If you consider that ME is not fussy who it hits, and that if you look on FB (by way of example) there is no shortage of people happy to fire off vitriol at the slightest excuse, it follows that some small percentage of people in the ME community will be vitriolic. It's a numbers game, and the number is not going to be zero. It's an inevitable fact of life that some low-integrity people will direct nasty stuff at her. But what's that got to do with people genuinely criticising her research? Nothing. But EC deliberately makes something of it, conflating the two, to garner sympathy, and so suppress and thereby censor the genuine critics. And people seem to buy it. In fact if we deny it can ever happen, she is in fact playing us as well - it's virtually impossible that it doesn't happen, so we fall into her trap as deniers. She only needs one or two examples. @Jonathan Edwards commented on this some while back, and that he also gets similar, but unlike EC does not conflate good with bad. I agree that us denying it can never happen is counter productive; of course it can happen. We need to identify and understand what the real issue is - and it is not whether EC gets hate mail or not ... that is a complete diversion. The real issue is that she receives genuine good-science based criticism of her work, but denies that that is what it is. It is her denial of good-science critiquing of her work that needs addressing somehow, and that people need to gain awareness of.