Nielk-
If that's what Enlander says, then I have to go with my initial assumption: Kerr was collecting data for another study while finishing up the UK one, using the same methodology. He had planned on a study of larger scope, including blood from Enlander's patients (Enlander contributed a lot of samples to Kerr's gene studies)... I guess his completely negative results made him abandon ship. Though I still wonder if Enlander's patients were made aware of the difference between getting tested by Kerr and by VIP (perhaps Enlander assumed they would use the same methodology, protocol, etc?).
Btw, about the differences between Kerr and WPI XMRV testing methods.. There were significant differences as summarized at a couple points in that thread... there was a response by the WPI itself at one point (I think it's in that thread) that included their own critique or summation... One of the biggest differences to me was that Kerr et al did not culture their cells with the (potential) virus for anywhere near as long as the WPI did (hours vs. days). Also, they did not activate the cells in the manner clearly indicated in the Science publication. The WPI has since insisted that the viral copy numbers are originally so low that without boosting growth (by activating cells, i.e. making them replicate faster, and the virus with them) and giving a longer time for that growth, there would not be enough virus to detect by the methodologies used. This point and others have been debated back and forth, but it is a major difference, and personally I don't understand why the last three studies did not follow the WPI methodology on at least this point.
