Bonus Ep: Breaking the Blood Scandal | Shorts with Sue Douglas part 1

Summary

Breaking the Blood Scandal: A Deep Dive into Sue Douglas’s Investigative Journey

In the bonus episode titled "Breaking the Blood Scandal | Shorts with Sue Douglas part 1" of "James Reed: All About Business," host James Reed engages in a compelling conversation with journalist, entrepreneur, and CEO Sue Douglas. Released on January 20, 2025, this episode delves into one of the most harrowing public health scandals in British history—the contaminated blood scandal that led to thousands of deaths.

1. Unveiling the Scandal: The Initial Story

Sue Douglas recounts how the story of contaminated blood first came to her attention. At the outset of the episode, James Reed sets the stage:

[00:00] A (James Reed): "Welcome to All About Business with me, James Reed, the podcast that covers everything about business, management and leadership... Welcome to All About Business shorts, where I'm joined by journalist, entrepreneur and CEO Sue Douglas. In this episode, Sue speaks to me about the blood scandal that shocked a nation."

Douglas explains the pivotal moment when an old friend from her days at a medical magazine approached her with a troubling revelation:

[00:41] B (Sue Douglas): "My old friend from my days on the medical magazine... mentioned that the blood we were using in Britain was potentially contaminated with various pathogens, including the then-recently identified AIDS virus. He emphasized that while the medical press was aware, mainstream newspapers remained oblivious."

2. Investigative Pursuit: Digging Deeper into the Crisis

Determined to bring this critical issue to light, Douglas took contrarian steps, venturing beyond conventional journalistic boundaries:

[02:15] B: "I decided to break the rules. I got the contact number of a concerned hematologist from a big teaching hospital in Wales, despite his reservations about revealing his identity. My approach was direct—I posed as a fellow concerned individual rather than a journalist, allowing him to open up about his fears."

She details the meticulous two weeks of research that confirmed the validity of her sources and the gravity of the situation:

[04:10] B: "After about two weeks of digging, I confirmed that the contamination was not only real but also that no effective measures were in place to address it. We weren't self-sufficient in blood supply and were heavily reliant on imports from the United States, where blood was sourced from vulnerable populations, including drug addicts and prisoners."

3. Publication and Immediate Repercussions

The decision to publish the story was met with significant internal and external resistance. Douglas navigates the complexities of bringing such a controversial issue to a mainstream audience:

[05:34] A: "Has he worked out that you're..."

[05:36] B: "I'm clearly not a hematologist."

[06:26] A: "The headline was true."

[06:27] B: "I asked if he was happy with the publication. He confirmed the headline's accuracy but warned me never to reveal his identity or contact him again, fearing his job was at risk."

The headline “Hospitals using killer Blood” was bold and faced legal scrutiny:

[06:53] A: "This is 40 years later and other countries, people have been compensated."

[06:58] B: "The press council ruled against me, labeling the story sensationalist and irresponsible. However, the tragic reality was undeniable, with over three and a half thousand deaths attributed to the contaminated blood."

4. Long-term Impact and Ongoing Struggles

Douglas reflects on the enduring consequences of the scandal and her role in exposing it:

[07:46] A: "One of whom was my former boss, Anita Roddick, who went public about this."

[07:56] B: "Forty years on, there's finally a public inquiry leading to massive compensation, yet many victims have yet to receive any restitution. The systemic failures continued for decades, highlighting issues of trust and accountability within public health institutions."

She emphasizes the importance of persistent journalism and support systems for whistleblowers:

[08:35] A: "This is still a big story with recent inquiries and ongoing compensation claims."

[08:50] B: "People affected felt their lives were ruined. They sought not just compensation but acknowledgment and mechanisms to prevent such tragedies in the future."

5. Reflections and Insights: The Role of Journalism and Integrity

Douglas shares her motivations and the ethical dilemmas faced during the investigation:

[07:46] B: "What gets you up in the morning? If you think you can ever do that, even on the smallest level, that you might just make people think back to never daring to say no."

[08:35] B: "Having support and a culture that encourages questioning the establishment is crucial. Without it, standing up against such massive issues would be impossible."

