Feldman Peter A
Queen's House Consulting, Healthaid House, Marlborough Hill, Harrow, UK.
Haemophilia. 2025 Sep;31(5):823-829. doi: 10.1111/hae.70100. Epub 2025 Jul 29.
The UK Infected Blood Inquiry considered events related to the transmission of pathogens via infected blood, plasma and plasma-derived products. The report included conclusions about whether the scientific knowledge and technology could have prevented some of these infections.
This review offers a personal reflection from the perspective of plasma fractionation science.
The review is based on personal experience of developing virus-inactivated products in the 1980s.
It finds that although the Inquiry achieved primary purposes of recording the experiences of victims and their families and recommending that compensation be paid, it misinterpreted some of the scientific evidence. An explanation of this misunderstanding is described in terms of following aspects: the uncertain state of scientific knowledge at the time; the impracticality of using cryoprecipitate as a substitute for coagulation factor concentrates; plasma pool size; the improbability of developing virus-inactivated coagulation factor concentrates earlier; and risk-benefit assessment challenge faced by haemophilia healthcare providers at the time.
This review offers a balance to the Inquiry's opinions about professional capabilities, which could otherwise undermine public confidence in science, discredit scientists and physicians who can no longer defend their reputations and inhibit future medical advances.
英国感染血液调查委员会审议了与病原体通过受感染的血液、血浆及血浆衍生制品传播相关的事件。该报告包含了关于科学知识和技术是否本可预防其中一些感染的结论。
本综述从血浆分馏科学的角度提供个人反思。
本综述基于20世纪80年代开发病毒灭活产品的个人经验。
研究发现,尽管该调查实现了记录受害者及其家人经历并建议支付赔偿的主要目的,但它误解了一些科学证据。从以下几个方面描述了这种误解的原因:当时科学知识的不确定状态;使用冷沉淀替代凝血因子浓缩物的不切实际性;血浆库规模;更早开发病毒灭活凝血因子浓缩物的不可能性;以及当时血友病医疗服务提供者面临的风险效益评估挑战。
本综述平衡了调查委员会对专业能力的看法,否则这些看法可能会削弱公众对科学的信心,诋毁那些无法再捍卫自己声誉的科学家和医生,并阻碍未来的医学进步。