Talk:Infected blood scandal in the United Kingdom

1979

talks about a case of HIV from June 1979 in a haemophiliac - perhaps thsi can be added to the timeline — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.115.204.102 (talk) 23:40, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

How many survivors are still alive today?4.7.52.38 (talk) 03:49, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

There are two parts to what you are suggesting there. The first part, regarding Chapter 9 of the Penrose report does indeed state that HIV infection entered the United Kingdom in 1979, and more precisely, in June 1979 in a patient with haemophilia. However, I should stress that this was only determined through retrospective testing of stored samples. This early seroconversion would not have been known in June 1979, but far later, when the paper was published in September 1995. So an entry to the timeline would probably require a new subsection as it would not fit well under 1981–1986 – HIV and it would be too early for the next section 2000 – Destroyed evidence investigation. The main issue with this is that the information is only known retrospectively (in 1995), about samples taken in 1979. Regarding the second part, about the number of survivors, do you have a source for this? And where in the article do you propose that this information be added? SpookiePuppy (talk) 04:49, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

References

More than one Lord Archer

There is more than one Lord Archer, and Lord Jeffrey Archer (Baron Archer of Weston-super-Mare) is more famous than the Lord Peter Archer named here. Although the hyperlink leads to the correct person, it should be clarified in the article text which Lord Archer it is referring to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.99.210.174 (talk) 13:58, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

 Done. Three instances of "Archer" have been amended in order to clarify which Lord Archer is being referred to. I've only addressed the instances relating to the person, not the Archer Report which I have left as is was. SpookiePuppy (talk) 15:02, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Research

This article in BBC says it was "clinical trials" therefore Category:British human subject research - https://www.bbc.com/news/health-68831061 Arwenz (talk) 16:11, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 31 August 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Reading Beans 16:53, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

---

Contaminated blood scandal in the United Kingdom → Infected blood scandal in the United Kingdom – All official documents and the current inquiry tend to use "infected blood" over "contaminated blood". (Also appears to be the more common phrase per ngrams, although I know this could be listing a lot of uses of the term a) outside of the UK and/or b) unrelated to this scandal.) GnocchiFan (talk) 22:54, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support: in keeping with the Infected Blood Inquiry (IBI), the Infected Blood Support Schemes (IBSS), and the newly formed Infected Blood Compensation Authority (IBCA). The word "contaminated" suggests a situation where something more like a foreign body, such as a physical contaminant like tiny fragments of glass from ampoules, or traces of mercury, which somehow got into the blood products, rather than actual virological agents capable of causing en masse infection. SpookiePuppy (talk) 01:28, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
• support per SpookiePuppy--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:27, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
• support ... new title appears more precise. Whispyhistory (talk) 12:44, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Comment: Apologies for not noticing this before, but I can see there is also Contaminated haemophilia blood products, Contaminated blood scandal in Japan and Contaminated blood scandal in France. I would suggest that if consensus is for this to move, those pages should be moved too. Not sure if there are any others I've missed. Pinging @SpookiePuppy: @Ozzie10aaaa: and @Whispyhistory: in case they have anything to add on this. GnocchiFan (talk) 17:27, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

• @GnocchiFan:... seems appropriate to change all contamination to infection. The revised term (tainted with HIV) appears in several of the sources used in each article and makes it more exact. Thank you for bringing it to attention. Whispyhistory (talk) 18:07, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for raising the issue of the other 3 articles. I agree with two of them: Contaminated blood scandal in Japan and Contaminated blood scandal in France, but have slight reservations about this one: Contaminated haemophilia blood products only because if it is moved as proposed, it will render as "Infected haemophilia blood products", which to me doesn't have the same ring to it and the word "infected" sitting right next to the word "haemophilia" (a genetic condition), makes me slightly uncomfortable. Just wondering whether this one should be left or if there is another solution for it? However, I still agree that the word "contaminated" needs to go (from all three). SpookiePuppy (talk) 14:21, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

I was so-so on the Contaminated haemophilia blood products article move as well, for the reasons you say. My preference would probably be to leave this one as is, but if any other editors have an alternative please let me know as medical articles are not my expertise. GnocchiFan (talk) 16:07, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

References

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.