Contaminated Blood: History of Peter Longstaff’s legal challenge to the controversial 1991 HIV haemophilia litigation

Peter Longstaff (deceased) and wife Carol Grayson who began their legal fight to challenge the 1991 HIV haemophilia litigation and hepatitis “undertaking” in 1994

On World AIDS Day I have published an article in memory of all the members of the haemophilia community infected with HIV and hepatitis C through blood and blood products who died without ever receiving justice despite their long and hard efforts to litigate for their infections during the 1980s which ended in an inadequate out of court “ex- gratia” payment in 1991. This payment did not take into account loss and need in the legal sense as should have happened with a proper compensation claim. For over 2 decades the conditions of this settlement itself have been challenged by those who survived and their relatives after many documents were unearthed several years after the 1991 litigation showing that key evidence was never shared with litigants. This is the history of the very first legal challenge post 1991 settlement.

Peter Longstaff who died in 2005 was the first HIV positive haemophiliac to begin a legal fight challenging the original 1991 HIV settlement from the Department of Health as far back as 1994 alleging key evidence was withheld from haemophiliacs and their families including by their own lawyers. Haemophiliacs who suffer from an inherited bleeding disorder where the blood does not clot properly became infected with HIV and hepatitis viruses following treatment with factor concentrates often made from plasma sourced from US prisoners and “skid-row” donors who unlike volunteer donors in the UK were paid for their blood.

Grayson and Longstaff set up their Campaign group Haemophilia North in 1994 later changed to Haemophilia Action UK to reflect the ever wider remit as haemophiliacs from all over the UK approached them for support and advice.

Longstaff was also the first to obtain legal aid to challenge a controversial hepatitis “undertaking” (sometimes known as the waiver or contract) in the 1991 HIV settlement which meant haemophiliacs were unable to litigate for infection with an additional virus, hepatitis C. Haemophiliacs were made to sign away their rights not knowing they were already infected and did not know at the time of signing that many had been secretly tested for hepatitis C and positive test results withheld sometimes for years. The undertaking read,

This DEED of undertaking is made the xxxxxxxxx day of xxxxxxx
1991 by xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx of xxxxxxxxxxxxxX.

In expectation of receiving from the Macfarlane (Special
payments) (No.2) Trust the sum of Exxxxx I undertake with the
Secretary of State for Health that I will not at any time
hereafter bring any proceedings against the Department of
Health, the Welsh office, the Licensing Authority under the
Medicines act 1968, the Committee on Safety of Medicines, any
district or regional health authority or any other Government
body involving any allegations concerning the spread of the
Human immuno-deficiency virus or hepatitis viruses through
Factor VIII or Factor IX whether cryoprecipitate or
Factor 9 concentrate administered before 13th December 1990.

(Then the signature of the person and a witness)

A copy of this appears in the Appendix of my 2006 dissertation on page 55

https://haemophilia.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/ANNEX-A-CHRONOLOGY-OF-EVENTS.pdf

In a reply to a letter sent to the Department of Health by Longstaff’s wife Carol Grayson questioning the hepatitis undertaking in 1996, a Department of Health minister John Horam writes, “I enclose as requested, a copy of the reply sent to Mrs Grayson by an official on behalf of the Secretary of State. That reply sets out the Government’s position  which has also been explained in recent debates in the House.” The letter goes on to say,

“although it is correct that more information on the natural history of hepatitis C is becoming available at the time of the HIV haemophilia settlement it was known that in some cases non-A non-B hepatitis, as hepatitis C was then known, could lead to serious liver disease and some deaths had already occurred in UK haemophilia patients.

It is true that haemophilia patients infected with HIV, who accepted payment  under the Government’s scheme, were required to give an undertaking not to bring any proceedings at any time against the Health Departments, health authorities or any other body involving any allegations about matters of policy or operational concerns concerning the spread of HIV or hepatitis viruses through blood or blood products.”

