Firestormm. As you said, these articles on supposed ME militancy do limit the accusations towards a small minority or supposed fringe element. You wonder why some patients/advocates have objected even to that notion? In a previous post I explained why I take personal issue with it, but as for others, IMO it is because of similar reasons: 1a) These articles do not clearly distinguish between, actual harassment and criminal activity, vs, legitimate criticism/objections. I wanted to say that these are all mixed and presented together, but it is worse than that because the possibility that claims about psychological factors in ME/CFS may be genuinely flawed is never entertained, and if anything, instead we have references to how the relevant authorities have dismissed all criticisms as groundless. 1b) The overall message, whether explicit or alluded to, is that anyone who criticizes claims about psychological factors in ME/CFS is a deranged extremist militant without any credibility, who stifles scientific research, driven by the fear of the stigma surrounding mental illness as not real, naive Cartesian substance dualism, secondary gain, abnormal illness beliefs, personality problems, etc. Meanwhile proponents are presented as good honest hard working people who just care for ME/CFS and want the scientific research to go ahead. 2) Due to the above, and the fact that no evidence is usually provided (outside anecdotes of people who are not trusted by some patients/advocates), some of them have, despite condemning criminal behaviour themselves, understandably have become highly suspicious about whether there is harassment and death threats going on, either at all, or to the extent that is being claimed. In the case of claims made by Lloyd and van der Meer, pseudo-"evidence" for extremism was an inflammatory reference to all 8 *published* letters in the Lancet in response to the PACE Trial, as personal and unscientific attacks. In contrast, AFAIK, you appear to be happy to assume at face value that all these claims being made about ME militancy are correct, so you just want people to focus on condemning ME militancy as described in these articles? Why should you be offended then? Well, in essence a bogyman has been created out of twisting together fact and fiction, and if you are pro-biomedical or publicly criticize Wessely et al's views on ME/CFS or object to a blanket application of CBT/GET etc, you have also been alluded to being a ME militant by association. And by automatically condemning ME militancy as described or hinted at in these articles, you could also be indirectly condemning yourself. I think Esther12 made an excellent point, IIRC, about how although she disagrees with many of the comments posted to these articles in question, she is not going to automatically throw people under the bus just so she appears to be condemning inappropriate behaviour, or unless she knows what they are actually guilty of first. I will not dispute that some of the comments could be better handled. However, the overall quality of the pro-ME/CFS comments do not seem to as bad as some are making them out to be. Can you please name the aliases of the people we should be speaking out against according to you?