Thanks Dr. Yes for all the information This was a key problem with the Miller study. If you read some of my earlier posts you'll see that that first post regarding the study was done with the understanding that IRB approval had been received. Dr. Miller quickly informed us that was incorrect and the post was immediately pulled from the PR Forums and, in retrospect, it should have been pulled from the MECFS Forums. I think the thought was well, its out there now -sobeit..Dr. Miller thought it was best that it not be out there but it was This was a mistake - but it was nothing more than a mistake. There was no hidden agenda - it was us and Dr. Miller making a mistake and it had nothing to do with his honest attempt to find XMRV. If that was the problem - patients protesting that Dr. Miller did not have IRB approval yet - I think we would have gotten over it! I agree - this is another weird situation that we have gotten stuck in the middle of. Why should anyone doubt the word of a researcher when asked a simple question like this? That should be enough to go on but apparently its not. It doesn't bode well for patient researcher communication and trust. Its weird. That's a question - although I don't think it's the central question any more..The central question in my opinion has changed from finding how much XMRV is in CFS demonstrate that he can find XMRV and show other labs how he found it; eg. the most important thing now is to validate the WPI's ability to find XMRV. If he can find it in fibromyalgia or Lyme Disease or multiple sclerosis or any of the other groups the WPI has found it in - then that's fine. The key factor for me is his validation that the patients actually did have a positive diagnosis from the WPI; that was one thing we were struggling with in the Miller study - how to prove that they had that diagnosis. After that, the disease group they fit into, at least in my opinion, is not important. When last I heard I believe we were going to allow CFS and FM patients into the study. So long as he is clear in his paper which group of patients he looked at - did they have FM or CFS or whatever - then I don't see any reason to oppose his study. The only reasons I can see to oppose if he is using a methodology that will not find XMRV.