• Welcome to Phoenix Rising!

    Created in 2008, Phoenix Rising is the largest and oldest forum dedicated to furthering the understanding of and finding treatments for complex chronic illnesses such as chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), fibromyalgia (FM), long COVID, postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), mast cell activation syndrome (MCAS), and allied diseases.

    To register, simply click the Register button at the top right.

Cause of ME a "state secret" in UK?

Dx Revision Watch

Suzy Chapman Owner of Dx Revision Watch
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:

"Wessely gave up the research side of his work, possibly due to extreme harassment he received from a very small fringe section of the ME community."

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:

Prof Wessely has quit the field and is not the only professional to have ceased involvement with CFS.

(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:

There are many who have found themselves vilified andhave joined the ranks of others who have been abused and intimidated for producing research unpopular to powerful special interests.

The following week, Ms Boseley had written:

Simon Wessely, of the Department of Psychological Medicine at Guys, Kings and St Thomass School of Medicine in London, is a former key figure in the study of ME/CFS who has felt the heat and largely backed out of the kitchen.

(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"
"as well as lack of funding, the hostile approach of some patient advocates can discourage potential researchers from becoming involved."

(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?

Dr. Yes

Shame on You
Orwell, eat your heart out

Ms Boseley quotes Wessely as saying:

“There are many who have found themselves vilified and…have joined the ranks of others who have been abused and intimidated for producing research unpopular to powerful special interests.”

Wow. My soul almost left my body after that one.

Given who's saying it, that is simply one of the most incredible statements I've ever read.



Peter White said:
"as well as lack of funding, the hostile approach of some patient advocates can discourage potential researchers from becoming involved."

Not only is he a self aggrandizing sadist, he's a whiny little $#@&%!*&^$, too.


Wessely is overseeing the stupid MRC funded PACE trial run by his mates White, Chalder & Sharpe.


Senior Member
We should ALL request access to this document: Link for Request in this post

01 Jan 2071; Top Secret is 30 years in the US and I believe also in the UK. So, what is going on that that 40 page document can not be made public? Hiding something BIG?

"The MRC’s secret files on ME/CFS are closed (ie. unavailable to the public) for an unusually lengthy period of 83 years. The standard closure period is 30 years but, as in the case of these files on ME/CFS, the standard closure period may be extended.
The 30-year rule usually applies to documents that are exempt from release under a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request and include, for example, documents concerning the formulation of government policy, documents related to defence, to national security, to the economy, and documents that are considered very confidential."

Access conditions Closed For 73 years
This document was closed under the Public Records Act or is exempt under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. It is possible to request a review of the information it contains under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and this will trigger a review. Request review. http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/contact/form/generalcontactform.asp?id=15&action=1&DOCREF=FD%2023/4553/1 - This brings you to the request page. Record opening date 01 Jan 2071
Closure status Closed Or Retained Document, Open Description
Further information about access conditions is available
I'm going to fill this out and request access to the document. I think we all should fill the form out requesting access and hit them with a ton of requests so that they know we know something is so bad that they have to keep it hidden for 73 years?!?

I requested this document and told them that they could black out personal identifying information. I also filed a complaint as well on the above link. Keep hitting them.


I don't know if this has been discussed here (sorry I didn't read all the messages, brain's gone).

But... there was a great write up recently on this matter and released only a month or so ago.

Please click on this link

Download the PDF file, and read it at your leisure.

Also it's worth noting that some British MP's have been asked (possibly it was one, but I think it was a couple)
on patients behalf to access the MRC files and they have been denied access.

Obviously a state secret, stays secret for a reason.


Senior Member
I am forced to believe that this about NATIONAL SECURITY and Gulf War Syndrome in the UK and US military. What else could be so terribly secret? Personal information that can be blacked out or redacted? Too easy to do. Nope. Economic or grant info? Again, black out the info, move on and send it. NOPE. National Security would be the most dangerous thing they would NOT want out into the public. They KNOW what may have caused the Gulf War Syndrome that also mimics CFIDS way too much.
So, after thinking and talking to my husband who worked at DoD for years and years, it must be National Security and something the US and UK government's did to the military and may have known it spread. OR knew what was going on before the war and worked on these people and figured out what was going on with them and did not want the two governments exposed.