The letter also discussed trials of first and second generation “anti-hepatitis C tests” from 1989 and advice given at the time not to introduce a test until 1991 due to too many false positive results. Grayson and Longstaff also repeatedly challenged this decision as other European countries used the earlier test introducing it in 1989 preferring to “err on the side of caution” with regard to safety in testing donor blood even if it meant destroying some blood which had given a false positive result. There is evidence however that some haemophiliacs were used to test out the first tests from 1989 and in some cases results may have been withheld.

There was a delay in replying to Grayson as Horam claimed he had not received her original letter so the couple’s MP Jim Cousins submitted it for a second time. This was the first of many letters sent by Grayson which were “lost” by the Department of Health. This included numerous correspondence on the undertaking over 2 decades.

In 2000, in a letter published in the British Medical Journal, Grayson wrote,

  1. We are NOW aware of the reason why a hepatitis waiver was included in an HIV ex-gratia payment, an attempt to silence haemophiliacs and prevent future litigation should a haemophiliac survive Aids.
  2. We are aware that many haemophiliacs were misinformed both by the Department Of Health and haematologists with regard to the hepatitis C virus in 1991 being told “it was nothing to worry about” and “less of a problem than hepatitis A or B,” despite hundreds of articles /research papers, books, stating a very different picture.
  3. We are aware that many haemophiliacs were not even tested for the hepatitis C virus until 1994 despite accurate tests being available at a much earlier date.
  4. We are aware that haemophiliacs are frequently told by haematologists that the “benefits of treatment outweighed the risks.” In Newcastle alone out of 105 patients tested for HIV, 95 tested positive, 77 are now dead, 95% of those surviving haemophiliacs have hepatitis C usually in addition to hepatitis B. Very successful treatment!!!

https://www.bmj.com/rapid-response/2011/10/28/tainted-blood

One of the lawyers acting for haemophiliacs in the 1991 HIV litigation told the Newcastle Journal that the undertaking had been included so government could avoid paying out for a second virus but didn’t explain why legal firms had not discussed hepatitis C infection with their clients at the time and the implications of signing this agreement.

Grayson and Longstaff went on to obtain both a legal opinion on the undertaking from a former Head of the Bar Association and an opinion on the knowledge of hepatitis C at the time of signing from a top Professor studying blood coagulation and hepatitis in haemophiliacs. These opinions were based on documents from the 1991 HIV litigation which Grayson and Longstaff discovered and accessed in later years.

Once government was informed that the hepatitis undertaking would not stand and could not be “informed consent” the Department of Health swiftly devised the woefully inadequate Skipton fund financial scheme aided by a Hepatitis Working Group who submitted their proposals to government. That group included the couples own QC who only told them AFTER this was established and that he was working with the Haemophilia Society. This was hugely problematic as Grayson and Longstaff had already pointed out that the Society at that time was receiving money both from US pharmaceutical companies named in litigation and government and was perceived as having a “conflict of interest”. In the US their equivilent of the Haemophilia Society was actually named as the 5th defendent in legal cases along with the pharma companies supplying factor concentrates.

Haemophiliacs rebelled against the Society and had to campaign on their own for an entire year on hepatitis C before the Society finally launched its weak campaign for justice in 1995…. but only for haemophiliacs with hepatitis C and not haemophiliacs with HIV who also had hepatitis C. This created huge divisions within the haemophilia community tearing families apart in some cases, families that to this day do not speak to each other. The Society had also played down the dangers of hepatitis C in their own minutes in the early 90s telling a designated group that was set to investigate hepatitis C to step down as it was “nothing to worry about” and those infected were often termed the “worried well”.

The Haemophilia Society finally released an unreserved apology in 2017 through Jeff Courtney a new member of staff not implicated in past mistakes. He did so after being approached by Grayson and her campaign colleague Colette Wintle who talked him through the background history so he was able to do this. He later e-mailed thanking them for their help. This move was an attempt to separate the past action or inaction of the Society from the present. The apology can be read here,

https://haemophilia.org.uk/2017/03/28/statement-board-trustees-haemophilia-society-contaminated-blood/

The astonishing move by the couple’s legal representative to work on a financial proposal for hepatitis C (which became the Skipton Fund) had the effect of blocking haemophiliacs going to court for compensation for Hepatitis C, a move strongly criticized by Grayson and Longstaff who raised the issue of “conflict of interest” directly with their QC at the time.

