Seems the message is that the negative PCR studies for contamination or real infection are invalidated and should be withdrawn. Final word on XMRV, I don't think so. Also it seems that other studies which did identify XMRV but dismissed the findings as contamination should be reexamined. You can't have assays finding contamination in one instance, and then not in another - converse of the argument they used to dismiss XMRV in the BWGS.
The really interesting thing about this paper is that it is evident there is more to find out about these MRVs and the problems with PCR sequencing at such low copy numbers. I agree with Bob that this area of research will continue to be studied, whatever happens with Lipkin, as it is obvious that some retrovirologists are dissatisfied with the current orthodoxy and want the challenge this area offers.