I haven't read all the threads & posts on this new bombshell from CDC, but few folks are mentioning what seems to be the real problem w/ CDC replication of WPI's work. I believe the CDC is likely selecting patients using their own CFS Empirical Definition in their published studies and implying they are following the Fukuda criteria. This has the added benefit of letting the reader assume Fukuda was used while not disclosing they have added psychiatric criteria, which would blow up the entire comparability effort to WPI/Lombardi. The CDC has found XMRV in the BWG testing, so they know how to find it. But they mysteriously have not found it in any published scientific study. That's b/c the Empirical Definition doesn't select the same patients that used in WPI/Lombardi (Fukuda and Canadian Critieria). The question everyone should be asking in the CDC's XMRV studies to date is which patients are they really studying. The following is taken directly from the article abstract: "The majority of CFS patients (31/45, 69%) had a minimum of 6 months of post-exertional malaise and a high degree of disability, the same key symptoms described in the Lombardi et al. study." The words of interest here are "key symptoms described in the Lombardi et al study." They are specifically highlighting the commonalities w/ WPI/Lombardi while not disclosing what's different. I honestly can't believe this quality of work passes for real science. I don't know of any clinical definition stating 6 months of post-exertional malaise (perhaps they meant 6 months of unexplained fatigue--Fukuda). I went back to check the actual wording of the Empirical Definition and it does include all criteria of the Fukuda Definition, while adding in substantial psychiatric criteria in the form of depression. The description above can technically be correct while not conforming to Fukuda, as they imply, and using Empirical Criteria for its patient population. This was highlighted by none other than Dr. Lo in his confirmatory PNAS article in August. 2010: "Finally, it is also quite possible that there is heterogeneity in the patients diagnosed with CFS in different studies. CFS is a syndrome defined exclusively by a group of nonspecfic symptoms and thus has an ill-defined phenotype. Future Studies should adhere to consensus case definitions such as that developed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention." -- In which he specifically references the Fukuda criteria. Unless and until the CDC states explicitly which clinical criteria it's using to select patients for its XMRV studies, I don't believe any of their published work should carry weight w/ the XMRV scientific community. And that goes for the editors of Retrovirology journal for not requiring the CDC's authors to state exactly who they are choosing for their patient samples. It's the patients, not the test that's the primary problem here. While there may be issues w/ the test methods, the CDC will never find XMRV in its studies when using the Empirical Definition.