It's hard to get a "strong consensus" on a negative. I think the general belief is that the weight of evidence is towards most of these cases being psychosomatically driven, as well as some poorly understood post-viral sequelae.
Perhaps it doesn't matter that much at all, the treatment for either is the same. Indeed, if you tell people with CFS that they instead have post-viral sequelae, their outcomes are significantly better.
Basically, the current status is no mechanism has been identified to cause CFS, there is a huge diversity of symptoms and demographics of who gets CFS, and there is substantial circumstantial evidence suggesting large psychological components (differences in effectiveness based on what you call the disease, larger correlation between self-reported illness vs. serological results, etc.) that all come together to form a broader whole. PACE is largely accepted in the medical research community, it has only been "debunked" in the blogosphere and news articles.
Perhaps it doesn't matter that much at all, the treatment for either is the same. Indeed, if you tell people with CFS that they instead have post-viral sequelae, their outcomes are significantly better.
Basically, the current status is no mechanism has been identified to cause CFS, there is a huge diversity of symptoms and demographics of who gets CFS, and there is substantial circumstantial evidence suggesting large psychological components (differences in effectiveness based on what you call the disease, larger correlation between self-reported illness vs. serological results, etc.) that all come together to form a broader whole. PACE is largely accepted in the medical research community, it has only been "debunked" in the blogosphere and news articles.