Natasa - you are of course correct. Perhaps I should not have bolded certain parts but that was my decision and rather than post just those sections, I did post a lot more to give greater context. I do not understand the minutiae of science papers - I tend to rely on scientists to interpret them for me if I feel a need to understand more - and indeed I do refer to scientists when I feel a need for more general interpretation of a paper including the authors themselves (though not in this case I should add). I certainly don't feel I was 'cherry picking'. I mean that is a fairly extensive couple of posts there and most of it is from the 'Discussion' part of the paper. Meaning simply that - it was a discussion by the authors about their results in the greater context of previous and future studies. There was an awful lot that is I think relevant but was not bolded so I think your comment is unfair. This paper also refers back to the original paper on Macaques that appeared to raise a number of 'concerns' not least the 'fear' that XMRV 'disappeared' from blood and 'hid' in tissue - most recently Lymph Nodes if I remember correctly. It also provides greater information about XMRV replication in general I felt. Again though, this thread was about this paper and of course - as even the authors would and have pointed out - it does leave questions unanswered. But science is a process towards greater understanding and the focus - if you like - is now on trying to understand more about this novel gammaretrovirus. XMRV has not been found in humans and the next best thing in terms of trying to understand how this retrovirus works is apparently to inject MASSIVE amounts of the virus into primates. The exact reasons for doing so in this study are laid out above. It will I am sure lead to further research but it will take another paper like (but better than) Lombardi et al. for anyone to look again at XMRV and human infection and especially XMRV and CFS patients. Nobody has ever said XMRV was not a retrovirus. Nobody. It will continue to be studied and this paper implies that in the absence of confirmed human infection - primates are the next best thing. What did you make of this out of interest - I thought it important (then I am not a scientist of course): 'Because gammaretroviruses lack the accessory genes possessed by other retroviruses, such as HIV and SIV, they are ill-equipped to counteract intrinsic host restriction factors like the APOBEC3 proteins.' I hadn't seen this mentioned before - at least not on the forums - though I confess I may well have missed it, but it does seem to get to the nub of the matter perhaps, no?