Hi, in my view even if XMRV turns out to be wrong, which I am still not convinced of, retractions should be restricted to fraud or cases of serious error. Failed results do not qualify. In any case, we wont know until after the BWG and Lipkin studies, all the arguments against contamination make it at least as unlikely as XMRV causation (not association, which is more likely) in my view. Contamination aspersions are based more on a wish and a prayer than reason and logic. That does not mean there is not a problem, but to prove contamination they need much stronger evidence. If such evidence is forthcoming in the two new papers, then that will certainly set the cat loose amongst the chickens. That could happen, but I don't think it likely. However, it is also possible that two new studies are based on something else, and that could turn out to be interesting. Bye, Alex