You are providing an opinion that enterovirus research does not show promise, and say that "there are many more interesting avenues that show promise", but you don't explain why; you don't provide a factual or theoretical explanation for why you believe that. That's not really conducive to any discussion, because you have not provided any points to discuss. I'd like to see a discussion based on facts that we can get to grips with. I find often when people criticize the pathogen theories of ME/CFS, the don't seem to explain in factual terms why they take a negative view. It would help to read a bit about enterovirus, because if you have only scratched the surface of this subject, what is the basis of the opinions offered? For example, you say "there is little or no evidence of infection", so clearly you did not read my above post which showed ample evidence of enterovirus infection in ME/CFS, with numerous positive replication studies. There is no other pathogen that has been so thoroughly linked to ME/CFS as enterovirus. I am not in any way against other angles of research examining ME/CFS from other perspectives not directly involving pathogens; the more the merrier, as far as lines of research are concerned. In particular I'd like to see a lot more research on the mitochondrial and energy metabolism dysfunctions of ME/CFS, and on the nature of any immune abnormalities of dysfunctions in ME/CFS. I think that's very important. We need to increase the momentum of all areas of ME/CFS research.