Merry: My guesses...
I think that the promotion of the notion that compassionate media coverage was leading to social hysteria, and making patients sick had a real impact. Also, Britain is still a pretty class based and deferential society: there's a tendency to just promote the claims being made by those in authority, particularly if they are claiming scientific authority.
Over the last decade, there's also been a more general shift in the way that the sick and disabled are viewed, partly related to the promotion of a biopsychosocial approach to disability benefits. Disability hate crime is up, people with all sorts of entirely 'respectable' problems are being treated with suspicion and animosity, and CFS is less respectable and treated less well.
There's a bit of a pincer movement going on in the UK for disability issues amongst those with power:
Those on the left: like the sound of a paternalistic pragmatic biospychosocial approach but don't seem to have realised what impact it will have.
Those on the right: Like that they can use BPS as an excuse to cut-backs and acting as if those with health problems need to be motivated by more poverty, rather than trapped by having a degree of financial security.
The only real dissent comes from groups on either side without any real power or influence.
I'm sure that the anger of CFS patients is off-putting to many too, particularly as the association with mental health problems can be seen to discredit patient's and their reasons for anger. Also, the London science media scene is pretty small, with many of the people in it having connections to Wessely and his wife.
I'm sure that there's a lot more to it as well.