Dr Vanessa Martlew
The figures at Para 22 appear to be very significant. In relation to the “390 recipients followed up” can she please clarify…
It appears that over 60% of these recipients who were thought to be exposed to Hepatitis C did not have any active Hepatitis C infection?
Would she expect those kinds of rates to be common nationally?
Para 25 shows that encroaching on 50% of transfused patients had already died. Would she expect those kinds of rates to be common nationally?
Para 43 - How common knowledge was this within the RTC?
Para 54 - What would such an investigation consist of?
Para 88 - Can we ask her to look at this donor call-up card from 1967, and, can she advise if donor cards at the time she is talking about included such a warning about jaundice?
Link Removed
Para 89 - So twice a year?
Para 105 - Later at Para 717 she says a plasma donation was 500ml and SAG-M adds 100ml. So if done nationally, plasma yield is increased 20%? Was it done nationally?
How common was this practice across the country?
Para 129 - How common was it for centres to request Cryo?
What was the process for getting Cryo to them?
Para 236 - This was a national instruction?
Para 244 - Does she mean PFL or PFC? She seems to be confusing the two throughout.
Para 308 - To what extent does she recall Cryo being used at this time?
Para 448 - Would she agree with the principle that the right of a recipient to receive the safest (least risky) blood or blood product, should outweigh the right of donor to give blood? Because while one may stand to be offended, the other stands to die.
Para 580 - She says “20 - 30 bags” were used. But, if we take her to the paper linked below (in the Efficacy of Cryo section on Page 2) it says 2 - 10 bags were used. Further, if you look at the highlighted parts on Page 3, you will see that "In most cases single doses...proved sufficient". Can she explain the conflict?
Link Removed
There is also a conflict with her characterisation of ease of prep
Para 596 - What HT products were available in Jan 1984? Who were they given to?
If so, why were non-HT also used?
Para 610 - When she says “readily transmissible” can we clarify the context she means? Assume she means vaginal intercourse, but did the thinking factor in other, more risky sexual practices, long established with Hepatitis B?
Para 739 - Was it assumed that those who had died (final 2 sentences) would not have died as a result of HCV?
Para 942 - In light of this, what consideration was given to Section 35a of the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953?
Para 1044 - 1046 - Mothers aside, the widow element is presumptive of there being a partner at the time of death. What consideration was given to other family structures?