The whole reason for challenging the undertaking and seeking legal and medical opinions in the first place was to get to court to challenge the original 1991 settlement and undertaking to fight for proper compensation which to this day has been denied to haemophiliacs for both HIV and hepatitis C. Grayson and Longstaff were informed at that time that it would cost more for haemophiliacs to launch a legal challenge than they would win quoting “cost benefits analysis”. This would be an obstacle that any further challenge by haemophiliacs would have to overcome and if that happened then serious questions would be raised over the original advice given to Grayson and Longstaff in their much earlier attempt at litigation. Cost benefits analysis was based on amounts haemophiliacs received for HIV through the ex-gratia payment scheme.

It must be noted that the government were weeks away from having to go to court with all their documents when they decided to make an out of court “ex-gratia” payment to haemophiliacs for HIV in 1991. By lawyers for haemophiliacs agreeing to this settlement it quashed any opportunity for haemophiliacs to show alleged negligence and failures in duty of care leading to infection. What haemophiliacs were never told at the time was that the very last opinion the night before signing the undertaking was that all the evidence had not been considered by all the lawyers who were only just realizing the implications of some of the documents and that haemophiliacs chances on winning related to imported treatment had “significantly increased”. A solicitor’s note seen by the couple and their (then) legal representative Denis Whalley read, “I can no longer lie to my clients” a copy of which was submitted to the Archer Inquiry. (Whalley was later struck off by a Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal after being found guilty of conduct unbefitting a solicitor) see following article,

https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/local-news/dennis-whalley-blundellsands-who-siphoned-6973420

We do not know what has happened to many of the documents that witnesses submitted to the Archer Inquiry despite repeated efforts to locate them through Vijay Mehan, the Secretary to the Inquiry. Had haemophiliacs been given key information pertaining to the original HIV settlement and the dangers of hepatitis C at the time of the signing of the Undertaking they would have had to seriously consider whether or not to take the ex-gratia payments. Litigants were under great pressure to sign being told most did not have long to live and if all did not sign, no-one would receive a payment.

The hepatitis waiver appeared to also have the additional impact of preventing haemophiliacs with hepatitis C but without HIV getting to court. One haemophiliac with hepatitis C named Peter Mossman had a legal case going for many years but finally had his legal aid withdrawn. Grayson assisted him and his lawyers but both grew concerned after the case appeared to be blocked. Mossman has now been told several years later in writing he now has a good chance of winning his case after another group of solicitors took over from the a previous firm and reviewed the evidence with fresh eyes. So why were 6 firms of solicitors previously unable to progress Mossman’s case?

In 2006 Grayson wrote her research dissertation on contaminated blood challenging government’s so called “definitive” report on contaminated blood entitled, DOH Self-Sufficiency in Blood Products in England and Wales: A Chronology from 1973 to 1991. Grayson was awarded the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) Michael Young award. The dissertation included reference to their challenge on the hepatitis undertaking which was also highlighted in the British Medical Journal and the award winning Newcastle Journal “Bad Blood” campaign and other media as well as witness testimony to the Archer Inquiry. In her 2006 dissertation Grayson wrote,

In 1991 Justice Ognal the presiding judge in the HIV litigation had advised that the Government must submit all their blood policy documents to be viewed in court. On hearing this opinion and after years of legal wrangle the Government decided to settle claims out of court providing haemophiliacs with an “ex-gratia” payment and avoided any embarrassment of having potentially damaging documents revealed to the general public. Much of this evidence which was excluded from the SSR (Self Sufficency Report) and went unseen by haemophiliacs for many.years was recalled by the Government in recent months and they have now decided which papers to release to the public and which documents they wish to withhold on commercial grounds under the FOI Act. This goes against the Government statement that all the evidence pertaining to the infection of haemophiliacs is already inthe public domain.

