Could the first generations of stars have been pure hydrogen so that all of the helium in the universe came from stars and not the big bang?

I recall reading an article about 10 years back, written by Dr. Joseph Silk at UC Berkeley, that discussed the characteristics of the so-called Population III stars. These stars formed directly from clumps in the hydrogen/helium mixture than came out of the big bang era. They started out with no elements heavier than lithium. Because the internal opacity of these first-generation stars was only produced by hydrogen and helium atomic absorption lines...and not the plethora of other lines contributed in present-day stars rich in the heavier elements, these first generation stars formed at much higher masses on average. During the collapse of the matter into protostellar cores, pressure equilibrium in these nearly transparent cores was established at much later times when the accumulated masses were on the order of 100 solar masses. Today, this equilibrium in the more opaque gases of modern stars, favors stars with a mass of about that of the sun.

So, in a mixture of hydrogen and helium consistent with big bang cosmology nucleosynthesis, the 'back of the envelope' calculations seem to favor very massive stars. These evolve in only a few million years, into supernovae and black hole cores. This is consistent with the apparent fact gleaned from Hubble Space Telescope observations that in the distant universe looking back in time, star forming regions in galaxies already have near-solar heavy element abundances within 1 billion years after the big bang. Presumably, if the first generation stars were as massive as predicted, we should still see solar abundances within 100 to 300 million years after the big bang, given that the universe was probably cool enough for these stars to have formed after about 10 million years after the big bang.

Now, what about having the mass of the first generation stars as pure hydrogen, so that after supernova ejection you might try to produce even the helium which is normally credited to the big bang? Presumably, Fred Hoyle, one of the founders of Steady State Cosmology, has suggested this possibility as a way of dismissing the cosmological hydrogen/helium ratio as an artifact of stellar evolution, not cosmology. Given how transparent hydrogen gas is, having far fewer absorption lines than the previous hydrogen+helium mixture, one would have to conclude that even larger stellar masses would arise that would be well in excess of 100 solar masses. These would evolve into supernova in much less than 1 million years, but I have to confess that I am not familiar with the way in which stellar evolution processes, or formation processes, would scale with this new mixture. It is even possible that such pure-hydrogen, collapsing cores are not possible at all once the details of the radiative transfer of energy within these bodies is worked out in detail. I have never heard of any studies of such objects.