She underscores the necessity of a free press and democratic principles in safeguarding public health:

[09:15] B: "It's about democracy and allowing questions to be asked. Creating a mechanism to engage with affected individuals ensures that such scandals are never forgotten and that preventive measures are implemented."

6. Conclusion: A Call for Accountability and Change

As the episode concludes, Douglas reflects on the personal and societal implications of her work:

[10:05] A: "Thanks for listening to All About Business Shorts with Sue Douglas. For another piece of gripping journalism, listen to part two. See you next time."

Douglas’s relentless pursuit of truth not only exposed a horrific public health failure but also highlighted the critical role of ethical journalism in fostering accountability and change. Her story serves as a poignant reminder of the profound impact that dedicated individuals can have on society, even decades later.

---

Notable Quotes:

• Sue Douglas [00:41]: "The blood that we're using in Britain is potentially contaminated with all sorts of nasties. And this end AIDS thing that's just appeared, it could be in that too."

• Sue Douglas [06:27]: "The headline was true."

• Sue Douglas [08:50]: "People on the street, drug addicts and people who are homeless and prisoners... three and a half thousand people have died to date."

• Sue Douglas [10:05]: "It's really, really important to have a mechanism to be able to talk to people and actually say, is this right beyond the establishment?"

Listening Recommendation

This episode is a must-listen for anyone interested in the intersections of journalism, ethics, and public health. Sue Douglas’s firsthand account provides invaluable lessons on the power of investigative reporting and the enduring quest for justice.

Transcript

[A]

Welcome to All About Business with me, James Reed, the podcast that covers everything about business, management and leadership. Every episode, I sit down with different guests who bootstrapped companies, masterminded investment models or built a business empire. They're leaders in their field and they're here to give you top insights and actionable advice so that you can apply their ideas to your own career or business venture. Welcome to All About Business shorts, where I'm joined by journalist, entrepreneur and CEO Sue Douglas. In this episode, sue speaks to me about the blood scandal that shocked a nation.

[B]

So I got lucky because at that point, one of my old friends from my days on the medical magazine said, oh, Sue, I've got this really interesting story, I think, but it needs to be done. And a big newspaper, not on a medical magazine, because no one's going to take any notice. And it's already cropped up in the Lancet and the medical press, so we're having cocktails in Covent Garden. I said, what is it? He said, well, I went to this conference the other day. Think about this. Is this a story? I think it is. And the blood that we're using in Britain is potentially contaminated with all sorts of nasties. And this end AIDS thing that's just appeared, it could be in that too. Now, there were some hematologists, says my friend at a conference I had to go to the other day, who peeled off and in the bar where I was as well, was saying they were really worried. What do you think? Because if I did it in the medical magazine, you know, no one's going to take any notice. It's just a possibility. But maybe if you do it and you did it on the Mail on Sunday, with millions of readers mid market, it would make a difference. So I said, who was the one that you saw who was worried? Do you think he would talk to me? She said, well, I don't know. If you're not medical press, you'd probably be scared. So this is important. Again, back to me being contrarian and not necessarily playing by the rules. And I would say advice for quite a lot of people is sometimes you do have to break rules. So got the number for him, the telephone number, and he was working at a big teaching hospital in Wales. And I'm not going to say more because I've swore to him I would never reveal who he was. And I haven't to this day, despite the public inquiry that's just happened now. And I phoned him up and I said, oh, I wasn't there at the conference, but I gather from a couple of other hematologists that I know. So I didn't say I wasn't one or was one that you're really concerned about blood that we're importing into the UK for routine transfusions and for blood products. Long silence. So can I come and talk to you? Because I'm really worried about it as well. So I still haven't said who I was and I went off and now as I say, I've just got the job as medical correspondent, I'm 25 years old and I'm on this new newspaper and I got lucky because he told me that he was really concerned and amongst other, I went to see him at the hospital and he just opened up and told me about some of the things that were really worrying him that Hepatitis C which we all knew about could be transmitted through blood was one real potential because we weren't screening it and the Swiss and other people were beginning to heat treat blood. We could do that but we weren't doing it and we were importing because we weren't self sufficient and where were we importing? And then I found out some good newspaper journalism that we were importing from America and that people were being paid, people on the street, drug addicts and people who were homeless and prisoners. So then he said, so the possibility is, and I know this is happening, is that the AIDS virus and we didn't know at this point this is 1983 what really was causing AIDS, but we knew the route of transmission was blood and largely through homosexuals and needle abuse, shared needles with people taking drugs on the street. And he said I'm really scared. So I thought okay. So I did about two weeks digging again as I say, got really lucky and the story was true and the problem was that really nobody knew what to do about it. So at that point, because I'm quite young and pushy probably I remember seeing health ministers and Ken Clark in particular and Norman Fowler and various other civil servants and saying, are you worried? Well sue, the thing is they would say we're not self sufficient. And David Owen has started this great project, the Elstree Laboratories and it's going to cost us, I think it was 8 million comes to mind. But it can't have been that little before we're self sufficient and that's going to be in two or three years. So meanwhile we're importing this blood and it's fine, it's American and you know, it's okay. So I went back to my source and I Several times. And he said, well, I think, you know, I can give you some other contacts now. By now I'm thinking he probably knows I'm not actually I was going to.

