You may want to read these things, that were written by Dr. Vernon in the following article from July 2009: I found this on google, so there is the HTML version of the article: http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...etroviral infection"&cd=1&hl=iw&ct=clnk&gl=il And the "Word" version of the article: http://www.google.co.il/url?sa=t&so...nMlOMI&usg=AFQjCNGeueCSTEJa3WajP50_qGhCjwTEIA Notice that in the Word version the date is April 2010, but saying that CFS is not a retroviral infection after the publication is science would really be stupid, and when you look at the HTML version, you see that it's from July 2009. So - bias? Or perhaps trying to avoid an admission of being wrong and, even innocently, misleading others? Or maybe both? Now, not only that, but notice how she treats the possibility of a psychiatric disorder as opposed to a retroviral infection: So if I understand her correctly, and I think that I do, she thought that CFS is not a retroviral infection, but it is possible (doesn't matter if likely or unlikely) that it is a psychiatric disorder. So, really, why does the CAA treat this enormous discovery - the best we have ever had in ME/CFS - in a way that is so hostile?