If you remember back to when the WPI study came out many of us were concerned, not for the Wessleys of the world so much, but that well-meaning and unbiased researchers would fail to replicate the WPI findings because they were unaware of issues involved with patient selection plus the difficulties of actually pinning down this virus.
I'll offer you two alternative scenarios :
(a) The IC study was not carried out. Virologists worldwide naively accepted whichever patient population was offered to them, chose a variety of assay methods etc and either failed totally to find XMRV or the results were so mixed as to be unintelligible. The only group wise to why they failed are us.
(b) The IC study is carried out (despite Wessley's involvement) as a bona fide replication attempt using a well defined cohort with organic ME, using the same culture media, assays and protocols, in fact a waterproof study. And fails to find XMRV.
Personally I'm more comfortable with the factual scenario where a study has been produced that is shot full of holes, has produced a response that examines these flaws in great detail and has generated even more discussion of the issues surrounding ME and the agendas that involved.
The net has made the world a small place and a select group like XMRV virologists can't fail to be aware of the response to the IC study. Scientists are a competitive and territorial lot. Any virologist worth their salt also cannot fail to notice that the paper is co-authored by a psychiatrist who self-references ad nauseum and that the paper was published on a pay to publish vanity site.
I agree that governments and the media will neither bother or care to consider the respective quality of the two studies however I firmly believe that the science is in a much better place post the IC publication.