11 May 2022: Rejman - C

Despite the approval of screening tests for export, there were concerns about the possibility of false negatives and false positive with otherwise untried screening tests. Under consideration were Chiron and Ortho tests. The inadequate sensitivity or specificity of the tests was noted as significant, including on the basis of advice from Prof Zuckerman and others. Dr Rejman’s input was qualified by the fact he is not a virologist. Dr Boulton advocated for tests being applied as soon as possible, not necessarily based on the “science” or efficacy, but on the recognition that the overwhelming evidence of people being infected by blood would justify screening to reduce infections. Dr Rejman went on a rant against Boulton, including mentioning how his report on the relevant meeting was more detailed that Dr Boulton’s. The Chair initiated a brief debate on the logic involved in rejecting Boulton’s assertions. The witness would not accede to the key proposal that screening, albeit not without limitations, would nevertheless result in reducing infections.

Dr Rejman seems extremely loyal to the decisions of the experts – among whom he held no sway, of course – and in particular to their decisions to resist implementing screening tests. What happened to his tried and tested defence of, “It wasn’t me, I was just sitting quiet with no vote and no say”? It rather feels like he is defending “his baby”. So, which is it?

References to other countries which introduced screening sooner appeared to hold no significance to Dr Rejman. The DH experts did not recommend initiating testing, and that was that. For him, the needs of the potential infectees needed to be balanced against the needs of donors. Due to the false positives, screening might have falsely labelled donors as exposed as a risk of viral hepatitis. The DH knew that such a designation would unacceptably affect many areas of their life, such as access to insurance. They would need to be offered counselling, too. That’s an interesting one, since those who were caught up in the Contaminated Blood Scandal were almost all not offered counselling. So, it seems it is alright to use counselling as an argument in one setting, but to neglect it when it is really needed. Plus, they have acknowledged all those other detriments to those who really were infected – but we were not the precious donors, so it didn’t matter.

Over the course of this line of questioning, Dr Rejman’s voice got increasingly loud and higher in pitch. Counsel reflected back to the witness his apparent passion in defending the decision not to test. He was asked directly about him possibly having a personal investment in this issue. When Dr Rejman answered “No”, there was a wave of subdued but audible sniggering incredulity. What a bare-faced piece of work he is. But of course, it was all down to the experts. Dr Rejman had no view either way. Yeah right, and that smell is someone’s underwear in flames.

While the Committee (those experts) were resisting screening, other documents, including those at a high level within the DH, were seeking to impress on Ministers the importance of moving towards screening. The witness was asked to try to explain the anomaly. If Dr Rejman says, “To be honest, I can’t remember,” one more time, some folks in the room may not be held responsible for their actions. Asked about his personal opinion on the situation of apparent delay, it required the intervention of the Chair to stop Dr Rejman continuing with his emphasis on referring to what other people were saying. He himself, didn’t have a view. (A pig has just flown past the window. What a coincidence.)

Dr Rejman was introduced to a document where he got an agreement to delete a sentence. He tried to explain it as irrelevant to what was, according to him, a scientific document. Jenni reminded the witness of what he had previously said the document was for, which quickly became a “gotcha moment. The big grin was not enough to hide the squirm.

Returning to the comparison with other countries, when Dr Rejman was asked if there was too much emphasis on the needs of donors over the needs of patients, again he denied the obvious. This guy needs counselling and a regular truth serum prescription. Dr Rejman then thought nothing of rubbishing the entire medical establishment of all those other countries. Maybe he should be screened for chronic jingoism too. He noted the apparent inadequacy of these other countries having testing arrangements but not telling blood donors when they produce a sample that is tested as positive (falsely or not). Yet the fact that the same superior (complex) UK NHS, while slagging off these other countries which must not be as good or developed as Little England, thought nothing of not telling those people it had actually infected – for weeks, months and even years – never struck the witness as ironic. In the interim, they/we could have – and sometimes did – infect partners, have to give up jobs, dispose of businesses, divest homes, become renters, and all the other detriments caused.

One the back of one relevant document, was there not a duty of care, he was asked. The answer was given that those saying such things were not in a position to say it. In seeking to clarify the changing of the reasoning aspect, Dr Rejman comes out with the classic diversionary tactic of replying, “The real question is …” How stupid does he think we are? Oh wait, he’s a government haematologist, so arrogance comes naturally.

And so, on to the prospect of providing financial support to people infected with Hepatitis C. From his time in post, Dr Rejman confirmed the Government position at the time not to provide support. In confirming this, he stated it was not a decision for him since it was not a medical matter. It was a matter for others to assess the “advantages or disadvantages of having some sort of scheme” which would be reviewed from time to time to assess if it was sustainable in the face of public opinion. They say politics is the “art of the possible”. It appears sometimes it is a case of “what can we get away with.”

(There was then an enforced break on behalf of the stenographers.)