I don't condone harrassing researchers, nor do I believe we should stop asking questions, even when things appear to be going in our favor. To stop asking questions is to ignore history in our illness.
In response to the above quote, I would point out that @viggster knew nothing of the SMC control of all me/cfs media stories nor of Welcome Trust's history of involvement in discrediting biomedical research into me/cfs.
Further, apparently all he knew about the author he later said he got from the Mozaic site, so discussion about whether or not Virginia was well-intentioned is speculation only, not "clearly".
BTW, and this is a theme in many posts in this thread, that Virginia just got a quote wrong. Getting a quote wrong is not all that Virginia did, she actually got a whole interview wrong. As Mary said, other parts of her discussion with Virginia should have made it clear on which side of the issue she stood. So when anyone dismisses Virginia's incorrect quote (it plays a key role in setting up the structure of the article by bridging between patients and researchers etc) they really are making light of the issue.
If you accept that the error was serious, you have to reassess intent. I am not saying she intended to paint Mary in a bad light, just that the question must be asked and not dismissed as inconsequential.
The argument that if we educate Virginia she will be on our side is somewhat mute as Mozaic/Welcome/
Gizmodo would not publish that sort of article, so the chances of her having opportunity to redress on such a large-scale are vanishingly small.
Here is the narrative of the article: Jason (Jason is no-one of note, among UK researchers, or the public) says the illness is serious (big deal, no-one cares that much about ME or CFS) but Jason also says patients can be fractious, because he sees both sides of the issue (so Jason is a good guy, yet even he thinks patients are unruly). The artifice here is to build up Jason, not to show how serious the illness is. The more Jason is built up, the more seriously the reader will take his claims about unruly patients.
Then we go to Mary Dimmock who is even a patient who thinks patients are unruly. Then, we shift to other UK exhortations from the poor guys at the workface, the researchers, who have bent over backwards for patients to develop the CMRC which is really making progress on solving this disease.
It's a pretty standard public relations strategy. It works on building up the voice (Jason) who then plays a key role in tearing us down. I certainly don't see it as a tale of two halves. The first half only seems good for us, but it works to make the second half better.
These are all fair points and I think it provides enough doubt that we would be right to be wary. But as a Bob says, often the best article to judge is the second (if it is ever written), because by then the author will have received criticism (constructive or otherwise), will have a wider body of opinion and information to draw from and may have taken a standpoint herself. What we can't say, as we can with anything that comes from the SMC or one of the psych's trusted mouthpieces, is that this comes direct from BPS HQ. I think therefore, despite the issues that have been discussed at length in this thread, we can't make assumptions about her motives and, regardless, shouldn't be tempted to jump in at her with both feet.
It will be interesting to see what Holgate says about the way he has been quoted. If he were to say that he felt his comments had been misconstrued or misrepresented then we have more to go in with regard to Gerwin's motives. And, if he did say it, it would be reasonable to ask in what circumstances that occurred.