The UK's Contaminated Blood Scandal: When the Government Infected Thousands with HIV

“Every time I shut my eyes I was looking at a coffin” — the haunting words of a victim in one of the UK’s deadliest cases of medical negligence and institutional betrayal.

Between 1973 and 1991, an estimated thirty thousand people in the UK were infected with HIV and hepatitis C due to tainted blood donations. Patients, desperate for life-saving treatments, were instead handed death sentences, as the national health system upon which they relied failed them completely.

There were two main groups affected by this scandal. The first were patients who required blood transfusions following surgery or childbirth, and the second were patients suffering from blood clotting disorders such as haemophilia.

To understand exactly what went wrong, we must start in the early 1970s, a time when the UK was experiencing a severe shortage of blood donations. Contemporary to this, a novel treatment for haemophilia was fast gaining popularity. It aimed to help people suffering from haemophilia A who have a genetic variation that causes their bodies to underproduce a protein called factor 8. This can result in spontaneous or excessive bouts of bleeding, which can at times prove fatal.

However, by 1970, American scientist and researcher Dr. Judith Graham-Pool had created a method for producing a highly concentrated form of factor 8, which could be administered with relative ease. The caveat — to create just one dose of this pioneering treatment, blood from tens of thousands of donors was needed, further widening the already substantial gap between supply and demand. In response to this, the UK government made the devastating decision to import blood and blood products from the US.

These were used for both factor 8 treatment and general population transfusions.

In many countries, including the UK, hospitals rely solely on voluntary public contributions, and individuals cannot be compensated for their donations. However, in the US, blood is big business, with blood products such as plasma accounting for more than 2.5% of US exports in 2022.

Owing to the surge in factor 8 treatments, the plasma industry experienced remarkable growth in the early 1970s. This necessitated a consistent and abundant supply of plasma to meet the demands of patients in both the US and the UK.

Though there had been some back and forth over the years, it was generally agreed that voluntary donations were safer than paid ones, a viewpoint that was repeatedly endorsed by the World Health Organisation. This stems from the understanding that when financial incentives are involved, donors may be inclined to withhold information about their health or behaviours in order to qualify for donation.

Despite knowing the risks, in 1973, several US pharmaceutical companies not only established new paid plasma collection units but were also thought to have deliberately targeted low-income areas. This strategy arose from the relatively modest compensation for plasma donations at the time, typically averaging $10 per pint. Yet, for individuals facing extreme financial hardship, $10 could have been a lifeline, prompting many to accept the offer.

Furthermore, these companies began directing their efforts towards US prisons for similar reasons. Inmates were reportedly offered as little as $7 for a pint of plasma, which was then sold for over $100 — a more than 1400% markup. Prisons also presented an appealing option for these companies due to their ability to provide a stable and consistent plasma supply.

Moreover, plasma collection centres within prisons enjoyed automatic exemption from significant oversight, as plasma was deemed a “vital resource.”

Blatant exploitation aside, the problem with targeting these groups stemmed from their classification as high-risk donors. This meant that they were more likely to be carrying blood-borne illnesses, due to factors such as intravenous drug use, risky sexual behaviours, and limited access to sanitation and healthcare.

Unsurprisingly, it was only a matter of time until disaster struck in the form of what we now know as hepatitis C. However, HCV, the specific strain of the virus responsible for hepatitis C, would not be discovered until 1989. Prior to this, it was simply referred to as non-A non-B hepatitis.

This was an issue, as during the 1970s, hepatitis C was running rampant throughout both the US and its prison system. With no conclusive test for the virus and with symptoms often going unnoticed for years, it is difficult to say exactly how many people were suffering from the condition at this time. However, today it is estimated that around 2.2 million people in the US are currently living with the virus, constituting approximately 1–2% of the population.

These figures rise substantially within state prisons, where up to 35% of inmates are believed to be carrying the virus.