Whatever it is, there's a reason a lot of people need to be dead and gone by the time the info comes out, the potential perpetrators as well as the sick.


Senior Member
Sheffield UK
Given the apparent stranglehold of the UK Psychiatarists on policy, I imagine we in the UK will get treatment about the same time as Angolan ME/CFS sufferers do. No disrespect to Angola. Chose them because they are widely percieved as been a very poor country, not because they aree unlightened, like it appears we are in UK.


Senior Member
Because I like to email the head of the CDC every couple or so weeks to update him on CFIDS and the CDC - I'm helpful like that - I did send him the link and info from the UK Archives and noted the close association and collaboration between Wessely and Reeves (CDC). I just want to keep that man updated on what is going on at the CDC and with the other putzes in the UK. I also sent the links on to the media as well. I also think it's time to hit Congress people and the Parliament types with this info so that they too can wonder what the heck is in that 40 page extract that is so darn dangerous and must be kept locked down for 80 or so years.


Senior Member
Bay Area, California

Maybe we should be mailing Congress etc.. but the reason I haven't is because it's the UK that locked up the info not the U.S. How is our Congress going to help with that and would they even if they could?

Also, thank you for sending info to the head of the CDC. Who is that exactly? I thought Kathleen Sebelius was Reeve's boss. She's the head of the HHS.


Senior Member
The CDC Director - Thomas R. Frieden, MD, MPH as of June 2009

[The CDC Director - Thomas R. Frieden, MD, MPH
Director, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Administrator, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
From www.cdc.gov site

Frieden's email WAS txf2@cdc.gov. I got a response from his assistant from these two emails: los2@cdc.gov, Lsalinas@cdc.gov.

Thomas R. Frieden, M.D., M.P.H., became Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and Administrator of the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) in June 2009. Dr. Frieden has worked to control both communicable and non-communicable diseases in the United States and around the world. From 1992-1996, he led New York Citys program that rapidly controlled tuberculosis, including reducing cases of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis by 80 percent. He then worked in India for five years where he assisted with national tuberculosis control efforts. The program in India has treated more than 10 million patients and has saved more than one million lives.

As Commissioner of the New York City Health Department from 2002-2009, he directed one of the world′s largest public health agencies, with an annual budget of $1.7 billion and more than 6,000 staff. During his tenure, the number of smokers declined by 350,000, teen smoking decreased by half, and New York City became the first place in the United States to eliminate trans-fats from restaurants, rigorously monitor the diabetes epidemic, and require certain restaurants to post calorie information prominently. The Department also greatly increased colon cancer screening and eliminated racial/ethnic disparities in colon cancer screening rates. Under Dr. Frieden′s leadership, the department also established the largest community electronic health records project in the country. The project provided prevention-oriented electronic health records to physicians caring for more than a million New Yorkers, including more than half of the doctors caring for patients in Harlem, the South Bronx, and Bedford-Stuyvesant. The project is a model for efforts to expand electronic health record use nationally.

Dr. Frieden also provided pro bono assistance to New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg in his global health philanthropy; including helping to establish the Bloomberg Initiative to Reduce Tobacco Use, a strategic program which promotes the implementation of proven interventions which can save more than 100 million lives.

A physician with training in internal medicine, infectious diseases, public health, and epidemiology, Dr. Frieden is especially known for his expertise in tuberculosis control. Dr. Frieden previously worked for CDC from 1990 until 2002. He began his career at CDC as an Epidemic Intelligence Service (EIS) Officer at the New York City Health Department.

Dr. Frieden speaks Spanish and graduated from Oberlin College. He received both his medical degree and masters of public health degree from Columbia University and completed infectious disease training at Yale University. He has received numerous awards and honors and has published more than 200 scientific articles.


