UK Study a Sheer Disappointment - Credibility of Replication Study Questionable

It has come to my attention, and I have read the research article "Failure to Detect the Novel Retrovirus XMRV in Chronic Fatigue Syndrome" in the publication PLOS one.  I have studied the facts behind the research, which I find rather unremarkable at first glance.  However it has come to my attention from Dr. Suzanne Vernon's analysis that different primers were used, collection methods varied from the Whittemore-Peterson study, different methods were used to purify genomic DNA and amounts differed, and PCR amplification methods were different.  The fact that a different polymerase was used could skew the results altogether, fouling the results - the golden rule in replication studies is copy exactly!!!  What I did find remarkable however, is who is behind the research - noting the psychiatric connection: Institute of Psychiatry, King's College London - and none other than Simon Wessely - Britain's own version of Dr. Reeves - which pours some cold water on the credibility of this study - statements issued by Wessely stating his opinion before the experiment was done, and the speed in which it was done indicates it was not a good quality study.  Before any conclusions can be reached, I would like to see the results of the ongoing study by Dr. Kerr, which in my opinion should bear a significant amount of credibility, as should the Swedish study by Dr. Jonas Blomberg.

I would hope that the Whittemore Peterson Institute will retest the samples in this study, and establish whether or not experiment protocol was followed - meanwhile it's a waiting game for results of other studies.  Hopefully ME/CFS patients will not be forced to hear that neuropsychiatric psychobabble much longer - and the only way the truth behind ME/CFS will be known is through generously funded, high-quality studies.