Well, maybe -- reference 15 seems to imply that HIV can be found in the respiratory tract, even though it is not especially (at all?) transmittable through the air. The paper seems to raise the possibility, though, so even if airborne transmission isn't a risk, this will hopefully at least light a fire under the research.this opens up a whole new view of this virus
Whether they used the exact method or not, they do indicate that "All samples were analyzed by culture". So they tried to grow whatever was in these people's mucus. Unlike the Dutch and UK CFS studies.I read paper and I can't tell if they used the WPI method. If not, this shows that other methods can work.
I think no one said other methods can't work - but people said that in order to show that there is no XMRV in, let's say, europe, you have to use a method that was proven to be able to find XMRV (to exaggerate: Let's say I tell you that if you spill cola on XMRV there would be a huge explosion, and you spill cola on blood samples of ME/CFS patients and nothing happens. Does that tell you that there is no XMRV in those ME/CFS patient's samples, or does that tell you that the method you used sucks?).I read paper and I can't tell if they used the WPI method. If not, this shows that other methods can work.
This is the final accepted version of the manuscript. This was prepared in a word processor. It is currently undergoing page layout for publication in the June issue of the journal. The content in the final version for publication will be identical, but it will look prettier.What does that mean to the layman?