So basically just another rehash of previous research? I wonder when they're gonna publish something new after hoovering up every last cent of funding in Australia a couple of years ago.
It describes itself as a review of the possible roles of the stuff they talk about in ME. I was hoping they might actually be presenting new data here to support their theories, but as @hixxy says, it presents hypotheses, not data. I don't have sufficient knowledge to say whether it contributes anything new. I also notice it was published only a month after the journal received it, which suggests super quick peer review (if any). I thought papers took many months in the process normally. Maybe reviews like this get less scrutiny because they don't claim to have found anything new. @Jonathan Edwards, can you help here. Does this say anything new or useful in your opinion?