Why would that be misleading? This seems to be just an attempt to better understand (some of the / potential) causes that unknown condition. Perhaps it doesn't help to diagnose it, as there might not be any direct evidence left in the body to point at the original cause, but in the longer term it certainly helps if you know where to look.
It's just that if CFS doesn't point to something real, then that non-real, non-specific thing, having an origin doesn't really make sense.
But if it is actually real (and specific), as indicated by another commenter, the origin seems fine. Still seems like there's mixed views in medical community though.
MD here - I'd disagree. Although I've heard the same take from many other phsyicisans! Anyone who has worked with the condition (I've had 100s of CFSers by now) knows it's a pretty distinct syndrome. The CFS push-crash cycle especially is quite distinct.
No, in that for people who are fully healthy, they don't have periods of avoiding exertion due to fatigue, which precedes the push in the push-crash cycle. People with well-balanced health and energy can certainly over-exert themselves, but it's not a common cyclical pattern for them characterized by the push happening when some recovery from fatigue occurs.
If that's true, then that post-viral infection origin seems misleading.