Proof of Corruption inside of Academia? Pt. 2
- Oct 2
- 8 min read
On 15/09/2025, the founder of The Hemp Hound Agency published a LinkedIn article regarding academic conflicts at key regulatory panels.
The focus was on interactions between Reading University's HR department regarding the actions of one of their academics, but whilst the article was being put together, certain activities came to light which include Reading rewriting parts of its institutional history and removing key pages.
Here, we look at what they have removed, and what they are trying to rewrite
If you live in the UK and have an interest in hemp and CBD, cannabis, and GW Pharmaceuticals, it's likely that you're aware of the latter's relationship with various Universities.
And if you are, Reading University is quite possibly the most famous, due to its links to the development of Epidiolex.
If that's not the case, this link takes you to a page on Reading's website which describes their input into creating "A new cannabis-derived medicine for severe childhood epilepsy."
But before you click on there...
Below is a screenshot from Wayback Machine showing that the article, which was published in November 2019, has been edited 5 times since November 2024.
But that's traceable updates. See, there's one section of the article that I know was worded very differently, and it's not reflected in the earliest version obtainable through Wayback Machine.
I personally have been aware of that timeline since 2022.
I can tell you that originally, this entry said nothing about seizures. In fact, I can confidently tell you that what was originally there matched the conditions specified as the focus in the 1998 press report outlining the launch of GW Pharmaceuticals and them being granted a license to grow cannabis.
"Appetite stimulant" is what I remember noticing more than anything else because of cannabis being associated with 'the munchies', and I believed that the intent was to help those who were suffering from HIV.
So when I noticed that was replaced, that change piqued my interest
There's something you need to know about the formation of GW Pharmaceuticals, before we move forward.
In November 1997, Prof. Geoffrey Guy attended a meeting at parliament. In that meeting were several physicians and researchers, and it was at that point that Paul Boateng declared that the government wanted the research done into medicinal cannabis.
This was outlined by Prof. Guy himself in 2010, and is documented in a paper called "The Medicinalization of Cannabis"
This document is important because:
It recounts the starting point of a Public-Private Partnership (PPP).
It shows that the person or entity chosen to head that PPP had no competition.
And that an academic structure had been realised to help facilitate the research the government wanted done prior to the green light being given to proceed.
So when we look at the press release from 1998, and consider what was originally stated in Reading's 10-year timeline, there is every suggestion that Reading and GW Pharmaceuticals were potentially working together from 1996.
I would argue that the change in conditions focused on by Reading from that time to just 'childhood epilepsy' further reinforces that potential.
But what if I told you that Reading were trying to hide that closeness?
Furthermore, what if I told you that the reason for doing so was to protect their influence through key regulatory panels such as the Advisory Committee on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD), the Advisory Committee on Novel foods and Processes (ACNFP), and the Centre on Toxicity (CoT)?
Allow me to provide a timeline of my own:
1996: Reading start research on over 60 compounds found in cannabis.
Reading's timeline identified Prof. Claire Williams as initiating that research, but further introduces Profs Gary Stephens and Ben Whalley.
1998: GW is launched after receiving a license to grow cannabis.
2004: Whalley completes research into CBDv and seizures in rats.
2007: Official funding to develop CBD-based medicines for childhood epilepsy is provided by GW to Reading.
That funding also partly came from Otsuka Pharmaceuticals
2011: GW announce through their Annual Report that they have a focus on 3 cannabinoids.
Whalley, Stephens and Williams are named in a patent for the use of CBDv vs. epilepsy.
2012: GW announce through their Annual Report that they have a focus on 7 cannabinoids.
2013: GW announce through their Annual Report that they have a focus on 15 cannabinoids.
Epidiolex began Phase I trials.
Theresa May, then Home Secretary, visits Reading to discuss her role with academics and students.
She is named in the same year as a Patron of the Reading University Conservative Association.
Whalley, Stephens and Williams are named in a second patent involving CBD in combination with a standard anti-epileptic drug.
2014: Whalley, the lead at Reading for cannabinoid research, is appointed to the ACMD working group for phytocannabinoids by Theresa May.
2016: Epidiolex completes Phase III trials
Whalley co-signs recommendations for 12 controlled cannabinoids.
There were no declarations made regarding GW, patents, or his work with Epidiolex.
Stephens and Williams were given special thanks for their contributions to the report, without any mention of them being named in patents or tied to research conducted by Reading and funded by GW.
Prof. Guy receives an honorary doctorate from Reading. The article this was announced in drew attention to support for a 2012 study that was headed by Whalley.
2019: An academic from Reading, Prof. Gunter Kuhnle, is named as a member of the CoT. His placement begins in July, and coincides with the CoT's first discussion regarding CBD.
In November, Reading publish their 10-year timeline of the development of Epidiolex.
2020: The CoT convene in January to discuss CBD.
They use 16 lab reports relating to Epidiolex to determine the safety of consumer products.
Two unnamed observers from GW attended and answered questions relating to the data being reviewed.
No academic, certainly not from Reading, declared the interests of their employers at that meeting.
