Cort, there was no "talk that 95% of patients would test positive". There was the follow up work on the Science cohort which found 98% of patients positive for at least one of the 4 measures used by the WPI. Has ecoclimber been tested by the WPI? Was he/she tested using all 4 methods? I suspect not. In which case any reference to "95% / 98%" is completely misleading. The current tests are producing a lot of false negatives. We know that. I can understand ecoclimber's frustration, but that is the nature of testing for a new pathogen. These things generally proceed slowly unfortunately. My advice to anyone like him/her of a delicate disposition would be to hold off on testing for now until more reliable tests have been developed. Not to start threads like this one telling other people what to think (almost guaranteed to get people's backs up).