Cort, Thanks for a fantastic summary of some very interesting research. Two points, one personal and the other methodological. First, my experience on acyclovir has very much mirrored Dr. Lerner's study. I've been on acyclovir for 6 months and I am a "responder." I've moved from a 2.0-2.5 to a 3.5-4.0. I still have a long ways to go and my mantras are 'patience' and 'don't be an idiot - over doing it will just undo any recent progress." While improving, I can still provoke a crash much more easily that I ought to be able to. Dr. Montoya feels that the long term effect of these crashes may be cumulative (much like Dr. Lerner's take on heart damage). I've spoken with Dr. Montoya about the HIV Heart Clinic at UCSF (Dr. Hsue) and he's quite interested. I don't know if he's made contact with Dr. Hsue yet. I'll be asking at my June visit. My second point is that these types of studies do require systematically collected high quality data. The differences between HHV-6 and HHV-6 + patients would have never been noticed (clearly would have been washed out) if not for two factors unique to this study: a) they collected that data over a long period of time and b) they had a large sample size. It's my opinion that sample size was the issue at play with Montoya's second study. Small samples for one off studies require immediate blockbuster effects and so far in CFS that hasn't happened. Again, thanks for the great summary of this work. As I said earlier, I'm fortunate to be a "responder" (with multiple co-infections) and as such my experience has been very consistent with the results of this paper. I think that for many people it may present significant opportunity for improved health.