Good memory Kim. I maybe talk too much sometimes. Yes, I mentioned that I have been told the preliminary results of two replication studies. And I have heard about additional studies also. Sorry I can not say more than that right now (literally, that was a condition of my being part of a study). As for VIPdx, who knows. Anyone can be mistaken with a new test that has not been validated. VIPdx or CD, or WPI, or the Berlin study, ANY of them could be producing false results. So do I think it is possible VIPdx is getting false positives? Absolutely it is possible. But is that happening? I don't think anyone knows at this point. Here is what I understand. WPI used a standard PCR. A standard PCR is subject to false positives. WPI also used the MuLV antibody for their antibody and culture studies, and NOT an XMRV antibody. So they are relying on a cross-reaction of MuLV, which gives some risk of false positives. However, WPI sequenced two antigens for XMRV, that is hard to explain away except by contamination of media or sample. CD and, I assume, the Berlin study and others are using a real-time PCR test, which has very low risk of false positive, but some risk of false negative. So any of these studies could be wrong at this point. That is why this will take time and many replications are required. I agree, regardless of the final outcome for XMRV, we DO have some evidence of retroviral problems, the May presentation of WPI Virachip results showed that, both HERV and HTLV. And also multiple HHV infections, far more than controls, and that is really interesting as HHV can activate HERV from our DNA. So it is time for the world to pay attention to the reality that CFS is a serious co-infection illness with immune suppression. For me that is the BIG take-away from all this. Very good questions. Wish I could answer them... My understanding is that replication studies need to test both the same sequences and different sequences from the original reports. If the virus is there, all sequences tested should be found. Well you are entitled to your opinion. I know enough about Cooperative to respect their science, so until someone can prove them wrong I will believe them just as much as WPI or the Berlin study or the CDC study (the one by the retroviral research group) or any other competent lab. Cooperative is in the business of rapid test design, so I think they deserve the benefit of the doubt until their report is published and reviewed. I can not say anything about my personal results right now due to an NDA. ** If XMRV is really there in 98% of PWC but WPI has not revealed enough about their testing for others to easily replicate their work, then they will have a problem to deal with. If XMRV is not present in PWC then WPI will have to explain what happened in their studies and move forward. The world will not end, this is ordinary science. And hopefully in either case the truth will emerge from the debate and ongoing replication attempts by the scientific community. Clearly we all need a rest from the suspense and I am doing all I can through my contacts to encourage rapid publication of one study. Hopefully some of the other completed studies will report soon as well.