One thing I've noticed - when scientists who have nursed a pet theory for a long time are finally forced to engage with a new consensus in their field that contradicts said pet theory, they will pretend that their model allowed for the new consensus all along, and never admit that their model directly contradicts said consensus.
Given the shifty having-it-both-ways nature of the arguments that the Wessely school puts forth, I can easily see this happening - or perhaps it's happening already.
If your hypothesis rests on a vague, mysterious mind-body connection, the mechanisms of which can't be objectively observed or precisely described in biological terms, you can stretch it to fit new biological findings as needed. After all, how can you prove that your mental state (+your deconditioning) DOESN'T influence the proteins in your spinal fluid, or your cytokine production, or your demonstrable immune irregularities, or your ANS dysfunctions, or...?, or...?, or...?, or ??
Even if (when) there is eventually some fairly complete consensus about the physical pathology of the disease, there will always be a little room for your mental state (+ the deconditioning it causes) to be a contributing factor to your illness, because HOW CAN YOU PROVE IT ISN'T??
I wonder how overwhelming the biomedical consensus would have to become before the psychobabblers have to abandon their position. Maybe they never have to abandon it entirely; after all there is still psychobabble applied to all manner of other illnesses besides ours. I highly doubt that any psychobabblers will ever explicitly admit to their disease model having ever been "wrong." The most I hope for is that they will stay in a little corner where people can *optionally* seek their kind of treatment among other "alternative" approaches. I wonder how many adherents they'd attract if they had to compete with real, accepted medical treatments?