Professor Charles Hay

The questions below were submitted by Factor 8 ahead of Professor Charles Hay giving evidence to the Infected Blood Inquiry in November 2020.

43.1.1 - Would you accept HIV risk would have been reduced?

• 43.1.3 - Had already been done re Katherine Dormandy cryo home treatment and at other centres across the UK. Is he aware of this?

• 43.1.5 - He says tests for HTLV-III became available in late 1994 - this is certainly a mistake and should be 1984.

• 49.1 - He says going back to cryo would mean treatment became “hospital based”. What are the relative financial costs of cryo treatment in-hospital and concentrate treatment from home? In other words, what is the financial cost of a haemophilia patient taking up a bed?

• 53.3 - In relation to the dates he poses when differing companies started to investigate heat treatment. Is he aware that employees at Cutter worked on Factor IX heat-treatment in 1972? (So he is a decade out) and they did this specifically because it was known that heat killed hepatitis in Albumin. For evidence see the deposition of Shohachi Wada, specifically deposition pages 65 & 66 - *link removed*

  • Is he aware of any such UK efforts taking place in 1972?

• 118.2 - Could you expand on the rationale of recording haemophilia on a death certificate where bleeding itself did not directly contribute to the death?

  • Could this be misleading?

• 182.6 - Could you elaborate on why those who had died from HIV were placed inside body bags?

• Does he think it is an acceptable situation that the UKHCDO (a private body) holds the data on the biggest treatment disaster in the NHS and not a public body, such as the department of health?

• Were the families of those exposed to vCJD, but who died before the notification letter exercise took place in the 2000’s, informed that the deceased was also exposed to vCJD?

  • Does he think this should have happened?

• Have you ever been asked to attend a meeting of the APPG on Haemophilia and Contaminated Blood and what was the outcome of any such request?

• Does he agree, as a matter of principle, that the UKHCDO should be subject to the Freedom of Information act?

• Given that GDPR came into effect on 25 May 2018, why did the obtaining of written consent not begin until 2019? (129.13)

  • Did UKHCDO report this time-lag to the ICO?

• When Factor 8 requested information about the recent lookback exercise, you felt it necessary to inform UKHCDO colleagues that “This gentleman routinely asks for copies of e-mails”, why was that? - https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ZYcD4tFEaEHpUMGKgb_gc5opaL5omokT/view?usp=sharing

• Page 5 right column of the following document (it is a study Charles Hay was involved in) is important because it shows 1) That head bleed deaths were not and have not been common and 2) That improved treatment does not really make a difference. Goes against the argument that if Factor was pulled across the board that everyone would have died from head bleeds (which is ridiculous). Relevant part starts “For deaths involving intracranial hemorrhage. there was little evidence that the mortality rate changed during the period studied” - https://www.dropbox.com/s/rq484g1ev1scw50/LIT0011263.PDF?dl=0

• In relation to a previous email I sent about dependent / independent chance... In a legal report, prepared by Charles Hay, he clearly sees the administration of Cryo as a dependent chance and outlines his thinking in detail providing calculations and a table (see p6&7 of the following linked doc). I think the Inquiry needs to examine these calculations and thinking as I believe they are flawed. - https://drive.google.com/file/d/1eCeoNl8trAwsc7HZAhjZ6SId6_HrOVMa/view?usp=sharing

  • Also in the above linked document. Ask Charlie - what does he mean by “"I don't want to offer Savidge any further fuel with which to create his usual smokescreen" (see p11)

• General UKHCDO questions for Charles:

  • Why doesn’t UKHCDO provide batch numbers on the data extracts sent to patients who request treatment records?

  • Have any pharmaceutical companies ever initiated, or indicated litigation against UKHCDO for releasing batch numbers to patients? (a patient tells me Lynne Dewhurst at UKHCDO told him this was so, no idea if it’s true)

  • Have pharmaceutical companies ever requested that UKHCDO does not provide batch numbers to patients?

  • Is a patient notified if their data, anonymised or not, is provided to a pharmaceutical company by UKHCDO?