Subscribe to Search results

EAGA recognised that "there was a degree of urgency for the introduction of routine anti-HTLV III screening of blood donations which precluded the completion of the National Blood Transfusion Service evaluation of different test kits prior to arrangements being undertaken for the introduction of routine screening".

Published on:

The Department of Health and Social Security issued a press release titled "Date set for AIDS screening test", which stated that John Patten had announced that screening should be introduced by mid October, and the test kits under trial were the Organon and Wellcome tests.

Published on:

A letter in The Lancet titled "HTLV III Antibody Screening of Blood Bank Donors" noted that with any screening test the problem lay with false positives. It was elucidated that this would have a significant impact both on blood supplies and on blood donors, as seropositive blood would be discarded and donors would be notified of their results.

Published on:

The closing submission of NHS Blood and Transplant to the Infected Blood Inquiry noted that, given the general agreement that testing be introduced as soon as possible, it was unfortunate that the first stage of the review was not completed at an earlier stage.

Published on:

The New Scientist published an article titled "Ministers delayed launch of AIDS test". It reported Abbott Laboratories' accusation that the British government delayed approval until a British test was available.

Published on:

In a memo, Mr Harris wrote regarding Abbott's complaint that the UK could have had a test in place months ago: "we have dallied to allow the preferred UK manufacturer to catch up".

Published on:

The Committee to Study HIV Transmission Through Blood and Blood Products made the following recommendation to the Department of Health and Human Services in the United States: "Where uncertainties or countervailing public health concerns preclude completely eliminating potential risks, the FDA should encourage, and where necessary require, the blood industry to implement partial solutions that have little risk of causing harm."

Published on:

The Department of Health and Social Security proposed to set up an evaluation programme for investigating the performance of screening test systems for AIDS markers.

Published on:

Dr Cash confirmed to Dr Mitchell that "the WBTS should undertake, on behalf of the SNBTS, initial evaluation studies of commercial HTLV-III antibody kits, but current pressure from commercial organisations to meet their deadlines should be resisted and priority given to SNBTS interests."

Published on:

Dr Harris wrote to Dr Whitehead stating that although screening tests were being introduced in 1985/1986, it had become apparent at a regional general meeting of the Northern Region that screening had already been undertaken by the Public Health Laboratory Service and Dr Codd in Newcastle.

Published on:

Dr Acheson wrote to Dr Abrams and told his deputy that "unresolved technical challenges facing the UK test mean that it is unlikely to be first in the field", adding "We are likely to need to evaluate a number of other tests, largely from the United States, over the succeeding months".

Published on:

A technical evaluation of Abbott Laboratories' AIDS antibody test and one other was expected to be completed by July 1985. Mr Harris expressed to the minister the Health Services Division's view that "it would not be helpful to have no other choice than Abbott since their test requires special equipment" and that "it would be preferable to have a British test evaluated as a possible candidate".

Published on:

Further dates announced for witness hearings

Published on:

A briefing from Charles Lister, Department of Health, to Lord Philip Hunt, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health in the House of Lords, on Hepatitis C litigation key findings, noted that there were legitimate expectations that surrogate testing and anti-Hepatitis C screening should had been introduced earlier.

Published on:

Charles Lister, Department of Health, recommended to Lord Philip Hunt, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health in the House of Lords, that the court judgment in the "A and Others v National Blood Authority" should not be appealed.

Published on:

An email from Christine Dora to Mairi Gibson and others indicated that Officials in Scotland were keen on an appeal against the court judgment in "A and Others v National Blood Authority".

Published on:

Dr Aileen Keel regarded the Department of Health's decision not to appeal in "A and Others v National Blood Authority" as "lamentable".

Published on:

In his letter to Susan Deacon MSP, Minister for Health and Community Care, Philip Hunt, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health in the House of Lords, noted the decision of the ministers not to appeal in "A and Others v National Blood Authority", although with some reluctance.

Published on:

John Hutton told the Parliament that "as soon as technology became available to render blood products safe, it was introduced."

Published on:

A draft speech on Hepatitis C prepared by officials for the Parliament Adjournment Debate asserted that: "The technology to make blood products free from hepatitis C in sufficient quantities to treat all haemophiliacs in the UK was simply not possible prior to 1985. Once it was the NHS introduced it."

Published on: