I made a comment too, focusing on the Wessely statements since those were the only gross inaccuracies.
Basically I pointed out Wessely's views from his published papers: he does not believe there is a biological cause, aside from the trigger. After that it's psychosomatic and behavior-induced symptoms all the way. I quoted his Awylward letter where he says "The main difference between CFS and the major psychiatric disorders is neither aetiological, nor symptomatic, but the existence of a powerful lobby group that dislikes any association with psychiatry."
Also pointed out that the CBT he created is far different from normal CBT. Illness-denial, not coping, and it's misleading and perverse to label his own treatment the same way. Though that's par for the course, since PACE did the same thing in labeling patients as "recovered" even if physicial function declined and fatigue increased during the course of the trial.
Finally I went into the HADS scale, and why it sucks for determining depression: points are scored based of behavioral changes, regardless of a biological cause for those changes. Also that patients can be labeled as "more depressed" than normal people, even when they fail to meet the threshold required for a depression diagnosis.
I wrapped it up by encouraging them to do more ME/CFS articles (it was pretty good aside from Wessely), and suggested the various BPS shenanigans (such as Wessely's current revisionism) as an interesting angle to pursue.