Within 2 years of introducing these blood products into their supply, the UK saw a 5.2% spike in yearly incidences of hepatitis C. Though sources vary, it is estimated that between 1970 and 1991, approximately 27,000 people in the UK were infected with the virus as a direct result of contaminated blood or blood products. Of these, an estimated 3,000 would die from hepatitis-related causes. These figures don’t include the partners of those infected who might have contracted it sexually or the children of infected women who could have acquired the condition during pregnancy.

As if that weren’t enough, the 1980s ushered in a second major crisis with the emergence of the AIDS epidemic. On June 5, 1981, the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention published a report detailing an unknown illness that caused severe immunodeficiency in otherwise healthy patients. By the end of 1981, an additional 20,000 cases of this enigmatic illness had surfaced in the US.

Initially perceived as exclusively afflicting gay men, subsequent studies revealed a more complex picture: while male-to-male sexual contact contributed to about 63% of reported cases in 1981, the remainder contracted it through intravenous drug use or unprotected heterosexual contact. Like hepatitis C, these high-risk behaviours were disproportionately common in both low-income areas and prisons, which paradoxically remained prime targets for US pharmaceutical companies despite increasing awareness of the epidemic.

By 1982, the now HIV-infected US blood supply would claim its first UK victim. It would be another 3 years until a test was developed that could conclusively prove the existence of HIV in the blood.

It is estimated that 1,250 people in the UK contracted HIV from tainted blood donations, 380 of which were children. As of 2024, 800 of those people have died as a result of HIV-related illness. And again, this does not account for those who contracted the virus from partners or parents.

Thanks to modern medicine, it is now possible to live a relatively long and full life with both HIV and hepatitis C, but for much of the past this was not the case. In addition to this, stigma surrounding both illnesses was and, to some extent, is still pervasive in many societies, leading to further psychological damage.

In total, more than 30,000 lives were either taken or changed forever because of the contaminated blood scandal. But the question remains: was this preventable? In short, yes.

In 2017, the UK government announced plans for an independent inquiry into the use of contaminated blood and blood products. Commencing in July 2018, the inquiry has reviewed thousands of pieces of evidence and listened to testimony from 370 witnesses, all of which has been made publicly available. While the final report is not expected until May 2024, from the evidence thus far, it appears glaringly obvious that mistakes were made and countless warnings were ignored across all levels of authority.

As noted, in 1973, the UK government chose to begin importing blood and blood products from paid donors in the US. This decision was made despite numerous warnings from both UK clinicians and the World Health Organization about the risks associated with relying on paid blood donations. Furthermore, a letter dating back to 1970 explicitly cautioned the government about the potential transmission of various forms of hepatitis through blood transfusions and related blood products.

In subsequent years, a cascade of critical government failures worsened the situation. In 1975, the then UK Health Minister, Lord David Owen, allocated five hundred thousand pounds to achieve self-sufficiency in blood and blood products within two years. However, for reasons that are still under investigation, the money was diverted to other purposes, and so the UK failed to meet this initial target.

Not only this, but evidence has surfaced suggesting that the UK government was fully aware of the risks associated with the specific demographics purportedly targeted by US blood companies. Perhaps the most egregious example of this is exemplified in a letter from Stanford University’s medical centre to the British Government dated 1975. It reads:

“Source of blood is 100 percent from Skid-Row derelicts.”

Additional correspondence from Stanford University that same year voiced concerns regarding the transmission of hepatitis C, singling out a specific factor 8 product as “extraordinarily hazardous” and detailing infection rates ranging from 50 to 90% among those treated with it.

While it may be tempting to attribute sole blame to the UK government, they had in fact been working towards the creation of a safe donation-based blood supply since 1969. However, progress had been painfully slow. From 1970 to 1975, numerous targets were established but ultimately missed. This was largely due to insufficient funding, which led to the closure of several vital UK-based blood facilities.

Another significant misstep occurred in the UK government’s initial response to the AIDS crisis in relation to blood donations. In 1983, a letter from the Communicable Disease Surveillance Centre was dispatched to various government departments, unequivocally stating:

“All blood products made from blood donated in the US after 1978 should be withdrawn from use until the risk of AIDS transmission by these products has been clarified.”

