First high court case

Landmark legal case Oxford AstraZeneca Covid jab was ‘defective’ 8th November 2023 Oxford-AstraZeneca Covid-19 vaccine has been branded “defective” Claims efficacy, vastly overstated High Court test case Mr. Jamie Scott Bleed on the brain Suffered a significant permanent brain injury Now unable to work Vaccinated, April 2021, blood clot Claim, Consumer Protection Act 1987, argues AstraZeneca vaccine “defective” (not as safe as individuals were entitled to expect) From Mr and Mrs Scott “We were told by the Government the vaccine was safe and effective but what’s happened to Jamie has been life changing and their vaccine caused that.” “AstraZeneca cannot continue to ignore the circumstances in which their vaccine has caused devastating injury and loss,” “Our legal case will seek to hold AstraZeneca to account but we need to build a significant fighting fund to get justice.” Second claim Mrs Alpa Tailor (35) Case brought by her widower Inquest confirmed vaccine death Two test cases Could pave the way for 80 damages claims (£80 million) Vaccine-induced Immune Thrombocytopenia and Thrombosis (VITT) Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) At least 81 deaths in the UK, suspected to be linked to clotting and low platelets (almost one in five sufferers died) WHO, 13 June 2022 The vaccine is safe and effective for all individuals aged 18 and above. AstraZeneca last night to the Telegraph Patient safety was its “highest priority” Vaxzevria, “continuously been shown to have an acceptable safety profile” Regulators around the world “consistently state that the benefits of vaccination outweigh the risks of extremely rare potential side effects”. Question about UK Government monitoring Germany suspended use in under 60s, end of March 2021 UK, stopped for under 30s April 7th 2021 UK, stopped for under 40s May 2021 Freedom of Information request 148 payouts under Government Vaccine Damage Payment Scheme 144 for AZ, (£120,000) WhatsApp messages to or from Matt Hancock Concerns aired by US authorities AstraZeneca never applied for a licence in the US Sir John Bell Professor of medicine Oxford (Government’s chief adviser on life sciences) and adviser to the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation AstraZeneca had become “really frazzled” “They accept that their comms are a bit clunky, and they misjudged some things like clinical trials data and manufacturing, partly because they’ve not done a vaccine before.” Legal argument No warning of the risk of VITT in the product information sheet at the time. AstraZeneca issued press releases following clinical trials, Vaxzevria, between 62% to 90% per cent effective at preventing symptomatic Covid-19 “In fact, the absolute risk reduction concerning Covid-19 prevention was only 1.2 per cent.” (Prescription Medicines Code of Practice Authority) Lawyers to examine government reassurance Mr Hancock, (accompanying departmental minute) “The data so far on this vaccine suggests that there will be no adverse reactions, and so no liability.” Sarah Moore, partner at Hausfeld “The group of individuals whom we represent have always been clear: they do not dabble in anti-vaccine conspiracy theories However, it is plainly factually inaccurate to claim that vaccines do no harm given the experience of our client group – the vaccine injured and bereaved.” AZ point MHRA had granted “full marketing approval… for the UK based on the safety profile and efficacy of the vaccine”. Andrew Bridgen speech 03/11/2023 We have reviewed our use of on-screen captions during an Adjournment Debate at the House of Commons called ‘Trends in Excess Deaths’. There were concerns that the captions, which outlined the NHS guidance on vaccines for Covid-19 and other diseases, showed bias against Andrew Bridgen MP who was making a speech that challenged the Government’s position on the safety and efficacy of the Covid-19 vaccines. It is normal practice to provide accurate information and context to these debates on screen and in this case it was an important aspect of our coverage due to the nature of the assertions being made in relation to public health. However, we accept that there was a lack of consistency in our use of these captions and that the number posted during the speech was not proportionate, nor always relevant, which created the incorrect impression that there was an editorial approach in relation to the views expressed. We apologise for this and are reviewing the way we use captions during such proceedings.