I believe so, if you don't declare it in the paper - that's how science is supposed to work. Being clear and transparent about methodology includes saying how you count mixed results, as Hanson did in her paper. Yes, the results are similar, which is why this paper is so interesting. Though I don't know enough about the detail to understand how these results stand up against the other negative studies. Agreed - another reason why this paper is so intriguing. If JM is unable to separate controls from patients using methods of her choosing, I think it's game over. If, however, the results are more mixed, with more patients than controls detected and sequencing confirming detection of MLVs (rather than a single contaminant eg Silverman) then it would be very interesting indeed.