14 October 2022: Tedder - A

Professor Tedder’s evidence continued by picking up on the issue of HIV screening and the order of events involved. His pivotal role in all these matters is undeniable. The challenge for observers might be to consider the witness as a good faith specialist actor or alternatively as a lynchpin in the whole Contaminated Blood Scandal. Playing the role of a willing and slightly eccentric expert is probably helpful either way. Certainly, the evidence as it was picked up on had the same tenor of technicality as it had left off from on Day 1. The names of previous key players keep popping up, a lá Woolford, Lane, Smithies, Cash. The welcome desire to get to a place where testing is helping to keep the nation safer was apparently the aim, but despite the overarching common good motivation, there were still issues of cost, financing, licencing, commercialisation, as well as different opinions about important scientific processing options, of logistical capacities, and of areas of relevant expertise.

Much of the coordination and negotiation activity involved balancing the various variables such as sensitivity, accuracy, capacity, and more. This was a period of there being a more general shift away from RIA to EIA, being the two types of immunoassays (screening tests). It is interesting to note how the text of documents from the time when displayed during the session are subject to correction from the witness, even at this distance. “That’s wrong”, he stated confidently when Counsel quoted someone who was meant to be an informed authority at the time.

The alarm bell mention of Porton Down provided renewed credibility to some campaigners’ assertions of the involvement of the part of the State which was concerned with medical military intelligence. While that potentially dirty bombshell was still sinking in, there was reference to the UK being used as a “proving ground” for tests to support a commercial approach to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) by manufacturers whose eye was clearly on the bigger prize. Prof Tedder’s Middlesex Hospital was coming across as a hub or hothouse for the emerging screening test industry. Documents made reference to British tests being “more sensitive” and “cheaper”, which begs the question, “What other factors might trump these features as influencing the route to go down?”

When answering questions, Prof Tedder came across as a pure scientist, having no qualms about being open when discussing the relative strengths and weaknesses of the various test protocols and the underpinning science in these, including his own. He was also consistently respectful of the context of his giving evidence at a public inquiry, as illustrated by his responses to Counsel being liberally scattered with him calling her “Ma’am” as he answered, commented, or explained. Similarly, the Chair was addressed as “Sir” quite regularly.

It is interesting to notice the HTLV-III screening developments falling within the two seminal milestones of HBV and HCV. The HBV pre-existence was like a baseline from which to found the HTLV-III developments. Then, low and behold, Prof Zuckerman popped up to add his tuppence (or more) due to the fact of similar work going on at his labs, too. It appears that Dr Gunson was an RIA man and Prof Zuckerman was an ELISA advocate. All the US companies (Travenol, Dupont, Ortho, Abbott, Electroneucleonics) were using the ELISA test and were licenced to the Gallo isolate. In the UK, Wellcome were using the British isolate. Dr McClelland was in the mix as a reference point for the French isolate.

Prof Tedder’s capacity to name-drop (had he been so minded) extended to him having ready access to the Chief Medical Officer (CMO) at the time, Donald Acheson. With such intrinsic access to all these Mr Bigs, it is perhaps not surprising that some thought this witness had the potential to kiss and tell some skeletons in the cupboard (a yucky mixed metaphor if ever there was one). Wellcome and Porton Down were involved in scaling up the by then named British Test (an EIA model). The witness could not be involved in the evaluation process since there would have been a clear conflict of interest. This writer wonders if the same apparent integrity was demonstrated by others with skin in the game.

At this stage it was tempting to initiate a game of “Doctor Bingo”. Documents kept being displayed with lists of attendees reading like a rouge’s gallery of Contaminated Blood Scandal characters; Bloom, Galbraith, and so many of the other Cluedo-esque characters. The first to complete a bingo box shouts “House Doctor”. The trick for the Chair will be to consider what characters used what tools in what rooms, while remembering how his Inquiry role does not extend to making an actual accusation of who-dunnit to all the Dr Blacks.

When the witness started to describe the relative value of a “Western Blot” as it applied to the evaluation process, it began to feel like the morning break was going to be a very welcome break; but not a Wellcome break, mind. To underpin the need for a respite half hour, Prof Tedder began talking about knowns and unknowns, panels, and “real” positives (presumably as opposed to unreal positives, which are more a matter of true and false rather than some existential polarisation of a Donald Rumsfeld distinction). One of these unknowns but expecteds was the possibility of people coming to donate blood simply to get a screening test, so there was a need to get into bed with the STD clinics … a lovely thought to break on.

But before that, it was noted how the Chair made a beeline for Counsel before going for his own comfort break. This was not the first time of noticing such a quick collaborative chat between the two sides of the raised platform. Maybe the double-act were just confirming their next cues.