Senior Member
The far-too-close association between the UK Shrinks and the CDC/CFS William Reeves is the reason we would write to our Congress people about a UK document that has been locked for 83 years. Others are more versed in the very close relationship between the UK shrinks and the CDC/CFS Reeves. The impact of one government (UK) on another government (US) health care is a bit alarming - in THIS CASE. If the UK is hiding a document for 83 years, then what is OUR government hiding as well???
What is in that UK document? How does it affect the US, Canada, and other countries? So, although it is a UK document, we ALL (US/UK/Canada/Others) really do need to know what is in that darn document. So I guess we US folks help the UK folks to get access to that darn document.

Sebellius (DHHS) is Frieden's boss (CDC). CDC is under DHHS. Reeves is a pee-on at CDC and has a number of layers above him before he gets to Tom. Go to the CDC.gov site and look at the Org charts, etc. Do remember that the CDC has gone through some sort of re-organziation again andn I don't KNOW how that affects the Reeve's shop or Reeves. The CDC likes to re-org. A good comments I saw on www.cdcchatter.net was the CDC reorganization is similar to "re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic". Works for me....


Senior Member
http://www.cfs-news.org/x-files.htm - links aren't current


Is the truth out there?

NEENYAH OSTROM: What you don't know about CFS, AIDS, HHV-6 and other medical research

DR. W. JOHN MARTIN: Stealth virus associated with both CFS and monkeys

DR. LEONARD HOROWITZ: Emerging Viruses -- Nature, Accident or Genocide?

SV40: Have vaccines created disease? The monkey-virus / polio-vaccine controversy

DONALD SCOTT: Biological warfare agents and CFS / Gulf War Syndrome

HILLARY JOHNSON: Author of Osler's Web chronicles and
condemns scientists' failure to meet the challenge of CFS

This page is a catalog of controversial issues regarding CFS. I don't know that any of the claims described below are true, but they may not be untrue either. Be careful in what you choose to believe. And don't assume that those who deny all the claims made below necessarily know everything.
I welcome adding new material on these topics, and opposing points of view. Contact me by e-mail at cfs-news-request@maelstrom.stjohns.edu.

-- Roger Burns

What you don't know about CFS, AIDS, HHV-6 and other medical research
Neenyah Ostrom (see her biography) is an avant-garde investigative reporter for the New York Native weekly newspaper. Since 1988 she has published a weekly column and authored three books about alternative theories of AIDS etiology and government cover-ups of medical research. She and her publisher Chuck Ortleb claim that AIDS and CFS are two sides of the same phenomenon, possibly linked through HHV-6, or mycoplasma, or other microbes. Many PWCs are concerned that an unwarranted link to AIDS makes CFS seem unnecessarily scary, since CFS is not generally known to be terminal. In the eyes of established medical scientists, the role of these microbes, if any, in relation the several diseases discussed is not clear.
Major collections of Ostrom's articles
ChronicIllnet Online

Specific articles
"The Genie is Out of the Bottle": University of Texas Southwestern Research Team Identifies Three Neurologic Syndromes in Sick Gulf War Veterans
Correlations Between CFS and AIDS
The Promise of Ampligen: This experimental drug not only stops HHV-6, it helps AIDS and CFS patients function.
The Enigma That Won't Disappear: The Recurring Problem of Non-HIV AIDS New York Native, issue #639, July 17, 1995
BOOK, full text: "America's Biggest Cover-Up: 50 More Things Everyone Should Know About The Chronic Fatigue Epidemic And Its Link To AIDS
Back to the Top

Stealth virus associated with both CFS and monkeys
Dr. Martin's work has been published in peer-reviewed medical journals and so his supporters may feel he should not be viewed as being outside of the mainstream, but he has nonetheless generated controversy. Dr. Martin has found a microbe in the blood of a CFS patient which he has named "the Stealth virus". Its DNA structure appears similar to a monkey virus, and it also seems that it can be transferred between humans and cats. These findings suggest a link to other issues such as SV40 and the politico-medical ideas of Dr. Leonard Horowitz (see below).

