Why did Hilary Ok donating prison blood to sick Canadian kids, and why did she not stop it, how much money was she making
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
The controversy centers on an Arkansas prison plasma program that sent contaminated plasma abroad in the 1970s–1990s, infecting many recipients in Canada and elsewhere; investigators and journalists have tied the program to private contractors, weak regulation, and profit incentives rather than to clear evidence that Hillary Clinton personally “donated” or “allowed” the shipments [1] [2] [3]. Reporting documents how companies and brokers profited and how inmates received only token payments, while regulatory failures and political entanglements delayed corrective action [4] [5] [6].
1. What actually happened: the Arkansas prison plasma program and its victims
Arkansas ran a prison plasma program in which plasma collected from inmates at units such as Cummins was sold to brokers and pharmaceutical firms abroad; investigative reports and commissions later concluded contaminated plasma carried hepatitis and HIV into Canada and other countries, infecting thousands and prompting large compensation packages in Canada [1] [6] [3]. The Krever inquiry and subsequent reporting estimate more than 1,000 Canadians infected with HIV and roughly 20,000 with hepatitis C from tainted products linked to U.S. prison plasma, and the Canadian government set aside large compensation funds in response [1].
2. Who profited and how the money flowed
Primary financial incentives were commercial: brokers and firms buying prison plasma sold refined products on international markets for many times what they paid donors, with contemporary reporting stating plasma could fetch roughly $50 per pint on the international market while prisoners were paid small sums (about $7 per donation) and the remainder was split among intermediaries and the corrections system [4] [5]. Company contractors like Health Management Associates (HMA) and successors held lucrative state contracts to run prison medical and plasma operations, and journalists alleged those contracts were financially important and sometimes awarded despite regulatory problems [2] [7].
3. Why it continued: regulatory gaps, commercial intermediaries and delayed oversight
Multiple sources document that FDA actions, regulatory blind spots and the use of intermediaries allowed exports to continue even after domestic safety concerns; the FDA recalled hepatitis-tainted products in 1983 and cited HMA for deficiencies, yet the program persisted and Arkansas continued selling prisoner plasma to brokers who did not always disclose the prison source [2] [6] [1]. Reports describe poor donor screening, dirty needles and falsified records inside the prison program, and prisoner-run abuses like bribery to allow overbleeding — systemic failures that were commercialized through middlemen and slow-moving investigations [5] [6].
4. The Clinton connection and what the record does — and does not — show
Many contemporary and later accounts highlight that the prison plasma program operated while Bill Clinton was governor and that state contracts went to firms with political ties; critics and documentaries have suggested the governor’s office and political allies benefited indirectly, and some reporting names associates and contract controversies [2] [7] [8]. The provided sources focus on Bill Clinton’s era and on state-level appointments and contracts; they do not provide documented evidence in these excerpts that Hillary Clinton personally ordered, profited from, or “donated” prison blood, and definitive causal claims about her personal conduct are not supported by the materials cited [2] [7].
5. How much money individuals made — inmates, contractors, and governments
Reporting consistently shows inmates were paid trivial sums per donation (about $7 per pint in one account) while plasma sold internationally for much larger amounts, generating profits for brokers and contractors; specific company revenues and exact state-side splits varied by contract and year and are described in aggregate rather than in single-line figures in the sources [4] [5]. The Canadian government’s multi-hundred-million- to billion-dollar compensation packages to victims reflect the scale of harm and the downstream financial consequences, but direct income figures for named politicians are not substantiated in the supplied reporting [1].
6. Why “why did she not stop it” is the wrong frame for available evidence
The question presumes a single actor could have halted a complex commercial-regulatory network; the documented reasons the program continued were institutional — contractor practices, inadequate oversight, brokers obscuring origins, and delayed enforcement — not proven evidence that one person chose to “not stop” it for gain [6] [2] [5]. Sources point to systemic wrongdoing and contested political connections, and while critics argue political influence mattered, the materials here do not prove a direct, documented decision by Hillary Clinton to allow or profit from the trade [7] [8].