Good points.Actually this is not a change of position. White has still said the illness "develops in the first place" because of "certain infections". This isn't why people continue to be ill, in his and his friends' estimation. That is related to "beliefs about an illness determine the ways people cope with it". And recover or not. According to much of their published research, according to their "pragmatic rehabilitation", according to claims made in PACE manuals, and according to claims of 'return to normal' and even 'recovery' in the literature (no 'recovery' there) and to the media.
The best analogy I can come up with regarding Peter White's views is that patients are like very obese patients. This occurred to me when reading all the various supports he/his clinic wanted to deny patients when they responded to the draft NICE guidelines: http://forums.phoenixrising.me/inde...ice-guidelines-insight-into-their-views.1239/ .
One can find physical abnormalities in very obese people. But with enough dedication, many might be able to reverse these (through calorie control, exercise programs, etc.). And some might argue that giving very obese people disability payments, mobility aids, etc. might get in the way of them putting the full effort into losing weight.
Like others, I haven't seen much sign of meaningful change in Peter White's views.
(I tend to think less about what Simon Wessely says - he seems to say different things to different audiences and just because he says one thing one moment, doesn't mean he won't take a different approach another time. Also, I think these days Peter White is a more important player in the ME/CFS world).