Yeah, I agree with the other posters that the tests are still not validated yet. You might want to think about tissue biopsy if you are eager for confirmation; this has some risk as any time a cut is made, even with a blood draw, there is risk of infection/ bleeding but biopsies are done commonly for diagnosis and if it is superficial, like a lymph node biopsy versus an organ biopsy, the risk isn't overly great. Problem is that you might need a lot of samples to catch the bug and looking for XMRV is not common -- you might need to contact Prachi Sharma at Emory to ask how she stained those monkey tissues.
Re: timing. Looking at the antiviral and rituximab trials, there is a lot of variation in when people get well. For rituximab, it varied from six weeks to 26 weeks until people really saw improvement among the three cases written about. Don't know why but I guess it could be a function of bugs involved and differing immune systems of individuals.
My doc, who has a large HIV practice, tells me HIV+ folks respond clinically within a few weeks to 3months of so, often dramatically. She tells me that they are testing tenofivir and ratelgravir as a preventative medicine among people who are healthy, NOT HIV+ but high-risk (sex workers, promiscous, etc.) in Africa and now expanding this to trials in the US. It's early yet but she thinks this speaks to the relative safety of these drugs compared to early HIV meds that they could use it in non-HIV+ folks.
VIP dx has cytokine testing but I don't know how accurate it is if it takes several hours to get to the lab.