Morning Marco. I agree with what you've said/asked. We simply don't know enough do we at this juncture? Apologies for the choice of words too. It could (in some ways I hope) lead to sub-categorization but overall I think it might lead to quantification and confirmation that the immune system IS playing a role and maybe what the role is. Same with the 'Sjorgen's' study too. Of course it would have been great (more supported) if someone had applied who wanted to extract say a coxsackie b cohort from the general 'pot' and do similar to them - but presumably no-one did and anyway I think I can presume it was more 'convenient/efficient/economic/relevant' to use the above and try to establish baseline models and then apply them. What these studies don't do is 'virus-hunt'. They are operating under the hypothesis that CFS is a 'state' (as you suggest) that a trigger (in this case either HPV itself for some or IFN-A for others) results in key CFS symptoms and debilitation. I agree. A viral trigger is but one route. But I believe personally that the immune system - whatever the trigger - plays a key role regardless and I am pleased they are looking at the immune system and symptoms rather than virus-hunting to be honest. Not that I wouldn't have granted the money elsewhere but we don't know what else was received by way of applications. And when you get down to it - this wasn't a huge amount of money to begin with. BUT. For the British MRC funded by the government - these studies and the allocation to bio-medical research for CFS/ME after all the history of funding afforded to psycho-social projects - IS to be welcomed IMHO. It might seem a round-a-bout route to some, even irrelevant to others, I have seen it called 'a disgrace', and 'cop-out'; but if it helps establish a possible or several possible reasons why the immune system is dysfunctional or stuck in that 'hyper-state' and leads to these CFS-like symptoms - then I think it will go further than other government-agency studies (in particular) have to date.