Number 10 hiding blood scandal facts - The Observer
Extract:
"An independent public inquiry into how thousands of haemophiliacs contracted HIV or hepatitis C from contaminated blood discovered last night that Downing Street is withholding crucial information about how hundreds of relevant documents were shredded.
More than 1,700 patients died and many more are now terminally ill as a result of one of the biggest medical disasters of recent times, when haemophiliacs were given infected blood clotting products during the late Seventies and early Eighties. The products came from American prisoners who were allowed to sell their blood even though there were fears about the risks of contamination.
But it has since emerged that many of the files detailing the scandal were shredded by civil servants in the Nineties. This week, the second hearing of the contaminated blood inquiry, chaired by the former Solicitor-General, Lord Archer of Sandwell, will ask why the results of an internal inquiry into the destruction of crucial files are being withheld.
Jenny Willott, Liberal Democrat MP for Cardiff Central, has discovered that Downing Street is holding back the report, carried out by the Department of Health in 2000, when Alan Milburn was Health Secretary. Some of the destroyed documents detailed meetings between the blood transfusion service, health boards, government officials and consultants during the Seventies and Eighties. The records also contained information on when precisely the government became aware of the risks from imported blood and what measures were taken to warn patients.
The Haemophilia Society said last night that Downing Street's decision was 'incomprehensible, given the public interest'. In 1989, the society brought legal action on behalf of thousands of patients who had become infected with HIV after being given the clotting product Factor 8. Haemophilia is a rare hereditary condition in which the blood does not clot properly. British doctors used the American products despite some senior scientists knowing that there was a risk. Compensation was then agreed with the Tory government in 1990 and thousands of patients received one-off payments of between £21,000 and £80,000.
However, it then transpired that hundreds of documents relating to the case were shredded, allegedly by accident, by junior civil servants. It is now known that there were two separate instances of documents being destroyed, or mislaid, at some point between 1990 and 1998. Some copies of documents had been made by a solicitor's firm, and these were returned to the government, but others are thought to have been lost forever. The total number of destroyed documents is not known. In 2000, the Department of Health held the audit but it was never published."
Read even more about the COLOSSAL negligence of the Department of Health and the Chief Medical Officer in the early 90s, (actually Kenneth Calman) here http://aboutsalt.blogspot.com/search/label/Kenneth%20Calman and here http://www.wildeaboutsteroids.co.uk/story.html
Showing posts with label Kenneth Calman. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Kenneth Calman. Show all posts
Sunday, 20 May 2007
Friday, 14 July 2006
Past recommendations made about daily salt intake
The Department of Health's Committee on Medical Aspects of Food and Nutrition Policy (COMA) was disbanded in March 2000.
The following information was taken on July 11th 2006 from
http://www.actiononsalt.org.uk/recommendations.htm
Recommendations made about salt
COMA
1 Nutritional Aspects of Cardiovascular Disease 1994
This COMA report considered the evidence for a causal relationship between the consumption of sodium and both the level of blood pressure and the rise in blood pressure with age. A statement in the report said it recommended:
"A reduction in the average intake of common salt (sodium chloride) by the adult population from the current level of about 9g/day to about 6g/day.
There needs to be a gradual reduction in the amount of sodium from salt added to processed food and food manufacturers, caterers, and individuals should explore and grasp the opportunity for reducing the sodium content of foods and meals."
The Chief Medical Officer at that time, accepted all the recommendations in this COMA report except for the recommendation to reduce salt. The reason for this is not clear but is believed to be pressure from industry.
Department of Health (1994), "Nutritional Aspects of Cardiovascular Disease", HMSO, London.
(Note by Willow: - The Chief Medical Officer at that time appears to have been Kenneth Calman. - I wonder why he gave greater consideration to the desires of industry than to the health of the nation, and I wonder how many deaths and how much terrible suffering he was, therefore, personally responsible for? In 1996 he became a Knight Commander of the Order of the Bath. I myself would not have awarded him an honour like this, in view of his failure to accept that recommendation about salt. - Would you? - I consider the failure at that time to put pressure on food manufacturers and caterers to reduce the sodium content of foods and meals to be a dereliction of his duty in that job.)