Stealth Virus FAQ
Dr. Martin's lab: web page for the Center for Complex Infectious Diseases
Dr. Martin on video tape Martin discusses research on the stealth virus and treatments. Also, Dr. Robert Strecker discusses the origins of HIV (see also the Horowitz section below), and Dr. Donovan Anderson discusses a recent cluster outbreak. Tape made from conference held on March 9, 1997.
Selected papers of Dr. Martin
Cytomegalovirus-Related Sequence in an Atypical Cytopathic Virus Repeatedly Isolated from a Patient with Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, American Journal of Pathology, American Society for Investigative Pathology, 1994, Vol. 145 No. 2, 440-451.
African Green Monkey Origin of the Cytopathic 'Stealth Virus' Isolated from a Patient with Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, Clinical and Diagnostic Virology, Elsevier Science B.V., 1995, Vol. 4 No. 2, 93-103.
Acute Encephalopathy Induced in Cats with a Stealth Virus Isolated from a Patient with Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, Pathobiology, S. Karger AG, 1995, Vol. 63, 115-118.
Severe Stealth Virus Encephalopathy following Chronic Fatigue Syndrome-like Illness: Clinical and Histopathological Features, Pathobiology, S. Karger AG, 1996, Vol. 64, 1-8.

Back to the Top

Emerging Viruses -- Nature, Accident or Genocide?
Dr. Leonard Horowitz has examined the evidence about the origin of AIDS and other emerging illnesses and has found that the facts do not strongly support a natural origin for these diseases, and that other, more convincing evidence suggests that they were developed in military laboratories and thereafter infected the public. (To see how this may relate to CFS, go to the sections on Donald Scott and Dr. Martin.) He presented a paper about this to the 1996 AIDS conference, and he has now published a hardcover book on this subject.

PAPER: A New Theory on the Origin AIDS
Abstract: This article reviews scientific and U.S. Government documents that show AIDS-like viruses were developed by National Cancer Institute researchers along with military biological weapons contractors between 1962 and 1974 during the "Special Virus Cancer Program." The possibility of this research giving rise to contaminated experimental hepatitis B (HB) vaccines, and thus, the simultaneous emergence of acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) in New York City and Central Africa in 1978 is advanced. The following manuscript is a revised version of the scientific paper Dr. Leonard G. Horowitz and coauthors presented at the XI International Conference on AIDS in Vancouver, BC Canada on July 10, 1996.
Summary press release
Full text of paper

Dr. Horowitz' book: "Emerging Viruses: AIDS & Ebola--Nature, Accident or Genocide?"
Press release description
Chapter-by-chapter summary

Interview with Dr. Horowitz, March 15, 1998

Dr. Horowitz' web site: Tetrahedron Inc.
Mary Christine on CFS, GWS and manufactured viruses
Other Tetrahedron documents
Back to the Top

Have vaccines created disease?
The monkey-virus / polio-vaccine controversy
Some reports indicate that for decades polio vaccines may have been contaminated with Simian Virus 40, which may in turn have caused diseases in humans. See the links below.

SV40: Report from Dr. Martin's office
Peer review and the origin of AIDS: a case study in rejected ideas, by Brian Martin
Polio vaccine may be linked to cancer New Yorker Magazine, 11 Nov 96
Science report finds no link between vaccine and cancer, although SV40 may somehow be otherwise related to tumors
Possible dangers of polio vaccines, from National Vaccine Information Center
Back to the Top

Biological warfare agents and CFS / Gulf War Syndrome
Donald Scott has written and published a book which traces in detail the history of American biological warfare and how it relates to CFS and Gulf War Syndrome. Documents indicate the development of two specific kinds of viruses for warfare, one fatal (which Scott believes to be AIDS) and one disabling (which Scott believes to be CFS). The book is 200 pages, plus appendices. The introduction is written by Dr. Garth Nicolson, noted medical researcher of Gulf War Syndrome.

