Malcolm Chisholm
WS Questions
24 - Was he aware of ”insurance and mortgages” issues also being faced by those with HIV?
50 - "something has gone wrong that could clearly have been done differently"
This is a different test to the one outlined by Alan Milburn. Can we put Milburn’s test to him and ask which one of those is the appropriate test in his view? Why?
This also seems to be slightly different to the test he suggests in SCGV0000256_075 which suggest requirement of “new evidence” (para 3).
50 - "the relevant state of knowledge in the 80s..." - How had he reached a view on what "the relevant state of knowledge” was?
Had he considered that part of the role of an Inquiry would be to determine what "the relevant state of knowledge” was?
50 - "there simple wasn't any consensus until the mid 1980s about the seriousness"
On what basis had he reached this view?
Had he considered that the seriousness of HCV was necessarily the only basis on which to determine if something “could clearly have been done differently" - For example, knowledge of HBV transmission and the foreseeability of future, deadlier, viruses being present in untreated pooled plasma products?
50 - Can we refer him to the below section of the evidence of Peter Foster (transcript p102) and ask, was he aware of the situation with Albumin? And, would he agree an Inquiry could determine what efforts were made in Scotland between to find an appropriate stabiliser for Factor VIII?
SIR BRIAN LANGSTAFF: Just before we do that, can I ask this: when albumin was first heat treated was, I think, back in the very early '50s, maybe late '40s; am I right? A. 1945. SIR BRIAN LANGSTAFF: When it was first heat treated, was it heat treated in the presence of a stabiliser? A. It was, yes. SIR BRIAN LANGSTAFF: So without the stabiliser, could it have been heat treated? A. No, it couldn't. SIR BRIAN LANGSTAFF: So it was known, at least with some proteins, that the presence of a stabiliser might be important. The question then was finding an appropriate stabiliser? A. That's correct.
51 - The “certain criteria” he speaks of, were those official criteria which were written down anywhere? Or was this just a general feeling?
55 - Does he accept, that if it is accepted that there may have been “conflicting expert opinion on the seriousness of Hepatitis C…” that continued use of untreated Factor products, known to be transmitting hepatitis, meant a decision to err on the side of risk?
57 - Was he aware the large-pool factor concentrates were virtually unused in Finland during the relevant period?
Additional
SCGV0000256_075
§4 - Had he considered “universal consensus” might not be the right test?
Would he agree that throughout this letter, he appears to be giving more weight to the optimistic views about Hepatitis C? Why?
§5 - Had he considered if “hepatitis could not be excluded” would have been the right wording?
Does he accept that his letter doesn’t appear to give any weight to the fact that in the 1980s, the known potential risks were not just various hepatitis viruses but also AIDS and that risks of AIDS also had to be considered alongside hepatitis?
"It is apparent that the Committee is poorly informed on this issue and our view is that past briefing provided by Committee clerks and parliamentary researchers has been inadequate" - Did he have concerns about that admission?
Had he considered this might mean the same in relation to information he had received on the prospects of a public inquiry / fault?
https://www.dropbox.com/s/yzc0ye2waht9kql/11-a.pdf?dl=0
The handwriting appears to be his, is that correct?
He felt that he hadn’t been provided with the full-range of / appropriate options?
