Dr Robert Perry

DR ROBERT (BOB) PERRY - QUESTIONS SUBMITTED TO THE INFECTED BLOOD INQUIRY

-

• Answer 13 - There didn’t seem to be any mention of his involvement in Lindsay here or in the IBI Q’s? If so, his answer is not true. See here for example: https://www.factor8scandal.uk/campaign-history/2020/1/18/did-scottish-doctors-interfere-with-statements-during-the-irish-blood-inquiry

• If the inquiry does not have this email trail it can be provided. It was part of the material provided by SNBTS to Penrose.

• Does he take the view in this inquiry that: “we need to take steps to ensure there is no major conflict between our report of events (which will soon be in the public domain) and what Terry is planning to say”?

• P46 “I am not aware of or cannot recall any formal mechanisms being established by DHSS/SHHD or the Blood Services for formal cooperation concerning joint product development programmes. “ - Would this have been advantageous?

• P85 “which required a general understanding of hepatitis (NANB, HBV) and its relevance to the safety of immunoglobulin products” - Can he explain why such an understanding was required?

• P86 “At no point from 1981 to date did I achieve an 'expert' scientific or medical understanding of hepatitis” - Should a Quality Control inspector not have such expertise, eg being expert in a priority threat to the quality of the products being tasked to exercise quality control over? (See also P92)

• P88 - “should begin to address the challenge of producing non-infective (with respect to hepatitis) products” - So, at this time, PFC had not begun to address this challenge?

• P88 - “a prevailing view amongst haemophilia care providers and the fractionation industry that risks of infectivity were greatly outweighed by the benefits of increased treatment would not be sustainable in the longer term” - Why?

  • Why sustainable in the shorter term in this case?

• P89 - Why does it appear that PFC was dependent on Behringwerke having undertaken this work, whereas Behringwerke had undertaken the initiative earlier to explore how to make their product safe (as opposed to waiting around for someone else to do it)?

• P94 - “was an unacceptable state of affairs” - Why?

  • So, would it be right to say PFC issued “unacceptable” product, in his view at the time?

• P106 - “was afforded a very high priority by SNBTS” - What did that consist of in real terms?

• P106 “there remained concern, including internationally, that the modification of FVIII manufacturing processes to include steps for virus inactivation could lead to the development of inhibitors in recipient patients, leading to potentially catastrophic consequences” - What weight was given to this hypothetical theory, as opposed to the known real risk of hepatitis, which equally could lead to “catastrophic consequences”.

• P108 - What steps had PFC taken, prior to November 1984, to determine whether HTLV-III was heat labile?

  • Is this another example, like with Behringwerke, where PFC/BPL waited around for someone else in another country to find something out?

• P130 - Is it his understanding that HIV did not enter the blood supply (insofar as it relates to FVIII) in Scotland until late 1983?

• P286 - “not to have increased pool size and production capacity would have exposed patients to greater risks” - This is assuming the only alternative was commercial concentrate?

  • And not being a clinician he is not placed to make assumptions about individualised decisions relating to alternative treatment?

• P322 - P327 - Is it right that it is his understanding that from first experiment to a product ready for clinical use took less than 2 years?

  • And this was with no completely dedicated resources?

• P340 - “It is highly unlikely that these actions could have been taken more quickly or at an earlier date.” - Does he accept that if PFC had made determined attempts in the 1970s to stablise FVIII against heat and/or had made its own determined attempts to determine if HLTV-III/LAV was heat labile, this could have happened more quickly?
  

  NON-WS Q’s

• Whose responsibility does he consider it was to determine whether or not AIDS/HTLV-III could be transmitted by PFC’s blood products circa 1983?

• To what extent would issues of viral infection/contamination of product fall under the auspices of “Quality Control”?