Taiwanese Hemophiliacs Infected by US Made HIV-Contaminated Medications: Exhibits
Szmuness 1975 “On the Role of Sexual Behavior in the Spread of Hepatitis B Infection”
Exhibit 1: Cutter Memo to Taiwan supplier re sales of AHF since 1977, 2 April 1985
Exhibit 2: Cutter Memo re meeting with Taiwan Dept of Health, 4-5 Feb 1997
Exhibit 3: Cutter Memo re heat treatment killing AIDS virus, 17 May 1984
Exhibit 4: Cutter Note re AHF study and chimpanzees developing AIDS-like symptoms, 14 Dec 1982
Exhibit 5: July 1982 MMWR reporting hemophiliacs showing symptoms of
disease observed in gay men
Exhibit 6: Oct 1984 MMWR reporting increasing cases of AIDS in hemophiliacs
Exhibit 7: Cutter Memo re plasma screening test recommended by the FDA, 19 Dec 1983
Exhibit 8: Cutter Memo re FDA asking Cutter to voluntarily exclude gays
from plasma collection, 30 Aug 1982
Exhibit 9: Cutter Memo re FDA asking Cutter to exclude high risk donors,
including prisoners, 21 Dec 1982
Exhibit 10: Advertisements in various gay magazines for plasma donors exposed to hepatitis
Exhibit 11: Cutter letter to Warden of Arizona State Prison in Florence re FDA
concern re prisoner plasma, 19 Jan 1983
Exhibit 12: Letter from Cutter’s Oakland Plasma Center to Cutter, that center was found to be in non-compliance re plasma collection from IV drug users, 19 May 1981
Exhibit 13: Cutter Memo re FDA asking for exclusion of plasma from high risk donors, 13 Dec 1982
Exhibit 14: Transcript of Steven Ojala (Cutter) presentation to FDA Committee
opposing mandatory recalls, 19 July 1983
Exhibit 15: Internal Cutter Memo from Mozen that heat treated AHF would
probably be safer,
4 Jan 1983
Exhibit 16: Letter from FDA to Hyland / Travenol approving their heat
treatment license, 21 March 1983
Exhibit 17: Letter from FDA to Miles (Cutter) approving their heat treatment license, 29 Feb 1984
Exhibit 18: Letter from Cutter to FDA, date 9 Aug 1985, that they ceased making and distributing non-heat treated product on 21 June 1985
Exhibit 19: Letter from FDA to Miles/Cutter acknowledging Cutter’s letter of 9 Aug 1985
Exhibit 20: Confidential Cutter Memo of 15 Nov 1984 regarding excess inventory of non-heated AHF
Exhibit 21: Cutter Telex of 29 Nov 1984 regarding continued sale of non-heated AHF to the Far East
Exhibit 22: Cutter’s 1984 Far East Marketing Memo stating that a recall would cost
Cutter $2 Million during 1984
Exhibit 23: Cutter’s 1985 Far East Marketing Memo stating Cutter has no immediate plans to stop selling non-heated AHF, because AIDS was not yet an issue in the Far East, and that “hysteria over AIDS” could cost them to lose sales and profit
Exhibit 24: Telex from Cutter to Hong Kong supplier, dated 6 May 1985, stating that
non-heated product is still being sold in Taiwan and other countries,
describing non-heated AHF as
“the same fine product”
Exhibit 25: Cutter Memo dated 30 May 1985, regarding FDA request to Cutter to stop making
Exhibit 26: Cutter telex dated 31 Oct 1983, recalling AHF lots containing plasma from Austin donor who died of AIDS
Exhibit 27: Cutter Memo of 4 Nov 1983 regarding recall due to Austin donor “diagnosed
as having AIDS”
Exhibit 28: Cutter Telex to Taiwan supplier regarding recall, saying donor was “suspected of AIDS”
Exhibit 29: Cutter Letter introducing sales manual for heat treated AHF, dated 12 April 1984
Exhibit 31: Cutter Marketing Bulletin dated 26 June 1985 saying “Effective immediately, no further exports of non-heat treated AHF” would be made
Exhibit 32: Cutter telex to Taiwan supplier, dated 20 Sept 1985, offering exchange of heat-treated AHF for the non-heat treated AHF
Exhibit 33: Cutter Memo regarding international AIDS symposium in April 1985, and
of information now known about AIDS, in which it was recommended that non-heated AHF
no longer be used
Exhibit 34: Jury verdict of $2 Million in JKB case in Indiana, 20 March 1997
Exhibit 35: Jury verdict of $35.3 Million in Dixon case in Louisiana, 15 March 1999
Exhibit 36: News release dated 19 Feb 1998, regarding Bayer providing “humanitarian aid” to Taiwanese hemophiliacs who contracted HIV
Exhibit 37: News release dated 14 Feb 1998, wherein Bayer claims it had won all litigation cases throughout the world
Exhibit 39: Bayer responses to Discovery requests, 13 Feb 2008, listing participants in the Taiwan aid negotiations
Exhibit 40: Bayer responses to Discovery requests, 26 Oct 2007, regarding Taiwan aid negotiations
Exhibit 42: US Court of Appeals decision on Gruca, which notes that their decision was based upon the fact that the AHF used which infected the person who died of AIDS, was made by another manufacturer other than Cutter
Exhibit 42a: Gruca case settlement with Alpha Therapeutic Corporation, 21 Jan 2003
Exhibit 44: Paragraph 9 of Taiwan Humanitarian Aid agreement, regarding additional compensation to Taiwan claimants, if Bayer pays higher compensation to others
Exhibit 45: Paragraph 18 of attorney’s declaration, that Taiwan humanitarian agreements were signed between 1998 and 2002
Exhibit 46: Letter of 11 May 2004 to Bayer, requesting enforcement of the scale-up clause of the Taiwan agreement, and increased compensation to Taiwan victims
Exhibit 47: New York Times story of 22 May 2003, regarding Bayer’s dumping of infective product in overseas countries
Exhibit 54: Bayer letter of 16 Feb 1998 to Taiwan Department of Health regarding negotiations on humanitarian aid
