14 October 2022: Tedder - B

Counsel recalled how the witness had a working test for HIV in July 1984, but an actual test was not introduced until October 1985. The witness reverted to the issue of young men potentially coming to give blood but actually being more interested in getting a screening test rather than them going to the GUM clinic. But basically, he could not (would not?) say if the period was too long. There followed some more nitty-gritty questions and perhaps for the first time this writer saw flashes of an Establishment apologist. His referring to a live culture that was delayed and became unusable as a possible delaying issue might have been a real contributing factor, or it might have been a smokescreen.

The topic shifted to Hepatitis C (HCV) screening. The witness didn’t see himself as being involved, not at the same level as with HTLV-III. Counsel homed-in on the period between Spring 1989 and September 1991. Prof Tedder was asked about the delay when compared with other countries, but he did not remember his thinking at the time. His written statement appeared to follow the official lines to take, and he was asked to add to his responses therein. In answering, he made the by now obligatory recognition of how terrible it was for those infected. He went over the old ground of “balancing risks”, including the risks of putting people off from donating blood or of excluding perfectly good donors due to false positives. Then after regurgitating these official lines, he sought to preserve his professional integrity by saying he couldn’t really say anything (after having just said something).

Answers then seemed to be coming from an invisible teleprompt hovering just above the desk he was sitting at, and his upraised fingers were more than just resting on his sinuses. It looked like someone had stolen his handkerchief at the very point of him blowing his nose. Then a new tactic was employed when he questioned a question about surrogate testing. This allowed him to revert back to the expert role. Without wishing to appear fixated, mention by Counsel that the final topic was coming prompted clasped hands to rest on the witnesses’ bearded chin with index fingers pointing up to create a hand-made church and steeple.

Prof Tedder spoke at a 1984 haemophilia meeting in Cardiff which was recorded by an unknown hand. He was quoted as commenting on the differences between the importation of blood and blood products, and also the differences in relation to vets and any animal material they might want to import. He was challenging the idea of importing blood from places such as the US, in particular through their use of prison inmates as a key source of plasma, since this flew in the face of the mantra to “know your donors”.

The questions from Counsel concluded at that point so the Chair explained the next step of needing to give time for core participant questions to be collected. As this was being explained, the witness magnanimously stated how he understood his role was, “To be as helpful and forthcoming as I can be in an area where there is immense sadness for the harm which has been inadvertently caused”. Why did he have to say “inadvertently”?