And luckily, most if not all scientistst actually agree with said poster. And for good reason, because there is (again) nothing in this letter that should convince anyone to the contrary. In fact, I think it is pretty obvious that no one has actually read and understood much of it, as it is riddled with errors and unsubstantiated and unreferenced assertions. For instance, this letter begins the actual critique with: Yet, the relevant quote from the Paprotka et al. paper says (emphasis mine) "we developed a real-time PCR primer-probe set that specifically detected XMRV env and excluded murine endogenous proviruses present in BALB/c and NIH3T3 genomic DNA (Fig. 1C)" How can the writer (or anyone else reading and understanding the critique) miss this essential difference? It is right there in the quote. Wrong again, and this is only the second sentence of the actual critique. This primer set was designed to detect the env region of "EndoERV-1" (also known as PreXMRV-1), as well as the env region of XMRV itself. And, on a side note, the label EndoERV is really pretty ridiculous in itself, as the "E" in ERV already stands for "Endogonous". Again really an strange and seemingly easy to spot error. There are 68 copies of "EndoERV-2" in CWR22 and 3 copies of "EndoERV-2" in CWR22 at the same time? It's like saying "there are 7 billion people and 10 billion people on planet earth". It almost seems to be getting like a bad joke at this point. First (and again), the writers did not assert that they detected XMRV but XMRV env. This is again very clearly stated in the actual quote. And second, if anyone would read just one sentence beyond the quoted section, this person would note how the authors simply explain that the XMRV env sequences detected were not from XMRV but from "EndoERV-1" (emphasis mine): It really goes on and on but for now, I won't.