The actual problem appears to be that the patient characteristics and methodology were not sufficiently outlined in the Science article for outside labs to understand the full issues of finding XMRV. Clearly the points Mikovitz is making now are an attempt to fill in some of those gaps, such as revealing the multiple samples and multiple tests of each sample. She still has not given out the details of the patient sample and that appears essential. And the point that this virus has such a low presence in the WBCs was probably not clear enough. When you publish in a journal, if you are not revealing everything required for replication, you are obligated to make that fact clear, so outside researchers will know they have to work with you directly to learn the whole story. That was not made clear and a lot of money has been wasted by outside labs that might have been used more productively. This was rare CFS research money that has been wasted! No matter how you spin this, WPI made an error in the way they reported their study, and I hope they correct that soon with an update to their Science article sufficient to allow outside labs to find XMRV on their own (essential to validate the finding). If that does not happen and the negative findings keep piling up WPI and XMRV will lose a lot of credibility.