Dusty Miller's response could have been prerecorded. At the outset of the controversy, the groups claiming XMRV was a new retrovirus had said it was 94% similar to a mouse virus (X-MLV) and 95% similar to an endogenous sequence. You might have heard the fulminations of 'ERV' on the subject last year. Take away the endogenous sequences, and you are left with mouse viruses. By defining XMRV into that tiny gap you can easily render any claim vulnerable. A later wrinkle is apparent in this response, the new game plan is to define XMRV as the virus in 22Rv1 which is a contaminant by definition, since nobody wanted it there. Insistence on the particular deletion is Miller's criterion, not the original authors. He is entitled to his opinion. I am not required to accept it. (Nullius In Verba.) What we have again is a report of a gamma retrovirus, very similar to a virus found in mice, isolated from a human patient. Harvey Alter was willing to accept his results as supporting such a finding, and those differences were substantial, because he knows hepatitis C is more variable. If the charge of contamination doesn't work against the results from Ukraine/Lithuania, we should expect to hear about the drinking habits of people in the region. There may no longer be bounds on acceptable tactics.