Like Summer, I think you're on to something here, Wayne. And it's one of the reasons I'm monitoring what the CAA says so closely. What will this institution do now? I suspect the nature of being a CFS patient will change drastically when we all become XAND patients. The CAA has been used to advocating for patients, frankly, w/o much hope. They worked on awareness and validation and so on. (Only recently did they get into the act of directly funding research.) We're all about to become people with a lot hope, but facing a tough, life-long disease the taming of which is going to take some hard-hitting medicine. We are now and will continue to look to the WPI (and other researchers) or answers and guidance for treatment. Again, what will this institution do in the face of this constitutional challenge? Which way will they go? My proposition was that they receive poor marks for their performance in the first few weeks of this new era. Instead of preparing everyone to be great critics of the inevitable Reeves hatchet job of replicating the unimpeachable WPI study, they offered their "cautionary tale" which was hamfisted, at best, and many folks interpret it as worse. Reasonable people can disagree, but Vernon's objections to not having certain data published in the _Science_ article in my opinion were not scientifically sound. Since I think they had no sensible basis in science, I have to guess at the real basis.