Professor Christopher Ludlam
In relation to Para 39 - can he confirm what appears to be alluded to here, that it is his view that Scotland's heat treatment in 1984 did inactivate HIV?
In relation to Para 65(a) - "the only non-human other source of factor VIII was porcine" - was he aware of bovine Factor VIII?
In relation to Para 65(e) "There was much greater and earlier recognition that the solvent-detergent was effective against HIV" - When and by whom?
In relation to Para 68 - Can he tell us what the order of priority was regarding the points he lists?
Para 100 - Confirm it is his view that Cryo "allowed most bleeds (in non-inhibitor patients) to be treated effectively"
Para 101 - with the yield of factor viii for cryo being higher, would it be the case that it would take less plasma volume to become self-sufficient in cryo, than for concentrates?
Para 113 - “The principal drawback of FFP and cryoprecipitate was that they were not virally inactivated and could transmit viruses” - was this not also a disadvantage of concentrates prior to HT?
Para 116 - Were the cryo shortages he envisions, ever an issue prior to the introduction of concentrates?
Why would a reversion now cause a problem if it was not before?
Could the capacity to manufacture cryo not have been increased with investment?
Para 120 - Is he aware of any brand of HT product (other than Armour) transmitting HIV?
Para 130 - Would there be any potential additional consequence of bacterial infection in a person who is infected with HIV?
Para 161 - His Final point. He states Porcine Parvovirus is a risk of Porcine FVIII. - Is he aware that there has never been a single recorded case of porcine parvovirus being transmitted to humans? Source: https://www.aabb.org/tm/eid/Documents/144s.pdf
Para 170(e) - What steps did he take to promote the use of cryo?
To whom did he promote safer treatments and when?
Para 191 - Does he accept that the cause (virus/viruses) was generally accepted to be the cause of NANB? (also see his para 431 which alludes to this)
Parra 211(a) - Is “definitive evidence” the correct level of evidence needed before taking action?
Para 211(c) - If it was thought that AIDS might be caused by something different in haemophiliacs, would any of those theoretical other causes have been totally unrelated to concentrated use?
Para 211(e) - Does he think “encouraging” to “refrain” was strong enough?
Para 211(j) - So, one of his reasons for continuing concentrate use, was to see if people got AIDS?
Para 227 - Is he aware that it was known going back to at least 1963 that heat kills serum hepatitis. “The way, the efficacy of which for inactivating the homologous serum hepatitis virus present in human plasma or serum has been proved, is a ten hours treatment at 60 C., and for this reason the minimum requirements of the health authorities of many countries, especially of the United States of America, include requirements for carrying out such a heat treatment.” Source: https://patents.google.com/patent/US3100737A/en?q=(heat+albumin+hepatitis)&before=priority:19750101&oq=(heat+albumin+hepatitis)+before:priority:19750101
https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/f0/3c/76/4ef32aaa527707/US3100737.pdf (Page 2 left column)
238(a) - Does this then suppose his view is that, at any time 1978 or otherwise, when it was known AIDS could be transmitted by blood products and was known to be fatal, importation should have ceased?
314 - How was it made clear?
463(a) - In light of this, is it fair to say that what made the UK not self-sufficient was the widespread introduction of concentrates?
465 - Why?
In relation to this document - https://drive.google.com/file/d/1u01zzu5mS24OV0DxKDYR3G046dFjEdoJ/view?usp=sharing
Is this still his view?
Why did he write this letter and what was his involvement in organising it?
In this linked meeting at which Ludlam was present, can we ask him about para 16(e) in that document regarding a request from Colindale to haem directors for their participation in a study of AZT in haemophiliacs so see what effects it has. Whether that study went ahead and what involvement he had? Also his thoughts on what the effects of AZT were.
In relation to this document linked, para 2 & 3. Can we ask if at the time he felt there was conflict in any of the Directors acting as witnesses for the plaintiffs?
If he accepts the criticisms made at para 33.437 of the Penrose Final Report - http://www.penroseinquiry.org.uk/finalreport/text/354876_chapter_33.html
He attended this 1978 meeting “representing Prof A L Bloom” - can we ask how that arrangement came about and how often that happened? What relationship did he have with Bloom? (I only have the first page)
