Of course we've been hearing for months that the paper was about to come out - hopefully it will come out next week but they've missed 'deadlines' before. I wonder why it would take so long? Dr. Miller said the HIV started testing samples the day after the paper came out. By the CFSAC meeting in Oct he said they'd tested 100 samples (!). Here it is 6 month s later and still no paper. How strange! I would bet that XMRV is being XMRV and has been playing coy. Its obviously not an easy virus to find - we have what, 6 negative studies reported now in CFS? I'll bet they've been digging one way and then another way - which is good news, I think. Even if they hit an initial negative result - as one would assume they would with the normal techniques - they realized that wasn't enough - they had to go deeper - that's my guess. I would expect a rather comprehensive, complex study to show up - they've been working since Oct! the Empirical Definition is no fun - but my feeling is the same as the Oxford definition - throw enough patients in there - and some are going to have XMRV. Remember that the WPI reported that they found that 2/7 samples they were provided from Kuppeveld and the Oxford definition were positive - and parvofighter showed what a screwey group that appeared to be. I've heard that the CDC has at least one other CFS group getting tested - they'll presumably have a less sick (Empirical Definition) and a more sick (other group) there.