re this being bad news: I doubt many of us are surprised by the actual result, so that was not really news, good or bad. I was concerned by how this result would be covered in the press, and that seems to be bad news. Not nearly the worst: it could have been done in a way which was actively disdainful to patients, but a lot of the stories will give a misleading impression to casual readers about the current state of the science around CFS, and our understanding of the condition, so that's a bad thing. To some extent, we should probably be used to it. I'm pretty sure this isn't right Alex. There was a rumour that the BWG only tested for high throughput blood screening methods, but the paper did not say so - labs were to use whichever testing they thought would be best.