The Great AstraZeneca Court Case By Richard Miller (London)
A UK High Court case is in progress over the adverse effects of the AstraZeneca Covid vax. The plaintiff IT engineer Jamie Scott suffered a brain haemorrhage the day after his first AstraZeneca jab, leaving him with permanent brain damage. He is partially blind. The case alleges that the dose was ineffective and claims of its efficacy “vastly overstated.”
The Daily Mail coverage is careful to push the line that the vax saved six million lives according to unnamed studies. But that claim is under debate as an exaggeration, since the mortality rate for Covid-19 is less than one percent for people who are not aged and/or immune-suppressed. And, it begs the question against the very item under discussion, namely the High Court case where this matter will need to be debated. The Covid vaxxes did not stop transmission of the Covid-19 virus, and nor did it prevent subsequent Covid infections.
Two test cases are expected before the court after recipients developed a rare condition following the rollout of the jab in 2021.
The vaccine, developed in partnership with Oxford University, was heralded for its role helping the UK recover from Covid, with more than 150 million doses administered to date. Some six million lives were saved by the jab, studies show.
But it triggered blood clots in a very small number of people – with some leading to fatal complications. The condition is known as known as vaccine-induced immune thrombocytopenia and thrombosis (VITT).
IT engineer Jamie Scott is now bringing the court action after suffering a brain haemorrhage the day after his first AstraZeneca jab, leaving him with permanent brain damage.
His wife Kate last year told The Mail on Sunday how the father-of-two, from Warwickshire, was left partially blind and struggles with daily tasks – requiring physiotherapy to help regain movement.
Charity worker Mrs Scott said: 'It is a miracle that Jamie is still with us. I called the hospital three times to say goodbye. The doctors have said he may never work again.'
Currently, families are entitled to a £120,000 payout if a loved one dies or is left significantly disabled as a result of a Government-recommended jab. But experts say the system is outdated, prompting the court action.
Mrs Scott added: 'Even if we do get the £120,000 payment, it's not enough to keep us going for ever. And it's insulting, considering what Jamie has been through.'
A second claim is reportedly being brought by the widower and two children of Alpa Tailor, 35, who died after having the jab.
If successful, it could pave the way for similar claims, thought to be in the region of £1million each.
Mr Scott's lawyers told the Daily Telegraph they will argue that he suffered 'personal injuries', with an allegation that the jab was 'defective' and the efficacy of the vaccine had been misleading.
AstraZeneca said: 'From the body of evidence in clinical trials and real-world data, the vaccine has continuously been shown to have an acceptable safety profile and regulators around the world consistently state that the benefits of vaccination outweigh the risks of extremely rare potential side-effects.'
Millions of Brits rolled up their sleeves when called to get the vaccine in the hope of protecting themselves, vulnerable loved ones and society as a whole from the virus as it swept the country.
In comparison to rival vaccines which used pioneering mRNA technology, AstraZeneca's more traditional shot was cheaper and easier to store.
It uses a weakened version of an adenovirus — a pathogen which causes a common cold in chimpanzees. This is genetically modified to be incapable of making humans sick.
It carries genetic material from SARS-CoV-2, the pathogen that causes Covid. This teaches the body's immune system how to fight the real virus.”