Alan Milburn
WS Q’s
20.6 - From where did he gain his “understanding” in relation to fault?
20.7 - The only real difference he identifies in “exceptional circumstances” between HIV and Hepatitis C is the speed at which someone dies from the point of infection, would he agree with that?
Would he accept that by this point in time, treatment of HIV was possible and it was also true that death could be avoided? So it would be wrong to infer that Hepatitis C was somehow different, in this respect, at this point in time?
22.2 - He says "I cannot recall being asked to consider establishing a public inquiry"
In DHSC0038521_083 he says "I know the Manor House Group has raised many issues...a call for a public inquiry..."
23.4 - How does he draw the inference “very different”?
Non-WS & Additional
CABO0000123_013 - How did he reach the view that "It was simply not possible prior to 1985 to make blood products free from hepatitis C in sufficient quantities to treat all haemophiliacs in the UK"?
Why did he set the year at 1985?
Was he aware of people being infected after 1985?
DHSC0040895_166 - "Until recently, it has always been produced from plasma derived from human blood"
Was he unaware of porcine / bovine derived Factor VIII?
DHSC0040895_166 - …“1985”..."there have been no reported cases of HIV or hepatitis C transmission"
It was his understanding that there were no infections of HIV or Hepatitis C after 1985? (Armour HIV cases and other HCV cases did occur after this)
WITN5426275
§6(i) - "because patients who receive blood do not expect it to be contaminated with a virus capable of causing serious illness" - Would he agree this, equally, applies to blood products?
§6(ii) - "the risk would simply have been less" - so the understanding in DH was that, everything else aside, surrogate testing for HCV would have reduced the risk?
And so presumably, at least some, again everything else aside, infections would have been avoided had it been introduced?
§10 - Would it be right then to understand that had ministers known heat-treatment was not introduced “as soon as the technology was available” or on some other basis could or should have been introduced earlier, payments to haemophiliacs would/could not have been refused?
Is he aware of any investigation having taken place in order to determine if heat-treatment could/should have been introduced earlier than it was?
Was he aware that BPL and the various pharma companies that produced Factor VIII all introduced heat-treatment of their product at different dates?
Was he aware that there were different types of heat-treatment for different products which achieved different outcomes?
Was he aware that some Factor VIII products elsewhere (Behringwerke) had been heat-treated since the 1970s?
Was he aware that another product, Albumin, had been heat-treated since at least the1950s?
Had he considered that perhaps the question was not only “as soon as the technology was available” but also how the technology became available and why the technology only became available when it did?
§15 - "There are currently 270 haemophiliacs with severe liver disease as a result of hepatitis C infection" - Does he know where this figure came from?
Did it stand out to him that the number of haemophiliacs suffering from severe liver disease was greater than the total number of claimants (a majority of whom presumably were not suffering from severe liver disease at that time) in the action against the NBA? (It is said at §17 that "the overwhelming majority of claimants have no symptoms")
And so, in terms of need and litigation aside, the need may actually have been greater, in terms of numbers, in the group that stood to receive nothing at all?
https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=1997-11-11a.694.4 - Can he recall whether this review encompassed any matters pertaining to the use of infected blood products?