Unfortunately, this crucial advice went unheeded, largely due to a statement made by then-Secretary of State Ken Clarke, who asserted:

“There is no conclusive evidence that AIDS is transmitted by blood products.”

This assertion was not only entirely false but also contradicted by a mounting body of evidence from both the US and the UK.

As the years progressed, evidence of contamination persisted. New screening methods and heat treatments were developed shortly after the AIDS crisis, but implementation was slow and inadequate, to say the least. As early as 1984, serious issues concerning medical oversight and patient rights emerged within the context of the infected blood scandal.

It was revealed that doctors were administering tests on haemophilia patients suspected of having HIV without their consent. Further steps were subsequently taken to dispose of documents and conceal HIV test results from individuals who had contracted the virus. Individual doctors have been accused of falsifying medical charts to minimise the risks associated with paid blood donations, while others were found to have received direct payments from US companies responsible for producing factor 8.

Prior to the inquiry, thousands of official government documents were destroyed in an attempt to evade potential litigation, marking one of the largest cover-ups in UK history.

But ultimately, it was the patients who bore the brunt of this disaster. Despite numerous campaigns from victims of the scandal, it took 27 years for an official independent inquiry to be launched, by which point many victims had already succumbed to their illnesses.

After a 14-year inquiry, there’s an overwhelming amount of evidence — far too much to cover in one video — so this really is just the tip of the iceberg. However, in the words of the non-profit haemophilia organisation aptly named Factor 8, one of the many groups that continues to fight for justice:

“The truth about the infected blood scandal is: It was avoidable. It was foreseeable. It could and should have been prevented.”

Key Takeaways

• Between 1973 and 1991, approximately 30,000 UK residents contracted HIV or hepatitis C from contaminated blood donations.
• The UK imported blood products from the US despite warnings about risks from paid donors, particularly from high-risk groups.
• The UK government was aware of the risks but failed to act, leading to a significant increase in hepatitis C and HIV cases.
• An independent inquiry revealed numerous government failures and ignored warnings, highlighting preventable aspects of the scandal.
• Patients, including those with haemophilia and those needing transfusions, were severely impacted, with many lives lost or altered.

Frequently Asked Questions

What was the time frame during which people in the UK were infected with HIV and hepatitis C due to tainted blood donations?

Between 1973 and 1991.

Who were the main groups affected by the contaminated blood scandal in the UK?

The first group were patients who required blood transfusions following surgery or childbirth, and the second group were patients suffering from blood clotting disorders such as haemophilia.

Why did the UK government start importing blood and blood products from the US in 1973?

The UK was experiencing a severe shortage of blood donations, and the government needed to meet the demand for a novel treatment for haemophilia that required blood from tens of thousands of donors.

What was the primary issue with the blood products imported from the US?

The blood products were sourced from high-risk donors, including low-income individuals and prison inmates, who were more likely to carry blood-borne illnesses.

How many people in the UK were estimated to have been infected with hepatitis C due to contaminated blood or blood products?

Approximately 27,000 people.

When was the first UK victim of HIV from tainted blood donations reported?

By 1982.

How many people in the UK contracted HIV from tainted blood donations?

An estimated 1,250 people, including 380 children.

What was the UK government’s initial response to the AIDS crisis in relation to blood donations?

The UK government initially ignored warnings about the risk of AIDS transmission through blood products, stating there was no conclusive evidence of such transmission.

When was an independent inquiry into the use of contaminated blood and blood products in the UK announced?

In 2017.

What was the UK government’s initial target regarding self-sufficiency in blood and blood products?

In 1975, the UK Health Minister allocated funds to achieve self-sufficiency within two years, but the target was not met.

Sources

• Original Into the Shadows video: The UK’s Contaminated Blood Scandal: When the Government Infected Thousands with HIV
• Hero image source by DFID - UK Department for International Development / openverse, by-sa.

Related Coverage