13 October 2022: Tedder - C

The next session started with a question asking the witness to explain the difference between RIA and EIA assays. He said they were basically the same, but then his explanation went into gamma rays and colour changes. Then he was asked to explain his description of a test as a “one-step simultaneous competitive assay”. This produced a removal of his glasses, dipping of his head forward, rubbing his face and gently laughing. “This is where I need a board”, he said. Then, as he tried to boardlessly explain the answer with his arms raised and pointing to various bits of nearby space, he actually invited Counsel to step forward and participate in the visual demonstration. This caused not a few smiles. The invitation was politely declined. A document containing a table was displayed with the title “Antibody assay formats” which was full of symbols and scientific verbiage. Cue the Chair with an obviously informed question. He clearly had a handle on how to read scientific runes.

In starting to answer a supplementary question, Prof Tedder boldly invited Counsel to go back 30 years with him. It was then the turn of everyone else to smile. This writer believes a new TV gameshow was being piloted at the Inquiry. Because of the high-brow content and inherent politeness, the host will have to be Victoria Coren-Mitchell. The working title is “Who Wants to Be a Bon Viveur?”. At this point the Inquiry elves intervened to get proceedings back on a properly serious track. A brief break was called to fix a “technical issue” (yes, that old chestnut).

Prof Tedder returned with a veritable spring in his step. It turned his formerly downward demeanour into a rather dapper doddering. The questions dove right back into the lesson in lab-speak. The comprehension threshold was being pushed up against for most in the room, but it was still better than the former mouse musk toilet training. Better that was, until there was a detailed consideration of a Lancet research article which had Prof Tedder as a contributor. It included the testing of samples from people with Haemophilia. The witness could not say where these sample had come from but was sure they would have involved collaboration with the Haemophilia Centres. This line of questioning was all about the development of tests, which has been a big ticket issue for the Inquiry for some time. Counsel was clearly seeking to consolidate issues raised with previous witnesses, in particular whether tests were introduced as soon as possible. Prof Tedder seemed fully engaged with the questions, suggesting his complete thrall towards his chosen subject.

The witness seemed to have been welcomed into the inner circle of the UK Haemophilia Centre Directors Organisation (UKHCDO). He had something they needed – a reliable test protocol. He described the discovery of the impact of viral infections as devastating to patients and their families. He was very happy to make these comments while catching the eye of as many people in the room as possible.

The situation in Edinburgh was returned to. He believed his involvement was down to the specificity of his testing regime. For his part, Prof Tedder was happy to step in wherever his test could help in a situation. It may have been the first time a Haemophilia Centre Director had requested the witnesses’ support. He thinks the invite from Ludlum was an attempt to show how “clean” the Edinburgh products were. During the Lindsay Inquiry the witness had suggested Ludlum had a “clinical suspicion” that something had occurred, but Prof Tedder said he had adjusted his view.

Returning with the witness to the North of London and the possibility of testing people but not at all sites, from this he suggested it would probably have needed to happen “covertly” because if word got out it would likely have drawn people from other locations. The witness praised the support received in providing plasma from young men from the risk communities to assist him in his work to find solutions to the viral infection issues being faced. However, they were aware of the possibility of people in the risk groups coming to use blood services as a way of getting tested for their own purposed. Reference was made to some issue involving trade unionists. The witness explained the situation of a misplaced safety bottle, which was rightly a major issue for the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) and the trades union health reps. Everyone was tested and there had been no infections. It was an error which was made but was not an accident.

(The evidence taking was ended at this point, to be resumed the next day.)

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

26 July 2023: Sunak - A

25 July 2023: Dunn - B

17 November 2022: Panel on finding the undiagnosed - A