> How on earth can you have a sample size that tiny and then use the word “unquestionably” as if you mean it. Because the first sentence is the lead researcher

> How on earth can you have a sample size that tiny and then use the word “unquestionably” as if you mean it. Because the first sentence is the lead researcher's opinion (that they likely already held going into the study, due to overwhelming clinical — rather than scientific — evidence); not an expression of the credence that you should hold in the hypothesis, coming from null priors, due purely to the Bayesian evidence presented by the study. A more pedantic rephrase of the first sentence you quoted, would be something like "no doctor who regularly sees ME/CFS patients would doubt the claim that ME/CFS has an organic — rather than psychogenic — etiology." Those doctors now just need to conduct enough studies to prove that claim to the satisfaction of people who aren't doctors and who don't regularly see ME/CFS patients. This is the first step of that. The result that such studies expect to find — at least to these doctors — isn't in question. "A pile of 1000 independent anecdotes of case-histories from professional clinicians that all corroborate the claim" just needs to be replaced with an equally-sized "pile of laboratory-condition-verified tests done in a way standardized enough to be aggregated as data and T-tested."