Infected blood ‘scandal’ - what is the truth?

I have been contemplating this story for a some time now and wondering whether to write about it because it is such an emotionally charged topic.

But I can’t worry about sparing people’s feelings when what we’re being told is not true.

So, here goes!

The basic narrative is explained in a BBC article entitled What is the infected blood scandal and will victims get compensation?

“More than 30,000 people in the UK were infected with HIV and Hepatitis C after being given contaminated blood products in the 1970s and 1980s.”

This ‘scandal’ is being referred to as ‘the biggest treatment disaster in NHS history’.

Under the heading, Who was affected by the infected blood scandal and how many patients were involved? the article explains that it involved two main groups of patients:

“Firstly, haemophiliacs - and those with similar disorders - who have a rare genetic condition which means their blood does not clot properly.”

And

“A second group of patients was given a contaminated blood transfusion after childbirth, surgery or other medical treatment between 1970 and 1991.”

The 2 key messages are that,

“The inquiry estimates between 80 and 100 were infected with HIV, and about 27,000 with Hepatitis C.”

And,

“In total, it's thought about 2,900 people have died as a result of the scandal.”

The article refers to the use of ‘donated human blood plasma’ and asserts that,

“…whole batches were contaminated with deadly viruses.”

This statement identifies the underlying problem that I take issue with in this ‘story’, because, as I and others have discovered over the course of many years of research, the claim about ‘deadly viruses’ remains utterly unproven.

I must emphasise here that I am not denying that people have been harmed and that some have died.

What I am asserting is that these health problems and deaths were not caused by any ‘infection’ with any ‘virus’, whether it’s called HIV or Hepatitis C.

If you are not familiar with my work, here’s a useful background article based on information discussed in What Really Makes You Ill?

I would add that this ‘scandal’ highlights yet another reason that the ‘no virus’ position is of such importance and cannot be dismissed as a ‘psy-op’, as many people still seem to be asserting.

I discuss this point in another of my articles,

What I find really sad is that the people said to be affected by the ‘scandal’ are described as ‘victims’ and made to be fearful for their health and their lives as the result of an alleged ‘infection’; a claim for which there is zero evidence.

I realise, of course, that this article is going to be extremely unpopular with anyone who has been told they’re affected by the scandal and are due compensation. They really will not appreciate being told they have nothing to worry about as far as ‘deadly viruses’ are concerned - although I have to add that I think it is highly unlikely that any of them will read this article.

What is upsetting for me is that it is also highly unlikely that these people will ever find out what really happened and whether their health has actually been compromised. Unfortunately, as I have also discussed in previous articles, the power of the mind is undeniable and profound; a belief in ‘infections’ with ‘deadly viruses’ has the ability to cause real health problems for people.

The perpetuation of belief in the ‘germ theory’ seems to be one of the key underlying purposes of the persistent and fervent reporting in the media of such stories, but this theory has no basis in truth.

The consequence of this dogmatic focus of attention on ‘germs’, and ‘viruses’ in particular with respect to the contaminated blood story, is the inevitable failure to conduct an unbiased investigation into the real nature of the donated blood plasma to discover whether it contained any genuinely hazardous materials, and if so, the recipients would indeed be due compensation.

The Report into the ‘scandal’ was published on 20th May 2024. I have not read it and, to be honest, I’m not sure if I will or if I could without being incensed by its claims about allegedly ‘dangerous viruses’.

According to the BBC article At a glance: Infected blood inquiry’s key findings, one of the key findings of the enquiry is that patients were exposed to ‘unacceptable risks’ because the blood and blood products were not adequately screened for ‘dangerous viruses’.

I must emphasise again that I am not saying there were no risks, but any real risks that may have existed were not as reported.

The main controversy in the minds of the general public, as well as those who are said to have been affected, whether directly or indirectly, is with respect to the ‘compensation’ and the question of why it took so long for this ‘scandal’ to come to light.

However, despite the ‘findings’ of the enquiry appearing to have provided answers to these questions, there remains one vitally important unanswered question, which is: What was the real source(s) of contamination of the blood and blood products?

Ancillary but equally important questions that this raises are: Will anyone ever demand an investigation to uncover what really happened? Will a genuine investigation be conducted, one that ignores any alleged ‘virus’?

I would like to think that would be the case, but I am not holding my breath.

When ‘germs’ stop being viewed as the ‘bad guys’, then maybe, just maybe, someone might suggest that this ‘scandal’ should be re-visited.

Thank you for reading to the end of this article. 🙏

You can help support my work in many ways,