[A]

Ask, has he worked out that you're.

[B]

I'm clearly not a hematologist. But he hadn't actually twigged and I hadn't published anything. Then I come home back to. Come home back to the office in Fleet street and I said, right, I've really got this story wrapped up out. And the lawyers were all over it and the editor was all over it and we published and the headline was huge in 64 point or something even bigger, Hospitals using killer Blood. Before we published, I phoned him up and I said, I'm reading you the whole thing, listen. And he said, yep. So I said, are you happy because I'm actually a journalist, not a hematologist. And he laughed and he said, I knew you weren't a hematologist.

[A]

The headline was true.

[B]

The headline was true. I said, are you happy with me to run this? He said, never ever come and see me again because my job is in jeopardy and never ever tell anyone who I am, but I'll continue to help you. Now, 40 years on, there's a public inquiry this year that's resulted in massive compensation, but, but no one's received this yet.

[A]

I mean this is 40 years later and other countries, people have been compensated.

[B]

And people went to prison for lying. In this country we still haven't, well, you know, for 10 years, at least 10 years we continue to have that same blood. And because we weren't actually self sufficient and there was things about human nature, again, you saying, getting up in the morning by this point, I'm loving what I'm doing, but it's scary because unless I'd had around me the support, which is really about the culture of where you're working and you're not a lone wolf and you do feel that you're doing this together. I could never have done it. And the press council ruled against me, saying that I was sensationalist, irresponsible and exposed people if they didn't take their blood products or refused transfusion, they could die. And that was true. But three and a half thousand people have died to date.

[A]

So one of whom was my former boss, Anita Roddick, who went public about this. Yeah, yeah. So, yeah, it's a terrible episode.

[B]

A terrible episode. But again, back to your question. What gets you up in the morning? If you think you can ever do that, even on the smallest level, that you might just make people think back to, you know, me never daring to say to Miss, Miss, why, if people aren't allowed to say that, or there isn't, you know, without going on about a free press but democracy and that you are allowed to ask questions and that you do have people around you to question what's going on. To me, that was the most important thing. So it was validation. There've been lots of fallow periods in my career when I've never done anything like that, but it's really important.

[A]

So you broke this big story. This was 40 years ago and it's still a big story. With this recent inquiry and people still seeking and expecting compensation. Rightly so.

[B]

Yes, and rightly so. But again, I'm still in touch with some of them because I felt very strongly that you don't just forget when something like that happens. And so one of the guys who I've been talking to for the last year, really, since the inquiry was first announced, said to me, I really hope that the public, people aren't going to think that we're money grabbing and that, you know, this is about me having enough money to buy a nice an Aston Martin and go on a holiday. He said, my life has been ruined and I've lost a brother and a father to this, you know, and no money can compensate for that. And I said, well, what does? He said, it'd be really great if someone said, sorry, yeah. And it would be even better, sue, if together we could work out a way where we could maybe make it never happen again. And you think about all the other public inquiries about Stephen Lawrence or about, you know, the public inquiry into what on earth happened, you know, within the police, that someone could actually pick up and murder a girl. You know, trust. And I think it's really, really important to have a mechanism to be able to talk to people and actually say, is this right beyond the establishment?

[A]

Thanks for listening to All About Business Shorts with Sue Douglas. For another piece of gripping journalism. Listen to part two. See you next time.