I do not know any credible scientist who would make that distinction.
What does this really say? Here is my interpretation before I get to further analysis: the author does not know many credible scientists.
I think MOST scientists would make the distinction. In fact, I think those that make the distinction are
more credible.
Scientists are about understanding the nature of things. Finding out how thing work. If you suggested to an astrophysicist that it does not matter if the universe is largely governed by string theory rather than another theory, and they were not credible scientists if they thought a distinction was important, they would not have nice things to say about your comment.
This is most likely a silencing strategy. Its actually a subtle attack on scientists, and on medical professionals who like to think they are using scientific or evidence based practices: if you complain or disagree you lose credibility. Its more political rhetoric in action.
For the record, I know of lots of scientists who would make the distinction.
This argument is being used to blur the distinction with this claim: If a treatment helps or cures patients then it does not matter if its psychological or biomedical in nature. I agree. IF. Is it so hard to understand we need good evidence to back that IF in a disease in which they have failed and failed and failed, and many of us are made worse by GET in particular, patients are sectioned and treated against their will with unproven therapies, and in which the science is plagued by bad design, poor implementation of that design, cherry picking of results, ignoring contrary data, and incomplete release of data?