I'm feeling that we need to respond vigoorously to this "research" (although I'm anything but vigourous at the moment). My beginning thoughts are: 1. I posted on the CAA page thanking Dr Vernon for her great and timely response to the Imperial paper, XMRV Negative Results Emphasize Need for Robust Replication StudyShare. I also asked what they are doing about getting it into the main stream media. 2. To that end, I thought we could a) clobber together a draft or parts of a letter we can all send off to the BBC and any other media that published articles. BBC - you've been conned? Wessely and McClure put Careers on Line with Bad Science? ok ok silly again And also to media that didn't pick up the story originally. I'm sure they love a chance to bash the opposition! It really helps me when I'm tired to have most of it laid out for me. As gracenote always helpfully reminds us - one clear concise page is good. Talking points to be filled in: i) the CAA response of possible reasons for results ii) Science vs PLos ONE - most respected journal / unknown internet journal submit, most rejected / pay $1350 Time from submission to accepted xxxxmonths / 3 days reviewed by xxxxxxxxxxxxx / plos info iii)credibility of study basically nothing. McClure's statements totally unwarranted, unsupported absurd claims iv) research to watch in future: joint study vernon refers to, WPI live-stream Mikovits Jan 22 10 b) get a list of possible media addresses to email to (we should probably have one on hand anyways) c) I think maybe don't reply at all to this unknown pay-to-publish service as we don't want them getting any hits. IGNORE THEM. What do you think?