Exhibit 63: Cutter memo dated 27 Jan 1982, that “hepatitis free” AHF product was being tested, and that Dr. Louis Aledort stated “that once this product is licensed, it would be unethical to place a patient on other therapy”
Exhibit 64: Cutter Memo dated 1 June 1983 regarding hemophiliacs diagnosed with AIDS had used AHF, and that heat-treated AHF in Europe appeared free of hepatitis and thus was safer
Exhibit 65: Cutter Memo dated 6 June 1983 regarding heat treated AHF appearing safer
Exhibit 66: Cutter Marketing Bulletin of 6 July 1983 downplaying heat treatment,
saying not proven, etc
Exhibit 67: Cutter’s ECHO publication to hemophiliacs, dated May 1983, stating there is “no evidence”, and downplaying heat treatment of AHF
Exhibit 68: Cutter Memo of 22 Nov 1983 stating Cutter had made a “corporate commitment” to produce heat treated AHF, that they had a “quality heat treated process” that would be available in early 1984
A sample of hemophiliac lawsuits against AHF manufacturers:
Waage v. Cutter, 926 P. 2d 1145, (Alaska 1996)
JKB v. Armour, et al, verdict 3-20-97
K.D.D. Smith v. Alpha, et al, Orleans Parish, LA, jury award 3-15-99, overturned on SOL, but settled
Federal Regulations requiring companies to use plasma from “normal, healthy donors”:
§§640.51 - Suitability of donors
640.63 - Suitability of donor
§606.140a - Laboratory controls
A ranking in The U.S. News – Best Lawyers® “Best Law Firms” is widely regarded by both client and legal professionals as a significant honor. It is considered the most reliable, unbiased source of legal referrals anywhere.
Wisner Baum is proud to be a sponsor of The Truck Safety Coalition, a a group of caring individuals dedicated to reducing the number of deaths and injuries caused by truck-related crashes. Our support enables them to help families and save lives.
Law360 recognizes law firms that have a strong regional presence, working on important matters within their home state. “[Wisner Baum] possesses a David v. Goliath-sized slingshot while seeking justice for everyday citizens it believes were harmed or killed through corporate wrongdoing.”
NLJ and American Lawyer Media honor law firms and attorneys as Elite Trial Lawyers for their cutting-edge legal work on behalf of plaintiffs in practice areas ranging from mass torts to securities litigation.
Best Lawyers is the oldest and most respected peer-review publication in the legal profession. A listing in Best Lawyers is widely regarded by both clients and legal professionals as a significant honor, conferred on a lawyer by his or her peers.
Less than one-half of one percent of firms across the nation have achieved this ranking. A firm must have a high percentage of lawyers who have achieved the prestigious AV® Preeminent rating by Martindale-Hubbell®.
The National Law Journal inducted Wisner Baum into the Verdicts Hall of Fame for obtaining the $2 billion landmark verdict in the Roundup cancer case of Pilliod et al. v. Monsanto. The verdict was #1 in California and #2 in the U.S. in 2019 and is #9 in American history.
Super Lawyers is a rating service of outstanding lawyers from more than 70 practice areas who have attained a high-degree of peer recognition and professional achievement.
The National Trial Lawyers Top 100 recognized the law firms of Wisner Baum, the Miller Firm and Audet & Partners with the 2019 Trial Team of the Year award (in the Mass Torts category) for their work in the groundbreaking case of Dewayne “Lee” Johnson v. Monsanto Company.
An AV® rating reflects an attorney who has reached the heights of professional excellence. The rating signifies the highest legal ability, and very high adherence to professional standards of conduct, ethics, reliability, and diligence.
Wisner Baum is proud to have all of its lawyers listed in Avvo, a legal directory connecting people in need of legal services with lawyers and connecting lawyers to lawyers. Eight of our attorneys have earned a 10.0 perfect rating with Avvo.
CA and USA
TopVerdict.com ranks our $2 billion verdict in Pilliod et al. v. Monsanto as the biggest verdict in California and the second largest verdict in the U.S. in 2019. It is the ninth largest verdict in U.S. history.
Published annually, the Lawdragon 500 Leading Plaintiff Consumer Lawyers list recognizes the “best of the best” in this area of the law through nominations, research, and review by a board of their peers.
In 2020, Law360 honored the law firms ”behind the litigation wins and major deals that resonated throughout the legal industry.” It recognized our success in several landmark cases.
In 2018, our $289 million Johnson v. Monsanto verdict was the largest personal injury verdict in California. TopVerdict.com also ranked it #2 among all verdicts in California and #10 in the nation.
The Bar Register is the definitive guide to the most distinguished law firms in America. It includes only those select law practices that have earned the highest rating in the Martindale-Hubbell Law Directory and have been designated by their colleagues as preeminent in their field.
Firm ReviewsWhat Our Clients Are Saying
I Can’t Imagine a Better Law Firm- Best Law Firms Survey
They Are About Changing the Systems...- Kim Witczak
Top Legal Minds in the Country- From Best Lawyers® Best Law Firms
Diligent & Professional Representation- W.T.
Our Best Interest Was Always Number One on Your List- G.C. & C.C