I have a question. I'm sure we're all anxious about the long-term effects of having a retrovirus and about the toxic long-term effects of anti-retrovirals. Like everyone I've been trying to roll with the punches on the XMRV story and one aspect that keeps me cheerful is that, unlike people who are HIV+ who always (I believe) get sicker and sicker if untreated, many people with ME/CFS either stay stable or improve over time. So, my question: if XMRV turns out to be "it", is it likely that we could be put on a short (compared to HIV) course of anti-retrovirals that would be sufficient to reduce our viral load to the point where our bodies natural defences could pretty much keep a lid on it? Maybe with a top-up now and again? I got sick with ME after a viral infection over 20 years ago, with classic ME symptoms (post-exertional malaise, the usual) and was so ill that I was confined to bed for 7 years. Then I gradually got better (with no treatment) and was able to work again, although with minor relapses. Now I am in a big relapse and have been pretty much housebound for the last few years. So I know firsthand that even those of us with severe ME/CFS can make a big recovery if our bodies get a chance to fight back; and that even so, it doesn't go away and our bodies can be overwhelmed again. If XMRV is behind ME/CFS, presumably this is to do with viral load; and if our bodies can keep it low for long periods, would we need antiretrovirals in the long term? Sorry if this is either (a) in the wrong place or (b) nuts. I'm curious to know what our bioscience brains think here on the forum!