15 September 2022: Douglas (Susan) - B

Core participant additional questions:

On an article in the Lancet with authors including Peter Jones; she said she did not know of the particular article, but she knew the community was talking about his work. Given that he was doing this work, it begged the question from the witness why he was picking a fight with the paper. Counsel quoted a counter-attack on the way Jones was attacking the competence of the witness from the Editor. She felt it was a case of “shoot the messenger” and furthering the “climate of fear” about questioning the preferred narrative.

On Ken Clarke still talking about there being no evidence, five months after the article; she said the quote came from Mr Clarke himself.

On her speaking to the Haemophilia Society; she said she could not name one person she spoke with because it would have been a series of communications. She could not say if she told the Haemophilia Society that an alternative expert source who was a clinician – her original source – held a different expert opinion from the likes of Bloom who was advising the Society.

On the growing concern over blood being a route of infection transmission; she said it was known that there was a risk, but it seemed strange that the medical profession did not do more to explore and deal with the risk before it became such a problem.

On whether she researched UK supply as well as US blood; she said it seemed there was a shortfall in UK supply, so an imported source was needed. The witness did not seem to grasp the question fully. It seems she was aware of the UK supply generally but did not investigate the safety of that UK blood.

The Chair asked about when the witness started exploring the story before properly staring to work on writing it. The witness thought it was a background idea from early 1983 waiting for a trigger to justify taking it further. The big story was AIDS and clearly this linked to the less high-profile matter of Hepatitis viral risks. The 1983 start was very vague since it was often a matter of a “swirl of mood music” being around until a specific starting gun set something off on its own. The fact that there was a perceived problem with infections via blood but so little work on the subject was happening itself raised questions. Why was this apparently being ignored as an issue?

The Chair cited some smaller pieces from the Observer printed earlier and wondered why it took the Mail on Sunday get it to matter. The witness suggested that the bravery of the Mail on Sunday to “splash” it on the front cover and back it as it did was likely the key difference. If the Observer had made a bigger deal, it might have led the march. However, there might have been the factor of the different readerships between a Sunday tabloid and one of the heavies.

The Chair noted the suggestion of the witness not to tell people what to think but wondered how this related to the issue becoming a campaign. The witness said it was a process of standing up for people who were being harmed, or at least ill-considered. The newspaper wanted to raise the issue, ask questions, and expose what was being apparently hidden.

The witness mentioned how odd it felt to now be defending the truth. There were clearly vested interests involved, but we did not know all the facts. Has anything changed?, she asked, citing again the Covid vaccine issues, including some personal interest. There is a lack of transparency which the press seeks to expose. The Chair joined in by asking if the witness had a view on how to encourage candour and openness. She said it was a good question because despite the apparent increase in information, there were too many “echo-chambers” and lack of proper transparency. From the outset, there should be a better conversation between doctors and patients to help people make better decisions. She felt a Public Inquiry can help to enable that.

The Chair thanked the witness. It was the first time a journalistic perspective was featured in the Inquiry. The witness was concerned that a “don’t shoot the messenger” plea was needed. She recognised the power of the Inquiry to make significant things happen, such as interim payments, but there was still the issue of there never being enough money to make up for a loss of life.