Well, now that we know that the geniuses on "RationalWiki" are following this discussion, let's afford them the opportunity to congratulate themselves. As they usually do, because it's generally difficult to draw any conclusion other than that they think they're the only clear-thinking brilliancy prize winners who see virtue in actually believing certain things. Such as, that creationism is a belief for which there is no evidence, and that the Scientific Theory of Evolution is not only the best but the only valid explanation for life on Earth as observed. Or that many 'complimentary' and/or 'alternative' therapies such as homeopathy are not evidence-based, and therefore essentially a scam, or exploitative placebo at best. That vaccines are generally a good thing for society, even if some might suggest that adverse effects are not well-understood and possibly under--reported (naturally anyone who would even suggest something like that is automatically a heretic who deserves to be branded 'anti-vax,' no matter how untrue that is).
They're the only ones who perceive the flaws in arguments disputing climate science, the only ones disturbed by quackery. They're the only rational ones, you see, and everyone else is anti-science, woo-peddlers, interested in data merely on the basis of desire to engage in a new form of terrorism unique to scientific research.
Because the One Click Group is bad, you see. Lunatics. So that's the only thing RationalWiki is interested in. CFS? What's that? Besides being some misunderstood illness which is probably psychosomatic (hence the helpful link at the bottom of the article), it's a valuable catalyst used here to advance the argument that disputing 'expert' guidance is something that, well, only lunatics do.
I don't know a lot about One Click. I do know that their general argument--that ME is an 'organic,' physical disease, for which CBT and GET are inappropriate and, in the case of GET, likely harmful, is most definitely an 'evidence-based' position.
So, Rituximab as treatment doesn't matter, because One Click is bad.
The IOM report, especially the section if the abstract that states this is not a psychiatric or psychological disorder, that doesn't matter, because One Click is bad.
Lipkin & Hornig's cytokine studies in Science and Nature aren't important because One Click is bad.
The Naviaux study in PNAS and the Fluge and Mella metabolomics studies, those don't matter, because One Click is bad.
The gut microbiome papers aren't worth considering, because One Click is bad.
All if the research showing harmful effects from exertion on 2-day CPET don't enter the discussion, because One Click is bad.
If course, even given that RationalWiki has helpfully sounded the alarm that One Click is bad, one shouldn't expect that they should find any of these worthy of posting on their super important website. They can't possibly be expected to keep up on... research? Evidence? No, shooting their mouths off in only one aspect of "CFS" that doesn't even have anything to do with the disease itself is all a Rational individual needs to know.
But the there's PACE, of course. It's just fine to ignore PACE, because it's not like there have been dozens if dispatches on Virology Blog (which is, if course, just a blog). It's not like James Coyne got involved and raised a stink following the steadfast refusal to give up anonymized raw data from a publicly-funded trial, the results from which inform governmental and insurance industry guidelines worldwide. It wasn't like there were scathing editorials about this in Sense About Science USA, Stats, the New York Times, and even Science-Based Medicine (who knew they were bothering with this nonsense? They must have gone woo...), all of which mean so little since none of those are peer-reviewed. It's not like the Tribunal ruled against the PACE researchers, and it's not like the recipient co-authored a peer-reviewed, published reanalysis of the worst of the PACE papers, which isn't being corrected, much less retracted, anytime soon. And it isn't like Retraction Watch hasn't been carefully covering all if this as the scientific scandal it has blossomed into. That's just a blog, too.
It isn't like there is a current series of papers in a health psychology journal discussing the ridiculous number if fatal flaws in this 'research'. It isn't like the CDC didn't have to take down their 'toolkit' since the primary recommendation of the IOM report was that the disease should be not just defined by, but named after, it's primary symptom if post-exertional malaise (better known to us as 'post-exertional deathlike paralysis with crippling pain', but that's neither 'scientific' nor 'rational'). Oh, wait. Every single one of those things did happen.
But, so what. None of that stuff matters, because the only notable thing about CFS is that One Click is bad. This is of course all very rational and Scientific, because we're the anti-science rabble who go around threatening researchers. Except, wait, the Tribunal found that claim to be false. But even today, RationalWiki finds the time to snark at us, with no attempt to so much as edit that shit stain of an article.
And they wonder why people figuratively throw their arms up in the air, believing that 'science' just isn't interested in finding an explanation for something thought to be 'unexplained.'
You guys have fun. You may not be making any great strides for medical science, but you're surely demonstrating quite effectively why 'skeptics' or whatever identity you geniuses care to claim are on the side of this controversy you're on. Because One Click is bad.
Got it.
