I have been looking back over the literature and I see that I have over-stated the differences between historic ME, and what is widely accepted as 'ME' these days. I accept that they are mostly very similar. The historical descriptions have a wide range of symptoms, but so do ME patients when considered together. As far as I remember (unreliable), there were some symptoms in some historic descriptions, which I did not recognise as ME, but I'd have to dig through all the research to find them again. Then maybe I misinterpreted you, but you seemed to be quite clear that all ICC patients are from outbreak areas: Bob: "I'm not sure how many patients fitting the ICC would be from outbreak areas these days (not sure if there are any stats), but my guess is that it would be a minority from outbreak areas." Guido den Broeder: "Nearly all of them, rather. (Criteria are not the disease itself, so it's never 100% but it can be 99%.)" Could you tell me what "98%" refers to? Is it the number of patients who have enteroviruses, or the patients that test positive for enteroviruses who he successfully treats (i.e. the response rate)? Or something else? Do you have a link you could share? My point is that you have been repeatedly stating as a 'fact', that ME is caused by enteroviruses. But even Byron Hyde doesn't agree that there is enough evidence to know that conclusively, and he is one of the biggest proponents of the enterovirus theory. A 'belief' or a 'theory' isn't the same as a 'fact'. Yes, it is very useful to know about all the evidence, and theories, and opinions, but based on the evidence, you are over-stating the case for enteroviruses. People can make up their own minds, if the evidence is presented to them. You have repeatedly been promoting the enterovirus theory as a 'fact'. But the enterovirus theory is based on partial and inconclusive evidence, as confirmed by Byron Hyde and the anti-viral research that we've been discussing. If you only have inconclusive evidence for your theories, then it is really unhelpful to promote the theories as 'fact'. Yes, we need to know about all the evidence, and all the information, and all the theories, because they all help us to further our understanding about the disease. But promoting theory as 'fact' is counter-productive and very frustrating for other members of the forum. It would be so much more helpful, if you just let us know what your opinions are, and explain why you have come to those opinions, rather than misleadingly stating your opinions as 'facts'. Casually telling people that you know the cause of ME, and that you know what the treatment for ME is, when in fact you don't, is really frustrating and unhelpful for other members. As we've now discussed, the antivirals only work on a subset of patients, and have a limited success on that subset of patients. So, taking this into consideration, along with the reasons that Byron Hyde outlined in the quote that I provided, your assertions are not confirmed by the evidence. I don't believe the Chia confirms your theory either. But I'll look at any evidence you produce.