A problem is that an awful lot of people depend on the experts in a field and the data they produce to be fair and accurate. Most people can't read that many full research papers that come out: they depend on abstracts and summaries of fields. So it's understandable I feel if somebody (who didn't follow ME/CFS closely) thought the evidence was the PACE Trial found a recovery rate of 22% for CBT and GET, for example. Professionals depend on researchers and the peer-review process to be rigorous and fair.The big question to me is what is it that allows a supposedly intelligent person to ignore good evidence, and to accept poor quality evidence in its place? Is peer pressure and the need for approval really that strong an influence? The ironic thing is that the psychologists should be only too aware of that, as they have been doing experiments on peer pressure for ages. Or do the ones holding the disbelieving views think that it only applies to the rest of the human race?
When I got diagnosed first, I was angry at individual professionals I had come across, for not diagnosing me earlier and not warning me about the risks of exercise. However, they were just going on what the experts in the field had said. I would now mainly point the finger for bad attitudes at "experts" like Peter White.