UK NEWS WEBSITE OF THE YEAR

My Feed
News Sport Money Business Opinion Israel Ukraine Royals Life Style Travel Culture Puzzles

UK news Politics World Health Defence Science Education Environment Investigations Global Health Security

Oxford AstraZeneca Covid jab was ‘defective’,

claims landmark legal case

Victims of VITT - a new condition identi ed by specialists - question the Government's

monitoring of the vaccine's rollout and its e cacy

By Robert Mendick, CHIEF REPORTER and Investigations team

8 November 2023 • 5:59pm

Related Topics

Vaccines, Coronavirus, AstraZeneca, Matt

Hancock, Boris Johnson

3691

The Oxford-AstraZeneca Covid-19 vaccine was 'defective', according to a multi-million pound landmark legal action

The Oxford-AstraZeneca Covid-19 vaccine has been branded “defective” in a multi-

More stories

million pound landmark legal action that will suggest claims over its e cacy were

Good riddance, Carol Vorderman –

“vastly overstated” .

you won’t be missed

The pharmaceutical giant is being sued in the High Court in a test case by Jamie Scott,

a father-of-two who su ered a signi cant permanent brain injury that has left him Baywatch star divorces Earl of

Devon, admitting she

unable to work as a result of a blood clot after receiving the jab in April 2021. A second

‘underestimated’ life as an aristocrat

claim is being brought by the widower and two young children of 35-year-old Alpa

Tailor, who died after having the jab made by AstraZeneca, the UK-based
Captured Hamas terrorists could be

charged with rape

pharmaceutical giant.

The test cases could pave the way for as many as 80 damages claims worth an
Savers to cash in as Jeremy Hunt

estimated £80 million over a new condition known as Vaccine-induced Immune plots Isa rates war

Thrombocytopenia and Thrombosis ( VIT T) that was identi ed by specialists in the

wake of the AstraZeneca Covid-19 vaccine rollout. ‘How could something as simple as

picking up a phone be the cause of

my daughter ’s death?’

‘We were told the vaccine was safe -

but what happened has been life-

changing’

Independent studies show the AstraZeneca vaccine was incredibly e ective in

tackling the pandemic, saving more than six million lives globally in the rst year of

the rollout. Last year, the World Health Organisation said the vaccine was “safe and

e ective for all individuals aged 18 and above” and that the adverse e ect that has

prompted the legal action was “very rare”.

The vaccine, which was heralded at its launch by Boris Johnson as a “ triumph for

British science” , is no longer used in the UK . The Government recommends three

other vaccines for its autumn booster programme.

In the months following the rollout, the potential serious side e ect of the

AstraZeneca jab was identi ed by scientists. Following this, it was recommend it no

longer be given to the under-40s in the UK because the risk of receiving the jab

outweighed the harm posed by Covid.

AstraZeneca last night told the Telegraph that patient safety was its “highest priority ”,

that its vaccine, called Vaxzevria, had “continuously been shown to have an

acceptable safety pro le”, and that regulators around the world “consistently state that

the bene ts of vaccination outweigh the risks of extremely rare potential side e ects”.

It is understood AstraZeneca, in its legal response, denies causing Mr Scott ’s injuries.

O cial gures from the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency

(MHRA) show at least 81 deaths in the UK are suspected to have been linked to the

adverse reaction that caused clotting in people who also had low blood platelets. In

total, almost one in ve people who su ered from the condition died as a result,

according to the MHRA’s own gures.

Families complain over payment scheme

Victims and their lawyers question the Government ’s monitoring of the rollout and

point out that while Germany suspended the vaccine’s use for the under 60s at the

end of March 2021 over the risk of rare blood clots, the UK stopped giving it to under

30s on April 7 and took another month to ban it for the under 40s .

O cial gures obtained under a Freedom of Information request show that out of 148

payouts made by the Government under the Vaccine Damage Payment Scheme,

which provides compensation to those injured by vaccines or to bereaved next-of-kin,

at least 144 went to recipients of the AstraZeneca vaccine. Fewer than ve people

under the scheme received vaccines other than AstraZeneca.

Families complain the amount paid out under the scheme – a xed tax-free sum of

£120,000 – is insu cient, prompting them to bring the legal cases in the High Court

against AstraZeneca.

The claim is being brought by Mr Scott under the Consumer Protection Act 1987 and

argues that the AstraZeneca vaccine was “defective” in that it was not as safe as

individuals were entitled to expect.

WhatsApp messages suggest concerns raised

The case will raise questions about what the UK authorities knew about concerns over

the vaccine and how they were handled.

An examination of WhatsApp messages sent by or to Matt Hancock, the then health

secretary, obtained by The Telegraph as part of the Lockdown Files and which have

been passed to the Covid public inquiry, suggest concerns were aired by US

authorities. AstraZeneca never in the end applied for a licence in the US.

