Subscribe to Search results

Dr Contreras stated in oral evidence she felt it was taking too long to secure funding for a study into surrogate testing

Published on:

Dr Contreras stated, upon reflection, she had underplayed the risk of NANBH when writing to Dr Barbara in 1987

Published on:

Dr Contreras expressed the view changed for Medicines Control Agency (MCA) from 'maximum benefit at minimal cost' to 'if a measure reduces risk, we should take it' and that she shared this change in view in 1991.

Published on:

Mr Justice Burton expressed the view that if a measure would prevent or reduce risk, it should be taken unless the disadvantages outweigh the advantages.

Published on:

It was argued during the case that the ALT tests were relatively inexpensive. Mr Underhill QC expressed that cost was not a factor in either ALT testing or anti-HBc testing.

Published on:

It was Dr Gunson's belief in the 1980s that the risk of infection was 3% for post-transfusion NANBH

Published on:

Mr Justice Burton assessed that the introduction of ALT and anti-HBc testing would have lost 2.5% and 4% of donations respectively but this would have been countered by the moving surplus blood supplies to centres in need. He believed there would not be a major shortage as Dr Gunson had described in 1991.

Published on:

Mr Justice Burton concludes that the idea of reducing donor numbers that were unwanted was never discussed by ACTTD or ACVSB and neither ALT or HBc testing overlapped. They should have introduced surrogate testing before 1 March 1988.

Published on:

Dr Gunson was a proponent of the minimum risk to maximum safety concept and concurred with both the opinions of Dr Barbara and Dr Contreras

Published on:

Dr Dow produced a report that stated the introduction of surrogate screening would have little to no impact on reducing the "already low level of NANBH PTH cases at present reported within the West of Scotland region".

Published on:

Dr Forrester reiterated Dr Dow in stating that the cost to benefit ratio of introducing surrogate screening in the West of Scotland means he would recommend against it.

Published on:

Dr Cash wrote to Dr Fraser to organise a consensus meeting to discuss NANB surrogate testing methods after Dr Fraser's prospective UK trial was turned down at the NBTS Directors' meeting.

Published on:

Dr Cash asked Dr Sandler American Red Cross) to enlighten his team on the current state of surrogate donation testing in the USA

Published on:

American Red Cross wrote to Dr Cash in response to his letter to Dr Sandler for an update on surrogate donation testing in the USA. This started after a presentation by Dr Harvey Alter at the 1985 AABB annual meeting. They were also preparing for implementing ALT and anti-HBc testing in blood centers.

Published on:

Dr Fraser confirmed to Dr Cash the lack of enthusiasm for a study amongst other regional transfusion directors in England and Wales: only he and Dr Contreras had supported it and the rest of the directors "were not very interested."

Published on:

Dr Contreras wrote to Dr Smithies (DHSS) with a proposed study of post transfusion Non-A Non-B hepatitis.

Published on:

The Society placed undue reliance on the views of Professor Bloom who was not only chair of UKHCDO but also a principal point of reference when seeking advice.

Published on:

By the time of the meeting on 8 October 1983 the realisation had dawned within the Society membership that a crisis was looming.

Published on:

No questions were asked of Professor Bloom despite the Cardiff case as the Society was too trusting of his advice and was further deferential to Reverend Tanner.

Published on:

The Executive Committee had not been told that there was now an authoritative report on the possibility of sexual transmission, and Professor Bloom knew but downplayed it as a real risk.

Published on: