What if the study finds that ME/CFS has a distinct pathophysiological profile that proves or at least strongly suggests there is no primary causal role for psychosocial factors, and that profile overlaps substantially with, or is even more or less the same as, FMD? Instead of ME/CFS getting dragged further into the psychosocial tent – an understandable fear given the history of this farce – the reverse may actually happen: FMD (and maybe some other contested conditions) might end up being dragged into the biophysical tent. If the psychosocial school were not only closely involved in the study, but also had either control of the selection of patients or at least had a fair influence over their selection, then they could not possibly object to the above result and it would blow them out of the water for once and for all. 'We tested the patients you said were psych cases, and guess what, they ain't.' Psychs would be relegated to where they belong for this disease, which is providing appropriate, secondary, post-onset palliative clinical care, and medico-legal support about the impact of the disease upon patients' lives. What I see in this study is the psychosocial school being given every opportunity to make fools of themselves. Make no mistake, they are being firmly put on the spot here, their claim is under serious scrutiny, they are being called out on the mat and told to deliver. If it is shown that the psychs are seriously misdiagnosing, it has profound implications well beyond just ME/CFS.