I spent a lot of the last day independently cross checking the patient numbers mentioned by Suzanne Vernon in her recent article following the Dutch study. From that, I could verify that at least 4 of the5 patient ID numbers she cited are listed in both the published Science paper or online supplement, and in the online slides presented by Dan Peterson, listing cancer patients. I did not see the 5th patient referenced, WPI 1169, on Peterson's cancer slide [Please note my initial post indicated I had cross checked and verified all five numbers, and the above reflects a correction. Because 1169 doesn't appear in the paper itself, only in the online materials, my cross check for 1169 only verified that it was somewhere in the Science materials, but it is still not in the Cancer slide.] A link to the Vernon article is here: http://www.cfids.org/xmrv/022510study.asp and here is the relevant excerpt: "The WPI investigators conducted a number of assays to detect XMRV DNA, protein, infectious virus and antibodies against XMRV. I used the patient ID numbers provided in the paper to track results. Of the 101 CFS subjects reported in the paper, results for the various assays are shown for only 32 CFS subjects. Of the 32 CFS subjects whose results for any of the tests are displayed, 12 CFS subjects were positive for XMRV on more than one assay. The other 20 CFS subjects were documented as positive by just one testing method. Using information from a public presentation at the federal CFS Advisory Committee, five of the 12 CFS subjects (WPI1169, 1118, 1150, 1199 and 1125) included in the Science paper were also reported to have cancer – either lymphoma, mantle cell lymphoma or myelodysplasia. This once again raises questions about the lack of detailed clinical characteristics of the CFS subjects included in the Science paper, and the differing public reports about where the samples originated. " She also provides a link to the slides used that show cancer patients with patient ID numbers: http://www.hhs.gov/advcomcfs/meetings/presentations/xmrv_cfs.html . The relevant slide is at Part 5, first page. Assuming no error in the patient numbers provided, there does appear to be a cancer overlap. This is important to know, and I think demonstrates how important it is to patients as well as researchers that more information be provided about the cohort. I don't know how this would be done to help insure that other researchers are directed to the cohort information as well. Is there a way for WPI to supplement the online supplement?