Whatabout arguments are rarely helpful because they almost never capture a practical equivalence. In this case Myhill is under threat of sanction because she willfully spoke as a qualified (but not licenced to practice) health professional in terms that are in contravention of well established medical science and which have an obvious and widespread threat to an entire population in the grip of a pandemic; in contrast what we might call the British interpretation of BPS enthusiasts involved themselves in a contentious area of research lacking settled medical science and affecting only a fraction of the general population. That BiBPS enthusiasts acted with arrogance, poor practice and disregard for patients maybe true but a it's a very different sin to Myhill's, carried out in very different circumstances.
Post Shipman the lone GP is an inevitable focus of concern, the recommendations of the Shipman inquiry focused heavily on peer review and support, and the NHS has almost entirely moved to multi GP practices based on the Shipman recommendations.
I don't think it's correct to say the BiBPS enthusiasts are predominantly male - certainly the limelight fell on the grim three (Wessely, White, Sharp) but Moss Morris, Loades, Crawley, Chalder and many others with a Clinical Psychology backgound who have been BPS, CBT and GET supporters for ME/CFS, are female.