2024: The Academic whose actions led to the need to publish part one of this article contacted The Hemp Hound Agency regarding concerns over the lack of declared conflicts when discussing CBD.
He was informed of a wide range of concerns yet chose not to declare any interests at CoT meetings beyond that point.
This timeline represents some of the concerns that surround Reading's relationship with GW, and the participation of associated academics in regulatory panels without declaring interests.
A fuller description can be found here:
But the real issues come from 2012, 2014, and 2016.
The visit by May to Reading should be available here: https://www.reading.ac.uk/news-archive/press-releases/pr484893.html
But, what comes up is a 404 message.
Wayback Machine, luckily, archived the page: https://web.archive.org/web/20191106212000/https://www.reading.ac.uk/news-archive/press releases/pr484893.html
From the outside looking in, there is no reason why Reading should remove a page from their website for such an occasion... unless there is some sort of concern.
Other than the visit, the only other point of interest is that May was announced as a guest of the Reading University Conservative Association.
But the latter point highlights more information that has been removed from Reading's website. There was a separate page that identified May as a patron of Reading University Conservative Association.
Out of all the links I have catalogued, this is one that escaped me. But I saw the page, and searches for it suggest that the page has also been removed.
Whilst these events are from 2013, they lead to another page that is seemingly removed from Reading's website
There is only one question that comes from this removed post:
This is a monumental occasion, so why would Reading remove this from their website?
There can be only one reason, and that's that this post is incriminating in some manner.
I must state that I am not the only one who has questioned Whalley’s appointment to the ACMD, which can be seen through this FOI response from 2018.
And then there is 2016:
I have a question to ask you:
Why would a university remove a page from their website showing that they had awarded an honorary doctorate to a Doctor on the basis of their relationship with the University?
It doesn't make sense... unless maintaining that page causes issues.
And the page that's missing does.
The link highlighted goes to another removed page which was published in 2012 and titled: New cannabis discovery could lead to better treatments for epilepsy
All of a sudden, the timeline becomes clearer, at least with the dynamics of the relationship between Reading, GW, and who are effectively dual researchers.
Funding from GW Pharmaceuticals has supported Dr Ben Whalley and colleagues at the University of Reading to find a new anti-seizure medicine for people with epilepsy.
The 2012 article shows that extra closeness between GW and Whalley, whose 2011 patent with Williams and Stephens came through research that was funded by GW, as would have their 2013 joint patent.
This means that there is no excuse for not declaring ties to GW, Reading's research funding, or those patents that bear his name when he was placed on the ACMD as chair of the Phytocannabinoid working group.
The question is, who told him not to declare those interests, or those of Williams and Stephens, when giving special thanks for their input which led to the government defining 12 controlled cannabinoids?
You would have to assume that someone did — and the same may apply to Prof. Pertwee, who is named in a patent with Prof. Guy from 2006 which outlined the use of CBD in supplements and cosmetics.
So why hide that which has already been seen?
If academic researchers who helped develop Epidiolex, who were named on patents, who were funded by GW Pharmaceuticals, and who served on regulatory panels that helped shape cannabinoid policy—all without declaring their conflicts—then we have a problem.
If the university that hosted and celebrated those connections is now removing the evidence of those relationships from their website, long after the products were authorised and the markets shaped, then that suggests damage limitation—not transparency.
This isn’t just about undeclared conflicts.
This is about policy made in a vacuum—where transparency is removed after the fact, and where decisions are made not on the basis of evidence, but on the strength of whose voice is allowed in the room.
Is history repeating?
Part 1 of this article is all but dedicated to Prof. Gunter Kuhnle, the academic from Reading who thinks that all academics cannot be expected to know of all the activities and interests of their employer when sitting on regulatory panels.
He claimed that he followed the rules, declared what he had to, and had obliged the Nolan Principles of public life.
The problem there is that when an official is made aware of conflicts, they are obliged to declare them.
And that's exactly what I did in 2024, so is it reasonable to assume that he too has been directed in what he should and should not disclose?
And if it is, we have a bigger problem than you might think.
Misuse of Drugs Regulation (MDR) 2001 vs. Novel Food Regulations
Reading's input through the ACMD and CoT has had a profound impact on the hemp and CBD sector.
MDR was created for GW, and the 12 controlled cannabinoids under that legislation were put there by dual researchers tied to Reading and GW.
CBD novel foods was brought about to protect the interests of GW, and data from Epidiolex was used to misrepresent the safety of products that could be viewed as direct competition to those interests.
And in the background, there's Theresa May, whose interactions with Reading are being airbrushed from existence.
So, I ask you: Is this proof of corruption inside of academia?
Or is it simply a case of institutional convenience — where ties to corporate partners are only acknowledged when it suits a narrative, and quietly scrubbed when transparency becomes inconvenient?
Either way, the silence, the deletions, and the undeclared interests should be deeply troubling to anyone who believes in evidence-based policymaking.
And if the policies governing CBD products have been shaped by researchers with undeclared industry ties — especially when those policies affect thousands of businesses and millions of consumers — then there must be accountability.
Because the public deserves better, the industry deserves better, and the record deserves the truth.
Comments