The Psych Lobby Those who have built their careers on the marginalization of CFS patients (divide from mainstream, stigmatize then claim you and only you have the answers) are not giving up without a fight. Sudlow et al. starts out feigning concern about the generalize ability of the science paper ("your CFS patients may have XMRV but leave ours alone") and then they go into allegations of expectation bias and imply poor methodology/handling, etc. Interestingly, they reverse the order of these in their conclusion ("bias, confounding, reverse causality, and lack of generalizability in their study"). Lloyd, White, Wessely et al. The first sentence of the last paragraph says it all. They are criticizing the WPI, Clevelend Clinic, NCI study (don't let them isolate the WPI from the Cleveland Clinic and the NCI - the WPI alone is much easier to dismiss) and they make a statement like this? Where does this come from? I also found it ironic that they pointed out that they adhere to criteria that in their minds precludes any physical findings. Nice to see this is print. I expect that these words will haunt them some day. Lastly, van der Meer et al. concede that the Science article finds something of significance in a CFS subset (patients in outbreaks) but hangs on to the majority of CFS patients as being their turf. My take on all of the responses is that Dr. "Lenny" Jason is spot on (a majority of the CDC's patients don't have CFS). All that I hear are claims that the chronically tired are theirs and theirs alone. As for CFS patients, if this is the best they can do, the psych lobby needs to get out of the way. For all of their bluster, these responses were incredibly weak. The first stages of the Psych Lobby clutching tightly to some remnant of their former domain.