Would anyone like to speculate why these documented immune pathologies are not more widely reported and accepted (and I mean not just by the usual suspects)?
Seems to me that any discussion of ME/CFS should start from these findings rather than ill-defined fatigue.
According to prof. de Meirleir is defining a disease (sorry "syndrome") by its symptoms rather silly.
Biomarkers (immunological , infectious, physiological etc) are the only objective measures,
e.g. to define subgroups (low NK cell acivity) and to measure the results of interventions (e.g antivirals).
I think you will find the answer to your question in politics (not in logic, facts or science).
The "few odd brave" (the "usual suspects") sometimes have to pay an enormous price for their engagement in ME/CFS.
From a personal and carreer point of view, it is not a very attractive area of research....