This does not look to me like a good study, Esther. They might have wanted to find the truth, but to me it seems slappy. For example, what is all that stuff with putting 20 samples together? Anyway, I ask a very important question: Is it reasonable that there was not even one of all of the viruses that they tested in the CSF? Is the percentage in the healthy population of that (these viruses in the CSF) is 0 or very very close to that? And what about the percentage in CFS patients? I think that that might be important not only for this study, but perhaps it can explain other negative studies as well. Is there something which they all do that kills the viruses while they don't know that? If someone knows whether it's reasonable that good tests (and I don't say that the tests used in this study were good or bad tests) would not find even one of those 43 patients to be positive to at least one of the viruses described in the study (such as EBV, CMV, HHV-1, HHV-2, HHV-3, Parvovirus B19 etc.), please comment about that. It just seems very odd to me that they did everything right and still found none of these viruses in those samples. I tend to think that somewhere in the process they did a crucial mistake.