The Extremely Unfortunate Skull Valley Incident
by Donald Scott

Chelmsford Publishers
Suite 405
190 Mountain Street
Sudbury, Ontario P3B4G2

Canadian orders USA orders
(in Canadian dollars) (in American dollars)
--------------------- ---------------------

Price: $19.65 Price: $16.95
Shipping: 3.00 Shipping: 2.00
Total: $22.65 Total: $18.95

Back to the Top

Author of Osler's Web chronicles and condemns
scientists' failure to meet the challenge of CFS
A new book by journalist/patient Hillary Johnson (published in March 1996) chronicles the actions of public health officials and scientists in dealing with CFS, and finds great fault with the slowness of meeting this challenge. Johnson's weighty 736-page book is titled "Osler's Web: Inside the Labyrinth of the Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Epidemic". Its tone and format have been compared by many reviewers to "And the Band Played On", the narrative by the late journalist Randy Shilts which chronicled the checkered response of public health officials to the AIDS crisis.
Johnson has written what appears to be a comprehensive history of how government officials and scientists in the USA have dealt CFS in the late 1980s through the early 1990s. Among its many claims, the author makes the case that CFS is an organic and contagious illness, and yet despite evidence supporting this *and* specific directives from Congress, government scientists have tacitly but firmly put this challenge aside, effectively refusing for many years to research this illness. Johnson argues that promising research such as that by Paul Cheney and Elaine DeFreitas has been set aside and opposed by medical officials.

"Osler's Web" also documents the seriousness and severity of CFS, and how the current name "chronic fatigue syndrome" blocks progress towards legitimizing this illness among medical professionals and the public. The book is named after Sir William Osler MD who promoted the notion that good medical science follows from gathering evidence by directly observing patients.

Hillary Johnson is a professional journalist who has been published in many periodicals including Life, Vanity Fair, The Wall Street Journal, and Rolling Stone magazine. She fell ill with CFS in 1986.

Book info from the publisher
Interviews with the author
Discussion with author on Prodigy network
Book reviews
New York Times
Book Review by Mary Ann Spurgin
AACFS (a doctors organization)
Dr. John Renner
National CFS/FM Assoc.
Info from Amazon books
Audio book on Internet, from TST
Back to the Top

Again, I welcome adding new material on these topics, and opposing points of view. Send your suggestions by e-mail to



Also note these other important CFS information resources:

[CFS / M.E. Information page] [CFS Frequently Asked Questions] [CFS Quick Index]

This page is maintained by Roger Burns of Washington, D.C.
E-mail: cfs-news-request@maelstrom.stjohns.edu
Not sure if this has already been posted. If so, please delete.

Thank you for your enquiry on the 23rd January 2010 regarding FD 23/4553/1 - Myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME)/postviral fatigue syndrome (PFS): papers and journal articles; correspondence and enquiries with MRC replies - Closed extracts: 40 pages - 1988-1997

The Freedom of Information Act 2000 gives you two rights of access when you write to us asking for information. You have the right to know whether we hold the information that you are looking for, and you have the right to have the information given to you. These rights may only be overridden if the information you are looking for is covered by an exemption in the Act.

We have undertaken a review of the record and find that all the information in the file is considered to be covered by exemptions. This means that we cannot give you any of this information and we have set out details below of which exemptions we have applied and why.

Section 40 exemption: this section exempts personal information about a ‘third party’ (that is, someone other than the enquirer), if revealing it would break the terms of the Data Protection Act 1998, or if the person that the information relates to would not have a right to know about it or a right of access to it under that Act (because of its exemption provisions). The 1998 Act prevents personal information being released if, for example, it would be unfair or at odds with the reason why it was collected, or where the individual whom the information was about had properly served notice that releasing it would cause major and unnecessary damage or distress.

Why this exemption applies:
The Section 40 (2) exemption is therefore seen to be engaged towards the overwhelming majority of this extract contains the personal sensitive data of named individuals who are believed to still be living. Whilst The National Archives is unable to comment on the specific nature of such information, it may confirm that such information includes the medical details of named individuals including how ME affects them and other matters relating to their condition. As such it would be considered unfair to these named parties were this material to be released into the public domain. Consequently it has been determined that the public interest is best served in this instance by ensuring that the personal sensitive information of living individuals is not released into the public domain against their reasonable expectations and that all such material is processed fairly and lawfully.

