The mindset of the people who write this sort of thing about ME/CFS is likely one that would tend to consider what the FDA had to say about the condition to be drivel. And since most people know someone with the diagnosis that they feel are not really sick/are probably benefit scroungers, they are all too happy to reinforce their own biases. And while it seems obvious that the name is a problem, even calling it Myalgic Encephalomyelitis doesn't add much credibility in the UK, now, does it? If someone thinks one of us isn't really all that sick, or are best treated with CBT & GET (if they even know that much about it), I wonder how much it matters. That said, the case that ME is not CFS is a good one to make--it just has to be done coherently, as some tend to go overboard on this point.
Skeptics and people who think that there shouldn't even be a disability benefits system are not likely to ever change their minds, unless something fairly drastic enters the picture. Like a virus, especially a retrovirus. That would shift opinion--but there are lots of people who think spending on money on HIV research and treatment is wasteful, since they tend to view AIDS as a disease acquired by lifestyle choice. Fortunately for us this seems to be a minority opinion.
I'm not sure it's easy to make a case that Empirical CFS is a condition that should be viewed as being disabling enough to qualify for SSDI. And the CDC has never said this criteria should be ignored, and those cohorts were said to contain a large percentage of people who were well enough to work (I think the average was 48 hours, on average, between work and chores, per patient), and most of them weren't aware they were even sick. So...you do the math.