A British expert witness at the Lindsay Tribunal has been told he can only give limited evidence about an international drug firm. The firm's product is believed to have infected an Irish haemophiliac with HIV. Tribunal counsel said that Dr Peter Jones could testify about what he knew about Armour Pharmaceuticals in the mid-1980s, but not about what is now known of the company's activities.
The Lindsay Tribunal has mainly focused on the actions of Irish blood bank, hospitals and treating doctors rather than international drug firms. However, under the Tribunal's term of reference, it can investigate "anything arising outside of the State that it considers relevant" as long as its "practicable, appropriate and reasonable" and wouldn't "unduly" delay the inquiry.
Today, John Finlay, Senior Counsel for the Tribunal, said that the latest expert witness would give only limited evidence about Armour Pharmaceuticals. Dr Peter Jones from Newcastle gave evidence about becoming suspicious in 1985 that Armour's products transmitted HIV, but did not refer to documents which subsequently came to light.
According to the blood bank's expert witness, Dr Emer Lawlor, Armour's product is believed to have infected one Irish haemophiliac with HIV. New York virologist Dr Alfred Prince told the Tribunal how he conducted a study in 1985, proving Armour's HIV inactivation procedure did not work, but it was suppressed.
What has yet to be investigated by the Lindsay Tribunal is why Armour continued to sell the product. In the Canadian Krever blood product investigation, a shocking Armour memo was produced. Months after Dr Prince's findings, Armour executives decided that it would be "unwise" to tell US regulatory authorities. They also decided to continue supplying the product, as in part it would be "too long" and "too expensive" to change.
So the outstanding question is whether or not the Lindsay Tribunal will follow this document trail. John Finlay raised it as a possibility today.
He said that Dr Jones would be asked about Armour Pharmaceuticals in relation to 1985 and 1986, but the question of the documentation which has come to light subsequent to that would be left for another day. This raises the possibility of him being recalled.
