Thank you for your kind words, Katie. There were seven references to hostility included in the "Gibson Report". (See: http://twentysixsoldiersoflead.word...ughts-on-the-gibson-report-by-angela-kennedy/ ) At one point, the "Gibson Report" states: But no references are provided in the report in support of this statement and Dr Gibson has been unable to provide me with references and the date by which his panel understood Prof Wessely to have "given up" the research side of his [CFS] work. Nor has Dr Gibson been willing to confirm or deny whether his panel based that statement on information contained within a lengthy letter that Prof Wessely had sent to the "Gibson Inquiry" panel, in lieu of a Written Submission submitted through the proper channel. I suggested to Dr Gibson, in late 2007, that since the inquiry had been a public inquiry the content of Prof Wessely's letter should be placed in the public domain and asked that his office approach Wessely for his agreement to release the letter's content. Dr Gibson's response was that the GSRME panel considered the letter sent to them by Wessely was a piece of personal correspondence never meant for the public and that in Dr Gibsons opinion, it should remain that way and that Prof Wessely was in agreement with Dr Gibson that the letter should not be released. It is disturbing that Wessely felt the need to set certain information, views, opinions or other material before a panel of parliamentarians engaged in an unofficial inquiry but that he did not feel he should be equally open and transparent with the ME community and the wider public. If material contained within the Wessely letter had been used to inform the panel in the writing up of their report or in any way shaped their own views and opinions (and reference is made to the letter in the report) it is not possible for the inquirys constituency of interest, that is, the ME community, or the wider public to assess whether the "Gibson Inquiry" panel had made a fair and reasonable evaluation of the content of this communication since the document is not being made available for public scrutiny. Since neither Dr Gibson nor Prof Wessely has been willing to release this document, we have been unable to establish whether this letter was the source of various contentious statements made by the panel within Section 3.2 of their report. Yet at least one Wikipedia Admin proposed in 2007 that this unreferenced quote should be considered for inclusion in the Wikipedia Simon Wessely article page. There had also been references to "resentment" and to "vitriolic actions and comments" in the article published by Dr Ian Gibson (Chair, "Gibson Inquiry") in the August 2006 issue of the Journal of Clinical Pathology, the year before the "Gibson Report" was completed. In September 2001, in an extremely emotive piece, the Guardian's Sarah Bosely had reported: (See: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,554693,00.html ) Except he hasn't. Wessely may have reduced his involvement in CFS studies but he continues to regularly publish papers, articles and co-authored papers around "CFS", as a search on PubMEd will confirm. Ms Boseley quotes Wessely as saying: The following week, Ms Boseley had written: (See: A very modern epidemic, Guardian, 27 September 2001 http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/medicalscience/story/0,,559001,00.html ) In his presentation to the 2006 AfME/MRC Joint Research Summit "Overview of UK research to date", Prof Peter White, had listed under "Barriers to success" (See: Report of the AfME/MRC Joint 2006 Research Summit at: http://www.afme.org.uk/res/img/resources/M.E. Research Summit Report FINAL.pdf ) Vivienne Parry (Sense about Science, Administrator of the funding arm of GUS who funded the PRIME Project) has also used this line - so does Dr Shepherd. Prof White is a member of the MRC's CFS/ME Expert Panel; the only patient organisation reps that hold seats are Sir Peter Spencer and Dr Charles Shepherd. If the CFS/ME Expert Panel, under the chairmanship of Prof Holgate, fails to fulfil its objectives in encouraging quality applications and their approval (and the MRC has been talking about funding quality research since 2003, but has yet to put any money where its mouth is) - will the MRC, AfME, the MEA, parliamentarians, Prof White and others once again collude in scapegoating the ME and CFS patient community for the MRC's continued reluctance to fund non psychosocial research?