Section 41 exemption: this section exempts information from any other person if releasing it would mean breaking the terms of confidentiality in a way that is actionable by that or any other person.

Why this exemption applies:
Section 41 exemption: this section exempts information from any other person if releasing it would mean breaking the terms of confidentiality in a way that is actionable by that or any other person. The files contain opinions and information that was given in confidence and the release of which could be actionable.

As you may be aware this particular file is a small extract from the larger parent file which is open to the public under the reference FD 23/4553. Access to this open document (and others) can be achieved in a number of ways.

- You are welcome to visit us - we can help you to do the search yourself, and admission is free. Please visit our website for information regarding our opening times http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/visit/times.htm . Please note that as of 4th January 2010 we are open for five days a week (Tuesday to Saturday).

- You may use our online Document Copying Service, www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/recordcopying/.

- You may wish to use our paid search service to identify specific parts with this document. We will aim to provide you with the information you require, and to provide a prompt and professional service. H.M. Treasury requires recovery of the full cost of providing the service. We will reply to your request within 20 working days (email: enquiry@nationalarchives.gov.uk).

- There are also many independent researchers whom you can hire to carry out research for you. These researchers may charge significantly less than our ‘full cost recovery’ service. Lists of researchers are available at our web site (www.nationalarchives.gov.uk)

If you visit us, you will need a Reader's Ticket to look at original documents. To obtain a reader's ticket you must bring two documents with you – one to prove your identity (which must have a valid signature) and one to prove your address, or school if you are a student. Please be aware that internet printouts or online statements are not accepted as proof of address. For further information please visit http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/registration/

If you are a citizen of any other country, please bring your passport or national identity card. If you do not have this identification, please ring us on 020 8392 5200 before you visit. Please allow time at the beginning of your visit for familiarisation with our procedures. You can register in advance as a reader at www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/registration/

If you are dissatisfied with any aspect of our response to your request for information and/or wish to appeal against information being withheld from you please send full details within two calendar months of the date of this letter to:

The Quality Manager
Public Services Development Unit
The National Archives
Kew, Richmond
Surrey TW9 4DU

You have the right to ask the Information Commissioner (ICO) to investigate any aspect of your complaint. Please note that the ICO is likely to expect internal complaints procedures to have been exhausted before beginning his investigation.

If I can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Kind regards,

Yudit Collard Treml

Freedom of Information Centre
Information Policy and Services Directorate
The National Archives

If you would like to contact us again regarding
this request, please contact the helpdesk:

via e-mail: By replying to this e-mail
or (020 8876 3444)
Remember to quote your call reference number: F0023928 in any
correspondence, as this will assist us in providing you with a
quick response.


Please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to.


National Archives Disclaimer

This email message (and attachments) may contain information that is confidential to The National Archives. If you are not the intended recipient you cannot use, distribute or copy the message
or attachments. In such a case, please notify the sender by return email immediately and erase all copies of the message and attachments. Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message
and attachments that do not relate to the official business of The National Archives are neither given nor endorsed by it.


Senior Member
There are so many unanswered questions. Is our illness an old disease, or is it a newer one? Is this something that crops up every once in awhile in nature? Is it something that was taken and souped up as a biological weapon? There were cluster outbreaks in history. There were outbreaks in Los Angeles in the 30's. There was the famous cluster outbreak with Royal Free Hospital in the 50's. Prior to the Los Angeles outbreaks, not too much was heard of this disease. But those early outbreaks tended to be looked at as poliomyelitis. So it really makes you wonder, is this a virus. Is this virus related to polio or some horrible offshoot from the polio vaccines? Is it a new virus? Why do cluster outbreaks occur, and then you can get just a single case out of nowhere? What happened in the 80's and then again in the 90's to make this prevalent? Why did it seem to rise concurrently with HIV? What happened with Gulf War Syndrome? Is it the same disease we have? Why did alot of GWS patients recover with six weeks of doxycycline and a segment of them did not? That would indicate Lyme or some other bacterial or micoplasmal cause.

And the most important question, why is this all being covered up? What is in those hidden government documents? What are the governments of the world so scared of the public knowing? Is this a bioweapon?