2 Dietary Reference Values 1991
This COMA report considered that:
"Current sodium intakes are needlessly high and we caution against any trend towards increased intakes".
It set its recommended intake for salt, as with all the other recommended intakes for nutrients, on the basis of the balance of risks and benefits, which might practically be expected to occur. The RNI for a particular population group is defined as the amount of the nutrient that is enough or more than enough for about 97% of the people in this group.
The Reference Nutrient Intake (RNI) for sodium for adults was set at 1600 mg/day. This is equivalent to approximately 4g of salt, if all the sodium was present in the diet as sodium chloride. This is considerably less than the present intake of 9-12g.
Department of Health (1991), "Dietary Reference values for food, energy and nutrients for the United Kingdom", HMSO, London.
Comment from Willow:
The official/s who KNEW all those years ago that high intake of salt causes many serious and disabling illnesses and early deaths, and had the power all those years ago to take measures to ensure lower levels of salt in processed foods and to get information about sodium/salt levels in food onto the packaging of food, and to inform the general population about the harm high salt intake was causing to many people, and decided to do none of this - were they fit to hold their high office? - And was there no-one in the vast Department of Health or in Parliament who took an interest in these matters or checked on whether the public was being well served by its highly paid officials? - What use are professional qualifications when such indefensible decisions are made?
The following information was taken on July 11th 2006 from
http://www.actiononsalt.org.uk/recommendations.htm
Recommendations made about salt
COMA
1 Nutritional Aspects of Cardiovascular Disease 1994
This COMA report considered the evidence for a causal relationship between the consumption of sodium and both the level of blood pressure and the rise in blood pressure with age. A statement in the report said it recommended:
"A reduction in the average intake of common salt (sodium chloride) by the adult population from the current level of about 9g/day to about 6g/day.
There needs to be a gradual reduction in the amount of sodium from salt added to processed food and food manufacturers, caterers, and individuals should explore and grasp the opportunity for reducing the sodium content of foods and meals."
The Chief Medical Officer at that time, accepted all the recommendations in this COMA report except for the recommendation to reduce salt. The reason for this is not clear but is believed to be pressure from industry.
Department of Health (1994), "Nutritional Aspects of Cardiovascular Disease", HMSO, London.
(Note by Willow: - The Chief Medical Officer at that time appears to have been Kenneth Calman. - I wonder why he gave greater consideration to the desires of industry than to the health of the nation, and I wonder how many deaths and how much terrible suffering he was, therefore, personally responsible for? In 1996 he became a Knight Commander of the Order of the Bath. I myself would not have awarded him an honour like this, in view of his failure to accept that recommendation about salt. - Would you? - I consider the failure at that time to put pressure on food manufacturers and caterers to reduce the sodium content of foods and meals to be a dereliction of his duty in that job.)
2 Dietary Reference Values 1991
This COMA report considered that:
"Current sodium intakes are needlessly high and we caution against any trend towards increased intakes".
It set its recommended intake for salt, as with all the other recommended intakes for nutrients, on the basis of the balance of risks and benefits, which might practically be expected to occur. The RNI for a particular population group is defined as the amount of the nutrient that is enough or more than enough for about 97% of the people in this group.
The Reference Nutrient Intake (RNI) for sodium for adults was set at 1600 mg/day. This is equivalent to approximately 4g of salt, if all the sodium was present in the diet as sodium chloride. This is considerably less than the present intake of 9-12g.
Department of Health (1991), "Dietary Reference values for food, energy and nutrients for the United Kingdom", HMSO, London.
Comment from Willow:
The official/s who KNEW all those years ago that high intake of salt causes many serious and disabling illnesses and early deaths, and had the power all those years ago to take measures to ensure lower levels of salt in processed foods and to get information about sodium/salt levels in food onto the packaging of food, and to inform the general population about the harm high salt intake was causing to many people, and decided to do none of this - were they fit to hold their high office? - And was there no-one in the vast Department of Health or in Parliament who took an interest in these matters or checked on whether the public was being well served by its highly paid officials? - What use are professional qualifications when such indefensible decisions are made?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