As Margaret Unwin of the Haemophilia Society is keen to point out,

“The Government has already admitted that it has shredded many of the documents that refer to the time period in question, but that still doesn’t explain the strange assortment of references they have made in the report- ranging from clinical journals to the Sun Newspaper. (She goes on to say) This document is greatly flawed and has, I believe been produced to deflect the call for a wide-ranging public inquiry into the whole issue. The report has been produced internally, informally and very poorly by the Department of Health. It is not public, not an inquiry and merely reflects the
views of the Department itself.” (Haemophilia Society Website, 26″h Feb, 2006)

In my dissertation I also highlighted the following,

In 2002 as part of a legal challenge to Government I requested a chronology of the history of NANB hepatitis from a medical expert in order that my husband Peter Longstaff could challenge a “hepatitis waiver” that appeared in the 1991 HIV litigation (see section Testing For HIV And Hepatitis C: Delays, Devious Deals And Dangerous Practice). Professor Eric Preston a specialist in liver disease who is well respected for his research into hepatitis in haemophilia patients provided a report for Queens Council
(QC). When the SSR (Self-Sufficiency Report) was published in 2006 1 was able to compare Preston’s findings to those in the SSR and discovered several discrepancies. The Government report fails to recognize the seriousness of NANB hepatitis until 1982/83 yet Preston reported for
Queens Council that back in 1978,

“Even at that time, our patients exhibited a wide spectrum of chronic liver disease, including hepatic cirrhosis. We expressed the view that the chronic liver disease was attributable to non-A, non-B hepatitis. We concluded that histological liver disease is common in haemophiliac patients and is probably related to clotting factor concentrate replacement therapy.”

Since then I have discovered evidence that pre-dates Preston’s findings.

Copies of key government documents that Grayson discovered and accessed for her dissertation (and which the government claimed to have destroyed) were eventually returned to the Dept of Health in 2006 on Grayson’s instruction to solicitor Paul Saxon of Blackett, Hart and Pratt (documented in Hansard) and released in batches on the DOH website. During changes to the website, these documents were transferred to the National Archives at Kew for access by the public and are now widely used by other campaigners though often unreferenced. Grayson has returned several batches of documents over the years (which will come under different reference categories) in addition to those in 2006.

On 24th February 2009 the Newcastle Journal stated,

“THE Bad Blood campaign was launched by The Journal in 2000.

We teamed up with Haemophilia Action UK, to demand a public inquiry into how and why contaminated blood products were allowed into Britain, a mistake which led to the deaths of 78 haemophiliacs in the North-East.

Peter Longstaff, of Jesmond, Newcastle, won legal aid to fight a controversial waiver from the Department of Health which he signed in 1991”

 http://www.thejournal.co.uk/news/north-east-news/journals-bad-blood-campaign-praised-4488562

The DOH report was finally disgraced and withdrawn in 2017 using Grayson’s evidence. Government used this extremely flawed report as a tool to both deny compensation to haemophiliacs and support recent scrapping of Trusts and transfer of payments to haemophiliacs over to English Infected Blood Support Scheme (EIBBS). Grayson has written to the Department of Health asking for reconsideration of all decisions made using the withdrawn report but so far government have declined to act.

Grayson will give evidence and produce the relevant documents regarding this episode in contaminated blood history at the Infected Blood Inquiry into how haemophiliacs became infected with HIV and hepatitis viruses following treatment with factor concentrates. Some haemophiliacs also infected other family members before knowing their positive test results.

Collins Law solicitors and client Jason Evans (son of a haemophiliac) are attempting to make a further legal challenge launched in July 2017 (24 years after the first challenge) using the same legal arguments as their predecessors Grayson and Longstaff according to press releases and recent media. Collins repeat the arguement stating, “at the time of the settlement, the Government effectively decided not to be transparent and it withheld documents that could (and should) have been made available to the victims”. Yes this happened and new evidence is still coming to light as government release documents under the 30 year rule that were previously withheld. However Collins Law fails to also highlight that lawyers FOR haemophiliacs received many key documents from government during “disclosure” which THEY failed to discuss with their clients and were not seen until years AFTER the 1991 settlement.

