The psychobabblers also lack science backing up their stance - far more so than is the case regarding biological ME/CFS research. Yet they are given so much credibility that they are allowed to destroy our credibility without question.
Our problems in the media, and with doctors, and with people on the street has nothing to do with science. It has to do with the overwhelming publicity which has been given to the psychobabblers' spin.
Countering that with science is one approach, but the more effective approach is to respond in kind: to kick up a fuss, to get noticed, to get visibly outraged every time some douchebag says something which would be unthinkable to say publicly about any other disease or patient group. It's what happens when there's a slur of other diseases - so what are people going to think if someone says disgusting things about ME patients, and instead of the expected outrage they get a polite cough and a lengthy technical disagreement? The clueless readers are going to wonder if those disgusting statements are accurate, regardless of the science or logic.
That's not to say that we should be writing those appalling lengthy rants which thankfully only a special few still seem to favor. But we should not constantly be on the defense. If they say something nasty and unfounded, why waste our finger strength writing a scientific reply "proving" them wrong? When they're engaging in vicious and open bigotry, we should be publicly labeling them as the bigots that they are. They need to be just as hesitant to slur patient groups as they are to slur other minority groups. And we should ensure that it has the same consequences when they do.
If we go around acting like we have a credibility problem, then we obviously will appear to have a credibility problem. Yes, we don't need to borrow other peoples' fights and tie it in with ME/CFS (we didn't, the authors did), but we do need to appear completely confident and completely justified in responding to those who attack us.