www.thetruthabouthepc.org.uk
saving lives from
contaminated blood since 2004
Helpline 07958 558510
Maintaining the Cover Up and Zero Patient Testing
Maintaining The Cover Up and Zero Patient Testing
To hide the fact that when tested pre 1992 recipients of Transfusions and NHS Surgery tend to test 1 to 2.6% infected with Hepatitis C has taken a lot of "creative" accounting by NHS agencies and this they do by explaining to themselves that the UK blood supply was only 1 in 2000 units positive before 1992.
This they do by noting that only 1 in 1500 blood donors tested positive for Hepatitis C in the first 4 months of using the new Hepatitis C Eliza III blood test in 1992, and then that 25% of people transfused with hepatitis C clear the virus. Thus they have a 1 in 2000 figure and they gleefully tell themselves that was the level of risk looking back to 1945.
The tragedy with such idiotic math is they ignore the fact that in 1992 the Blood Donation Service had started to refuse donations from many. many sources. Old donors who had any of the following risks were not asked for blood anymore including ....
- Prisoners (the main source of the Hepatitis C)
- People who had transfusions (another main source of the infections)
- Anyone with a history of unprotected sex for a year
- Anyone with a history of piercings or tattooes for a year
- Anyone who have anal sex
With all these donors no longer donating they then noted just 1 in 1500 had hepatitis C?
Below is the section from the current 2017 UK Hepatitis C – Essential Information for Professionals and Guidance on testing relating to testing for Hepatitis C among transfusion patients from before 1992. In it this mad math is used to completely vanish away the fact that 1 to 2.5% of patients having pre 1992 transfusions contracted Hepatitis C. What is truly horrifying is they note that 2% of children undergoing real blood tests for Hepatitis C after pre 1992 surgeries or transfusions tested positive for Hepatitis C. Imagine the most vulnerable members of our society have been mass infected with a decimating liver carcinogen at a 1 in 50 level and the essential information advising all our Doctors is a "forget about it" 1 in 2000 risk. Surely every child and parent has a right to know the 2% level? Surely every Pediatric Unit and GP in the Country should have a gigantic banner proclaiming the dire need for emergency safety testing? But no the ongoing cover up means every doctor in the land, every freedom of information request in the Commons, every medical school in the country has for a quarter of a century done the math "oh 1 in 2000" a "forget about it risk".
Hepatitis C – Essential Information for Professionals and Guidance on testing
General Health Protection Room 631B, Skipton House, 80 London Road, London SE1 6EH
http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/hepatitisc/Documents/Information-for-professionals-19.05.061for-web-15600.pdf
People who have received transfused blood in the UK prior to September 1991 or blood products prior to 1986
In the past, hepatitis C was transmitted through the transfusion of contaminated blood or blood products. The introduction of donor screening in the UK, in September 1991, and of viral inactivation treatments of plasma products in the mid-1980s has largely eliminated these routes of transmission.
The prevalence of anti-HCV observed during the first four months of donor testing was around 1 in 1500 donors. Approximately 75% of confirmed anti-HCV positive donors have been found to be actively infected and infectious. Thus, the risk of receiving a single unit of blood from an HCV RNA positive donor prior to September 1991 was probably around 1 in 2000. However, the risk rises in those who have received
multiple transfusions, e.g.
screening for hepatitis C of transfused children showed an anti-HCV prevalence of nearly 2%.
Not content with the mad math when working out how to advise doctors to test for Hepatitis C among NHS pre 1992 Transfusion and Surgery Patients. We also as a nation suffer from idiots in the medical profession writing quite insane Published Medical Articles full of bizarre guesswork and math to vanish our Hepatitis C Transfusion Epidemic. The world tested the patients and knew the level of infection, this is basic medicine, below is a group of nutters creating a construct of probabilities, this is not medicine.
The person writing this nonsense is the same woman who noted our prison blood supply was testing 2.6% HCV positive, the same person who noted 1% of the population, more than half a million people had Hepatitis C. As Dr Penny Chan lead prevalencer of Hepatitis C for Canada put it.....a 14,000 HCV infections level in a prison blood using country is simply LUDICROUS.
To get a balance, at 2% HCV infectious, the 5 million transfusions known to have happened from 1980 to 1990 is 100,000 HCV infections from whole blood alone excluding Dialysis, Organs, Plasmas and Contaminated Equipments. Tragically all our Hepatitis C care has been based for 20 years on this cruel construct not allowed anywhere else on earth.
The contribution of transfusion to HCV infection in England.
Soldan K, Ramsay M, Robinson A, Harris H, Anderson N, Caffrey E, Chapman C, Dike A, Gabra G, Gorman A, Herborn A, Hewitt P, Hewson N, Jones DA, Llewelyn C, Love E, Muddu V, Martlew V, Townley A.National Blood Service, Oak House.
The English HCV lookback programme has identified some individuals with transfusion-transmitted HCV infection. The path from the collection of donations from HCV-infected donors to the identification of infected recipients was constructed. The probability of different outcomes at each branch was derived from data collected during this programme. This path of probabilities was then used to produce a complete estimate of the number of recipients infected by blood transfusions (dead and alive at the end of 1995) by re-entry of blood components that fell out of the lookback at various steps prior to recipient testing, and entry of components from HCV-infected donations that were never identified for lookback.
Less than 14,000 recipients were estimated to have been infected with HCV during the decade prior to the start of donation testing. Over 60% of these were expected to have died by the end of 1995. Transfusion has infected a large group of individuals. However, this group constitutes a very small, and declining, proportion of all HCV infections in the population.
Incredibly here is a graph from an official NHS policy planning document suggesting that with the advent of Hepatitis Blood Bank screening the number of UK transmissions of Hepatitis C changed by barely 10% from 1990 to 1995. Quite simply a graph of spin that can kill 100,000 infected survivors.
Naturally it's further planning had no alert for patients at risk. Hundreds of thousands of them.
Why would anyone in their right mind count contaminated blood infections only from the point when screening all donations was in place?
Their graph was supported by data from every blood bank, dialysis unit and hospital under oath. At 2.6% of our transfusions being infectious, we can prevalence our UK per unit risk at 0.5% on their graph and see 10,000 or so infections for 1984. Due to the UK population and transfusions being approximately double.
There are interesting prevalence wiggles, the dip in 1972 is due to Canada hbv testing blood. The dip in 1982 was due to ALts testing, we didn't do that.
The 1989-1991 vanish is Eliza I blood anti-HCV screening followed by Eliza II full HCV blood screening, which we use today.
The final bump is from not waiting six months for a clear on the donor. An excellent graph like the US searching back to the 1960's.
Politicians drew the line at 1991 and made sure research vanished at that point. Since then millions have been spent on Hepatitis C drug injecting surveillance and prevalence and nothing on patients.
This is simply where The Spin Kills