Government again withheld key documents from the 2006 DOH Self Sufficiency Report as Grayson showed clearly in her dissertation and Lord Warner championed a misleading narrative to block the recommendations of Lord Archer including “compensation on a parity with Eire” by falsely claiming Eire paid out on legal liability. This was not true as Grayson showed using documents obtained from Ireland in 2004 by Grayson and  her colleague Colette Wintle. Eire paid on on the grounds of “loss and need” at court compensation levels for “extraordinary suffering” BUT without going to court or admitting legal liability. These documents were later used to win a Judicial Review by Andrew March in 2010 but the government still failed to compensate changing the goalposts yet again.

The Collins Law case was “stayed” this week until more evidence can be heard from those infected and affected at the Infected Blood Inquiry. Collins Law reported that “as part of the stay, the deadline for registration to join the Contaminated Blood Products Legal Action has been extended to 31st May 2019.”

Confusion arose with some media incorrectly reporting this action as if it was the first challenge to the 1991 HIV litigation and failing to provide balanced articles detailing the long history of Longstaff and Grayson’s challenge to this controversial settlement.

Sophie Borland of the Daily Mail rehashed a story much of which is 24 years old incorrectly portraying it in a headline as “New Tainted Blood Scandal”. She refers to the hepatitis undertaking writing about the contract stating,

“Victims of the contaminated blood scandal were persuaded to sign away their legal rights without knowing they had a second deadly condition, the Daily Mail can reveal.

More than 1,200 patients who had been infected with HIV were forced to sign a contract with government officials promising to drop all legal action.

After they signed, they were told they had also been infected with hepatitis C.

The contracts were signed in 1991 and victims were each paid a cash sum of about £24,000, depending on their age, marital status and whether they had children.

The Department of Health was aware in 1989 that the patients had hepatitis C – which causes severe liver damage – but didn’t tell them until after the contracts had been signed. Patients with both HIV and hepatitis C tend to die much more quickly than those with just one of the viruses.”

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6300933/Patients-infected-HIV-paid-24-000-sign-away-rights-sue.html

Borland visited Grayson recently in the presence of her lawyer Ben Harrison of Milners Law firm in Leeds and admitted this was clearly not new and was shown the 1996 John Horam letter (one of many on the undertaking) and told the history of the legal challenge but the Daily Mail has yet to issue an apology and correction. Government lawyer and lawyers for haemophiliacs were aware from documents in the 1991 litigation that some UK haemophiliacs had died from non- A, non -B (hepatitis C) as far back as the 1970s (not only 1989 as Borland states) but did not tell them. At that time if a haemophiliac tested negative for hepatitis A and B then the hepatitis deaths were put down to non-A, non- B hepatitis. Borland refers only to the single person’s payment of £24,000 and not the married person’s payment. She also includes reference to the undertaking.

Over the years Grayson has repeated alleged that her research, ideas and work are constantly being plagiarized without reference to original documents such as her dissertation and other writing of which she has copyright. The following P.org article looks at the definition of “plagiarism”.

Quote,

According to the Merriam-Webster online dictionary, to “plagiarize” means:

  • to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one’s own
  • to use (another’s production) without crediting the source
  • to commit literary theft
  • to present as new and original an idea or product derived from an existing source

See following link,

https://www.plagiarism.org/article/what-is-plagiarism

This is not only disrespectful to a person that has campaigned for justice for many years for the haemophilia community and to the deceased who fought so hard for justice but can have serious legal consequences when Timelines are changed and old evidence is passed off as “new” or  “newly discovered” as it colludes with those that abused the haemophilia community and aids them in denying wrongdoing.

Carol Anne Grayson is an independent writer/researcher on global health/human rights/WOT and is Executive Producer of the Oscar nominated, Incident in New Baghdad. She is a former Registered Mental Nurse with a Masters in Gender Culture and Development (Distinction). Carol was awarded the ESRC, Michael Young Prize for Research 2009, and the COTT ‘Action = Life’ Human Rights Award’ for “upholding truth and justice”. She is also a survivor of US “collateral damage”.

