Subscribe to Search results

A memorandum from Dr Peter Foster to John Watt stated the assertion that the risk of contracting AIDS was one in one million.

Published on:

The DHSS produced a public information leaflet for blood donors which stated that "Should just one of the donors be suffering from AIDS, then the Factor VIII could transmit the disease."

Published on:

Minutes of a UKHCDO meeting recorded that Dr Malcolm Chisholm wondered if directors could revert to cryoprecipitate, given the "worry of patients" to which Professor Bloom responded that "he felt there was no need for patients to stop using the commercial concentrates because at present there was no proof that commercial concentrates were the cause of AIDS".

Published on:

At a Reference Centre Directors' meeting, Professor Bloom stated that it was "difficult to avoid the argument that non-HT [non-heat treated] constitutes a risk."

Published on:

Professor Bloom argued publicly and very strongly for steps to be taken to reduce or eliminate the risk of HIV transmission, without arguing that there was yet no conclusive proof that heat treatment would necessarily be safe.

Published on:

The Haemophilia Society informed the DHSS that they wanted to discuss - among other subjects - the "no ban on the importation of American concentrates."

Published on:

Dr Walford referred to "the cries from some quarters to ban the import of Factor VIII". It was not universally accepted at the time.

Published on:

The functions of the Secretaries of State for Health of the UK, as Licensing Authority, under the Medicines Act 1968, were discharged by the Medicines Division of the DHSS.

Published on:

The Sub-Committee on Biological Products ("CSM(B)") worked on its own.

Published on:

The CSM(B) members would know the views of the Medicines Division staff, for their reports did not simply summarise any danger but expressed a view on it.

Published on:

Professor Sir Michael Rawlins did not know why the CSM had not pressed for greater transparency at an earlier stage.

Published on:

Professor Sir Michael Rawlins believed side effects of medicine "was a judgment of balancing safety and efficacy."

Published on:

Professor Sir Michael Rawlins stated that FDA approval was given if the licensing body had found it was appropriate and therefore it carried weight to the product.

Published on:

Professor Sir Michael Rawlins stated in his oral evidence that Dr Galbraith's May 1983 letter and paper should have been provided to the CSM(B).

Published on:

Professor Sir Michael Rawlins (CSM) stated in his oral evidence that if they had known AIDs was caused by a virus and how donors were pooled in the US, they would have acted differently regarding the importation of commercial factor concentrates.

Published on:

At a meeting of the Blood Products Advisory Committee, Dr Michael Rodell (Armour) indicated that it was clear that pools might have been contaminated. He also stated that persons who were paid for their plasma had it collected 40 to 60 times per year, on average.

Published on:

Professor Bloom wrote to Armour to express concerns that concentrate prepared from plasma collected before March 24 might be preferentially exported from the USA.

Published on:

In a letter, K.W FItch (Armour) stated that Armour had not preferentially exported plasma stocks out of the USA which had been produced from plasma collected prior to the FDA ruling.

Published on:

Dr Walford asked Dr Fowler of Medicines Division whether the supply of blood comprising pre-March plasma could be resisted.

Published on:

Dr Walford considered it possible that concentrates made from the "safer" plasma might be retained for use in the US whilst those older stocks were dumped on export markets such as the UK. Dr Walford also asked if there was any way, perhaps by new labelling requirements to prevent this.

Published on: