13 October 2022: Tedder - A

Professor Tedder’s name comes with a lengthy attachment of significant past roles, including Honorary Consultancies, Headships of Departments, and the like, with specialisms which included microbiology and virology. Maybe he grew into those interests from small beginnings, or maybe it was in the blood. Prof Tedder is also one of those relatively rare beasts whose evidence was to be heard for more than one day. However, past experience has taught that it may be a stretch to hope he had a lot to say (or recall) as opposed to having more to not admit to. Originally, this witness was not due to appear at the Inquiry in person but on screen. However, cometh the late hour, cometh the man (in the flesh … errr). Some core participants have looked forward to this witnesses’ evidence in the hope of there being a big revelation or three (with the possibility of the looming meeting with his Maker influencing a potential motivation to make his peace, albeit belatedly). Others had managed their own expectations downwards to protect their mental health (and the integrity of whatever screen they were watching on). Who will win the battle between optimism and pessimism?, … you decide.

He walked into the hearing room to take his seat and the words slight, gaunt, and fragile came to mind. The Chair gave the usual introduction with the somewhat sponneristic-slip of describing the viewing audience as being on “YouStream” (and presumably “LiveTube” as well). The witness chose to stand to make his affirmation.

Before beginning, he wanted to say a few words about his views on viruses generally, and in particular to acknowledge the damage caused to those connected to the Inquiry by particular viruses.

The witness started as a zoologist and would come home too often smelling of mouse urine. He then shifted to being a medical virologist and physician; almost by accident, apparently. Some of his CV included references to surgery. He held various Professorships in hospital and academic circles and he was part of, or he lead, some key bodies such as blood-borne virus units, as well as various expert and advisory groups, and more. He gave evidence to the Penrose Inquiry, the Archer Inquiry, and he was a witness on behalf of infected people as part of US litigation. Much of his day-to-day work was in and around North London.

Counsel initiated questions on the topic of viruses and in particular the use of electron microscopes in identifying viruses. Having to work with stool samples harked back a wee bit to the previous rodent work. The questions began to focus in on Hepatitis B virus (HBV). The seriousness of HBV was being recognised in the 1970s. The more blood exposure people faced, the greater the risk of infection. There was also the growing awareness of a greater prevalence among gay men.

There was a sense of Professor Tedder assuming the role of a tutor leading a group; certainly by the way the witness was sitting. His elbows were gently rested on the arms of the chair with his hands resting on his bearded chin, often with fingers pointing upwards, spire-like, or gently stroking the facial hair. This refined pose was interspersed with gesticulated pedagogy. The evidence became increasingly technical as sections of the witnesses’ statement were questioned as Counsel has been requested to do. In trying to explain what even the Professor himself described as complicated, he went to Lewis Carrol to provide an analogy. (This writer would helpfully insert a couple of Lewis Carroll quotes, not chosen for any particular reason. Firstly, "It would be so nice if something made sense for a change." And secondly, "No one does [play fair] if they think they can get away with it.")

There was then a shift to non-A, non-B Hepatitis (NANB-Hep). Professor Tedder continued his mini-tutorial lecture with more similes and descriptive forays. Basically, just like it was possible for HBV to ultimately kill the patient, so could NANB-Hep have such drastic results under some conditions. The witnesses’ work with a Dr Dane included the need to “know your donors”, particularly when the issue of obtaining blood from prisoners was an issue. Prisoners were a particular cohort who were knowable in some ways, but you could not know nearly enough about the behaviours and historical background of people who end up in prison. During the 1970s and early 1980s, there was significant growing concern about blood-borne viruses coming from high-risk groups such as prisoners, including UK prisoners. The witness confirmed that the views on this subject were being propagated more widely back then. Specifically, the recommendation was being made to keep people on Cryoprecipitate while there was a risk of factor concentrate contamination. In those times there would be the occasional need to use concentrates, such as when bleeding was life-threatening, and Cryoprecipitate was not sufficient to stem the blood loss. But this was the exception since the infection risk was otherwise the main need to mitigate for.

Continuing the journey through relevant viral infections, the next viral villain was HTLV-III. Screening was needed to stop the virus passing from mother to child. Interestingly, that screening no longer happens. After asking permission, Prof Tedder used his hands and arms to help explain the work to test for these viruses. (The tutor group was going well … if you were a PhD student). Naturally, there was a progression to AIDS as the topic. The comfort zone of expert witnessivity shifted the presentation from fragility to almost foppishness; enhanced by the waistcoat wearer also having a lanyard with “Staff” emblazon along it. The point about knowing your donors, or rather not knowing them even as a captive audience (i.e. prisoners) was illustrated by a document which included reports of men going into prison as confirmed heterosexuals but not maintaining that orientation in the prison community. The Chair intervened to clarify the emerging knowledge around AIDS and the time-stamps attached to the knowledge, including how it also contributed to the witnesses’ thinking on viral Hepatitis.

Prof Tedder was next asked to explain what a retrovirus was. He apologised in anticipation of having to go into another gesticulative journey. That included him seeping back to the foundational DNA to make use of its reproducing mechanism which is so essential to a virus. Mention was made of a public fallout with Dr Gallo, a leading speaker at an international conference. They would later become “drinking companions” (oh, the irony).