About Carol Anne Grayson

Blogging for Humanity.... Campaigner/researcher global health/human rights/drones/WOT/insurgency http://www.esrc.ac.uk/ESRCInfoCentre/PO/experts/Health_and_Wellbeing.aspx Exec Producer of Oscar nominated documentary Incident in New Baghdad, currently filming on drones.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Contaminated Blood: History of Peter Longstaff’s legal challenge to the controversial 1991 HIV haemophilia litigation

  1. Colette Wintle says:

    This posting is a truthful and full account of what has occurred since 1994 outlining the shocking behaviour by governments past and present towards one of the most vulnerable patient groups in the NHS. Long standing campaigners like Carol who have the lived experience of over twenty years .of researching, caring for her late husband and battling the worst cover-up in the history of the NHS, have also had to deal with misogynists and plagiarists within our own community. What is most disturbing is the knowledge that not only did successive governments deliberately block every route to justice, but the legal profession, our own society and incorrect media narratives have contrived to prevent an honest account of reporting and exposing this scandal. Having worked with and supported Carol and Peter Mossman ( Manor House Group) in their endeavours to get the truth in the public domain, it appals me that it has taken until 2017 to finally have the Haemophilia Society apologise and admit their failure to act against government and support their members who have (unlike haemophiliacs in Eire), worked tirelessly for years for a public inquiry unsupported and frankly abandoned by everyone who had the capability of fighting for justice. It is now incumbent upon the official Inquiry Team to ensure that Carol and fellow long standing campaigners who possess the most knowledge are recognised and given every opportunity to share their expertise and experience of “the worst treatment disaster in the history of the NHS” a phrase coined by Lord Robert Winston Ex- Vice President of the Haemophilia Society in relation to the haemophilia community.

    • Colette, thank-you as always for your long -standing support and Peter Mossman too. There is a certain irony that many haemophiliacs particularly new campaigners that are recipients of what was Skipton Fund are not aware of what was going on behind the scenes. You will recall the mad scrabble by some to protect both the Haemophilia Society and our former lawyers as well as government, once they knew the undertaking my husband Peter had signed in the 1991 HIV litigation (also known as waiver, contract) could not be “informed consent”. The suggested package leading to Skipton came together very quickly. It certainly was not what we wanted or were fighting for as we wanted “loss and need” to be recognized and proper compensation to be given for ALL viruses. We were furious at the time and deeply disappointed as once again government, former lawyers and the Haemophilia Society plus the doctors on the payroll of the US pharmas were protected.

      As you know Pete and I initiated the fight for “compensation on a parity with Eire” in the 1990s and took it to the Haemophilia Society as well as lawyers. This was recognized by Lord Archer of Sandwell who looked at the evidence during the Inquiry, listened and echoed my recommendations. Sadly that was blocked by the false narrative of Lord Warner and that grave injustice has not been rectified to this day despite the winning of the 2010 judicial review based on our documents from 2004 which were shared along with many others with haemophiliac Andrew March. Indeed you will remember he recommended me in writing to assist him and his lawyers which of course I did for months on end.

      However much some may criticise if we had not shown with the legal opinion that the undertaking/waiver/contract would not stand, haemophiliacs would not have had even Skipton and so many have used that as a tool to get better payments over the years. They have my late husband Peter to thank for that, I never cease to be amazed at what he accomplished given how ill he was getting further payments for haemophiliacs with both HIV and hepatitis C and also taking a case to the US which he opened up to others. I didn’t see any haemophiliac or widow turning down Skipton and incredibly whole blood cases were able to jump on the back of the undertaking, not quite sure how that happened as of course it was only part of the haemophilia HIV legal cases!

