers: Some of my published papers on that, since proven wholly correct:
With the internet I did some more (with a telephone modem until last July, that doesn't allow fast or thorough searching at all) but since I am very impatient with academic waffle, and most academic publications are mostly waffle - it is a career, after all, y'understand, for most tenured or would be tenured academics, not a passion for truth or style - and since I am not very interested in medicine as a science and have no special competency in it either, I didn't do much around ME either, having been convinced since 32 years it needs a bio-medical causal explanation.
It's only when the XMRV-news reached me, at the time I just had come to have ADSL, that I dived into the literature on and around ME, and found that Wessely, White, Sharpe etc. and Van der Meer and Bleijenberg etc. have been systematically lying, travestying real science, blocking the roads to real bio-medical research and its funding, and have been manipulating and intrigueing like mad.
Meanwhile, I think I more or less understand Wessely, White and Sharpe's game:
They are faithful government or insurance-firm tools, who want to be so, get well paid for it, and who just love exercising power and hurting people under pretense of being medical scientists.
Bleijenberg & Van der Meer are harder to understand, on my present knowledge:
They don't have the sort of politico-bureaucratic positions of power that e.g. Wessely has (and Reed in the US had, who seems similar to Wessely in outlook and motives), since such institutions do not exist in Holland. (They would like to have it, no doubt, but the instutions are not there for it in Holland.)
Very probably, both crave power and influence, but it also seems to me, from the strong manly faces both have - http://www.maartensz.org/log/2010/NL100405a.htm - that personal failure plays a role: Bleijenberg obviously is a twit, and it seems Van der Meer just can't make it intellectually in real internal medicine, and took to drink (how else he got that face of his with submerged lakes of alcohol apparently swimming under his eyes - always apart from dysfunctional beliefs - escapes me).
What also plays a role, probably, for both groups, is that it is so VERY much easier to publish waffle than real science.
Finally, as to
The unfalsifiable nature of many psychological 'hypotheses' and 'theories', especially in the psychosomatic field, ought to be their downfall but instead has given them a major niche in medical practice. They take care of a great many 'incoveniences' for incompetent or uncaring doctors and for cost-cutting medical insurers and governments.
Indeed... but there is more to it, as also emerges in the DSM-5 threads:
These rotters are redefining what science is to make it fit their own interests, and at least Wessely is doing it on purpose. It's here that post-modernism enters: Everything is supposedly "interpretation"; in the end there is only The Text (so anything goes: facts are texts to); "Everything is relative" .... in brief: all becomes propaganda and turns around acquiring power and influence by spindoctoring and astroturfing.
See: Scientific Realism versus Postmodernism
And the current pomo medical game with regards to ME and the DSM-5 is the "on the one hand", "on the other hand" strategy: There are a soma and a psyche, these nutters hold, as if we are in medical science still in the Middle Ages, and in things human The Psyche (a.k.a. soul) rules, and over The Psyche The Psychiatric or Psychotherapeutical Specialist has the say-so.
This is again a very pleasing story for the state and the insurance-company, for not treating or investigating or helping ill people on the socalled Evidence Based Ground (Wessely fecit: Bona diagnosis, bona curatio....) that they are nut-cases is much cheaper.
And thus it goes...
Anyway - waking up and indulging in some (fairly cogent and informed) speculation.
Glad to see you around, Dr. Yes.