First of all, Sue, congratulations! :Retro smile:
Now, I wonder: As far as I know the antibody test should be positive if a person have either XMRV or other MLV-related viruses. Now, since you've tested negative for culture and for WPI's old serology test (which was just about XMRV?), it might be possible that you don't have XMRV, and you do have anotther MLV-related virus. And in that case - I think that it might change the treatments - meaning that it might say that some drugs that are effective against XMRV would not be effective against your MLV-related virus, and that other drugs which have not been shown effective against XMRV would be effective against you MLV-related virus.
But hod do we know which drug? At this time, we don't know it. But it might be worthwhile to look for studies that tested what drugs are effective against MLVs, perhaps especially polytropic MLVs, because the viruses that were found in the NIH/FDA study were (at least some of them - I don't remember if all of them) more closely related to polyropic MLVs than to xenotropic MLVs or other known MLVs.
And one other thing for whoever is confused (and correct me if I'm wrong): Sue's blood was previously checked for XMRV in WPI, with the serology that they used in the "Science" paper. Now Sue's blood was checked again, this time in VIP Dx, with a serology test that might be an improved one (might be better than the serology test in the "Science" paper), and that should detect XMRV as well as other MLV-related viruses (I don't know if the srology in the science paper would have done that). So, it's not that VIP Dx had a serology test and now have a newer one - the "old serology" test is a test which the WPI (as oppose to VIP Dx) performed (and it wasn't a commercial test).