AstraZeneca Faces Court Over Claims its Covid Vaccine is Dangerous

Pharmaceutical giant AstraZeneca is facing criminal proceedings in the High Court of the United Kingdom, over claims the vaccine which made it hundreds of millions of dollars and a household name is not as effective as marketed and has greater side-effects than disclosed. 

 Landmark case 

The proceedings are being called a ‘landmark case’, as it could pave the way for more than 80 damages claims totalling £80 million (A$153 million) in the UK over Vaccine-induced Immune Thrombocytopenia and Thrombosis (VITT), a condition identified soon after the start of the worldwide vaccine rollout.  

The case has been brought under the UK’s Consumer Protection Act, to work around the legal indemnity that the UK Government gave AstraZeneca at the time vaccines became available.  

 The primary complainant is UK father Jamie Scott, who suffered a permanent brain injury from a blood clot after receiving the vaccine in April 2021.  

‘Safe and effective’ vaccines  

Governments were very quick to roll out vaccines during Covid-19, and many hundreds of thousands of people trusted authorities who promoted that vaccines  — although new and largely untested – were both safe and effective.  

However, as we all know, these vaccines ended up having some adverse side effects. At the time, when vaccine-induced Immune Thrombocytopenia and Thrombosis (VITT)  began to show up, it was minimized by mainstream media and authorities continued to maintain that the  condition was a ‘rare side effect’.  

 In 2021, as the condition began to show up in significant numbers globally, several countries including Sweden, Germany, Italy, France, Spain, Denmark, and Norway suspended their use of Astrazeneca.  

 Australia also paused its rollout of the Astrazeneca vaccine in March 2021 as a precaution, despite the World Health Organisation repeatedly expressing its confidence in the safety of the vaccines.   

 Legal immunity for Big Pharma  

Taking a step back from when the vaccine health related problems began to surface, early in 2020, along with several other governments, the Morrison government gave AstraZeneca protection from legal liability.  

 In February 2021, The Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) has provisionally approved the Oxford/AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine for use. In its press release at the time, the TGA stated that the “registration means the AstraZeneca vaccine has met the TGA’s rigorous standards for safety, quality and efficacy, and will be provided for free to all Australian residents.” 

In 2023, the TGA quietly withdrew AstraZeneca vaccines from Australia without much in the way of explanation. How many cases of Vaccine-induced Immune Thrombocytopenia and Thrombosis (VITT) have been reported is not known, although the TGA says that the condition affected around 2 to 3 people per 100,000.  

By way of comparison, Tetanus vaccines, which have been available and administered since 1968, have had just over 15,000 adverse reactions. Polio vaccines have also been available since the same year, 1968, and have had just a little more than 123,000 adverse reactions. 

 The adverse reactions to Covid-19 vaccines have been much higher overall, globally.  

 Difficulty accessing compensation  

 Shortly after it gave big pharma legal immunity, the Morrison Government set up its compensation scheme. The scheme has been heavily criticised as unsatisfactory.  

In Queensland, a man who suffered a heart injury and almost died three times after a single dose of the AstraZeneca Covid-19 injection is not only barred from seeking compensation from the company due to protections for pharmaceutical companies put into place by government, but has been refused compensation through the vaccine claims scheme because while his injury is a known side-effect of other Covid-vaccines, it is not recognised as such for the AstraZeneca jab. 

 Legal and regulatory loopholes  

 Legal and regulatory loopholes’ are allowing governments to side step their responsibility, despite their relentless push for vaccines during the pandemic which ignored the information about efficacy and the potential for adverse side effects, and branded anyone asking questions as a “anti-vaxxers” and in some cases “conspiracy theorists.”  

 What happens now – and is currently happening in many other countries – is that many cases will be determined by the courts, and if the pharmaceutical manufacturers involved are amongst those protected by the Government’s indemnities, then taxpayers will foot the bill.   

To date, the World Health Organisation (WHO) has only publicly acknowledged that Covid-19 can induce multiple sclerosis, despite the fact that there have been various other health issues directly attributed to vaccines.  

The WHO continues to advocate for vaccines, despite an emerging body of information which strongly suggests they’re not ‘safe for all’.  

 WHO wants more pandemic powers  

Concerningly, the WHO is also currently pushing for sweeping powers to become the “global authority” during the next pandemic, taking the responsibility of “pandemic management” from individual governments. 

The organisation has drafted amendments to International Health Regulations (IHR) and is campaigning for the 194 members of the World Health Assembly to adopt these amendments along with a new ‘pandemic treaty’, which is being touted as necessary for ‘better preparedness and protection’ in the case of another global health crisis.  

Mr Philipp Kruse, an international lawyer, based in Zurich, Switzerland has been over the WHO’s proposed health regulations, which he says will grant the organisation the power to suspend individual member countries’ (Australia is one) constitutions and human rights.  

 The new treaty also proposes that WHO has a broader power to call a “pandemic” or global health crisis and therefore enact its powers. Member states would then be “compelled” to enforce WHO directives in such a circumstance.  

 The WHO also seeks to maintain control of information and minimise what it calls ‘disinformation’ which would dispel discussion and debate.  

 What needs to be considered very carefully in the equation is the fact that the WHO has legal immunity.   

 The WHO proposal has had very little coverage in the mainstream media – and this is concerning. In the UK, the politicians have decided to take the decision to sign up to the new amendments and treaty to a referendum, which will give the general public a say.  

The perfect tool for wannabe dictators  

Here in Australia, we have heard little, certainly nowhere near enough in the way of public consultation or discussion. 

 Mr Philipp Kruse calls WHO’s proposal “the perfect tool for wannabe dictators” and that should set alarm bells ringing. A lack of open debate, and a considerable degree of public apathy and too much trust in governments has meant that slowly over time, our rights and freedoms have been eroded – in plain sight.  

A similar thing has the potential to occur here, except rather than our own Federal or State governments clamouring for more “emergency powers” it is a global organisation which already has a questionable reputation for pandemic / global crisis management and a far from exemplary track record for openness, transparency and accountability.