      In the early days of course many haemophiliacs and their families hid and did not have the courage to go public, only a very small number within our community kept it going for 3 decades. We all knew each other when we met at Westminster and support week-ends. I recall when you lived in Kent I thought you were the only infected haemophiliac because no one could be found for interviews. It wasn’t much better up north. Haemophiliacs were so afraid to upset their doctors they would wait until we were in the hospital car park to ask us for information. The excellent journalist Louella Houldcroft with whom we ran the awarded “Bad Blood” campaign at the Journal kept asking for others to come forward for interview and it was so exhausting to be the front people all the time expecially when Pete was so ill. He gave his last interview at the hospice just before he died so others could keep their anonymity. He was very protective of others but how he suffered. My father in law died whilst campaigning as the stress, verbal attacks and daubing of the family home with hate slogans and loss of his younger son Stephen was too much for his heart!

      At the 11th hour so many have suddenly appeared, if only they have turned up to help before instead of leaving it to a handful. They have no idea of the struggle! Now we have modern technology, social media and much of the evidence is there now for the taking with a simple FOI request. Its a doddle compared to how campaigning used to be and the cost of our phone bills and stationary to send information out and constant trips to London for and elsewhere for decades to keep things going. We never received any financial assistance to campaign. I could understand some wanting to stay quiet to avoid the prejudice and abuse that we received in the early days but I didnt see them putting their hands in their pockets to assist with campaign costs either yet they all benefited from financial changes!

      The length of time we have campaigned shows in that so much of the media we did in the early days was hardcopy print and of course its quite difficult now to locate on the internet, thankfully we kept it all as proof of what we initiated… so the liars, plagiarists and misogynists will have to answer to that in time!

      Its great where new evidence is coming to light but so far all I keep seeing are our old documents, evidence and ideas rehashed. Why isn’t any new material being put into the media? I keep thinking that Lord Morris and Lord Archer alongside our loved ones will be turning in their graves at what is going on now. Their efforts against all odds whilst they were so ill should be recognized. Sadly Lord Archer did not have it in his Inquiry remit to find liability so he had to return our documents that showed alleged liability. However that certainly does not meant there is no liability in several directions!

      Yes its disturbing that Lord Winston’s quote on the haemophilia community was hijacked and that some are now trying to say Archer included whole blood cases and that whole blood came from the US perhaps a malicious attempt by some to muddy the waters? Archer Inquiry was brought about by Lord Morris using his contacts, (he was of course one time President of the Haemophilia Society) it was a platform for haemophiliacs to present some evidence at least (though sadly not that which showed liability).

    • Colette, I have also added your comment regarding misconceptions over Archer Inquiry which I agree with and hopefully those putting out incorrect information will now correct their statements….

      “There has been much incorrect media/press reporting which has caused confusion for people infected with whole blood who are now commenting on social media about an inquiry they were not part of. There is clearly a great misconception amongst the whole blood community with regards to the Archer Inquiry Report and who it relates to so please see below our response to a post on social media to correct those who are misunderstanding the opening title of the Inquiry report.

      Carol and I just need to correct you on your points regarding the “Archer Inquiry Report” The Archer Inquiry was initiated by Lord Alf Morris ex- President of the Haemophilia Society, in direct response to evidence given to him by haemophilia campaigners, using his parliamentary contacts. Lord Archer was a personal; friend of his, and agreed to conduct the inquiry on behalf of infected haemophiliacs and their families. “The others” whom you referred to in the title of the inquiry actually relates to infected partners and also haemophiliacs who had both blood concentrates and whole blood transfusions which incorporated all their treatment. No whole blood victims were involved in the inquiry other than Charles Gore who represented the Hepatitis C Trust and gave general advice to the haemophilia community in his capacity as CEO. The recommendations made by Lord Archer for haemophiliacs and their families echoed the recommendations given to him by appointed researcher Carol Grayson who worked very closely with the inquiry team throughout and shared her findings from her awarded dissertation. Carol and I are joint owners of the official Archer website which was legally transferred to us as the solicitor wanted to ensure it would be in the ownership of victims who testified and were actively involved in this inquiry. I hope this clears up any misunderstanding.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s