At the time, a number of European countries were pausing the vaccine’s rollout over

fears it caused clotting in some people.

Legal case to hold AstraZeneca to account

The test case was lodged by Mr Scott after he almost died after receiving the vaccine.

Mr Scott su ered a catastrophic bleed on the brain and doctors called his wife, Kate,

three times to tell her to come to the hospital to say goodbye to him.

Mrs Scott said the couple were being forced to sue AstraZeneca because the

Government ’s compensation scheme, and the £120,000 paid out to her husband, was

inadequate.

Mr Scott, who was 44 when he had the jab, has had to give up his job as an IT software

developer. Mrs Scott said: “ We are private people but we cannot stand the injustice of

it. We have been lobbying the Government for 18 months for fair compensation for

the injury caused by the vaccine.

“ We were told by the Government the vaccine was safe and e ective but what ’s

happened to Jamie has been life changing and their [AstraZeneca] vaccine caused

that.”

Mrs Scott is seeking to raise funds to pay for the legal cases. “AstraZeneca cannot

continue to ignore the circumstances in which their vaccine has caused devastating

injury and loss,” Mrs Scott has written in an open letter. “Our legal case will seek to

hold AstraZeneca to account but we need to build a signi cant ghting fund to get

justice.”

Vaccine e icacy to be challenged

As many as 80 claimants could lodge legal cases with the High Court by the end of the

year in a class action that threatens to undermine faith in the rollout of the

AstraZeneca vaccine that was developed jointly with Oxford University .

In Mr Scott ’s claim, his lawyers argue that he su ered “personal injuries and

consequential losses arising out of his sustaining Vaccine Induced Immune

Thrombosis with Thrombocytopenia ( VIT T) as a result of his vaccination on 23 April

2021, with the AstraZeneca Covid-19 vaccination”, which the legal claim alleges was

“defective”. They also argue that no warning of the risk of VIT T was included in the

product information on the date of supply of the vaccine.

AstraZeneca issued press releases following clinical trials saying the vaccine – known

as Vaxzevria – was between 62 per cent and 90 per cent e ective at preventing

symptomatic Covid-19 depending on dosages, with an average of 70 per cent. The

legal claim states: “In fact, the absolute risk reduction concerning Covid-19 prevention

was only 1.2 per cent.”

An absolute risk reduction measures how much the vaccine reduces an individual’s

baseline risk of getting ill from Covid at a particular time. If Covid levels are low, the

absolute risk reduction rate will be much lower too.

This is di erent from a relative risk reduction, which compares the numbers of

vaccinated people getting ill with those getting ill who did not receive the jab. In the

case of AstraZeneca, a peer-review study showed the relative risk was reduced by an

average of about 70 per cent.

AstraZeneca has said it emphasised the higher gure – denoting the relative reduction

in risk – because that did not alter regardless of the prevalence of Covid at the time.

Lawyers argued that information in the AstraZeneca press release on its e cacy was

“misleading because members of the public… assume that the published e cacy rate

was an absolute risk rate (in which case the published e cacy rate vastly overstated

the e cacy of the vaccine)”.

The Court documents state: “The Claimant claims damages and interest… as a result

of personal injuries and consequential losses arising out of his sustaining Vaccine

Induced Immune Thrombosis with Thrombocytopenia ( VIT T) as a result of his

vaccination on 23 April 2021, with the AstraZeneca COVID19 vaccination (ChAdOx1 S

[recombinant]) manufactured and /or supplied by the Defendant which was defective

within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act 1987.”

On the complex issue of the vaccine’s e cacy, the court documents draw on a ruling

by the Prescription Medicines Code of Practice Authority (PMCPA), which said in July

last year that AstraZeneca had breached its code in using the repeated use of the word

“safe” in a press release in December 2020. The PMCPA also ruled it had breached its

code of practice in failing to disclose the absolute risk reduction of having the vaccine.

The particulars of claim state: “In fact, the absolute risk reduction concerning COVID-

19 prevention was only 1.2 per cent, and the PMCPA concluded in response to the

complaint… that the information provided in the press release as to the e cacy of the

vaccine was misleading because members of the public reading the press release

might assume that the published e cacy rate was an absolute risk rate (in which case

the published e cacy rate vastly overstated the e cacy of the vaccine).”

Lawyers to examine government reassurance

The legal action will also examine the role of the Government in reassuring the public

after Mr Hancock authorised an indemnity for AstraZeneca in the “very unexpected

event of any adverse reactions that could not have been foreseen through the robust

checks and procedures that have been put in place”.

Lawyers point out in the legal claim that Mr Hancock, in an accompanying

departmental minute, said: “The data so far on this vaccine suggests that there will be

no adverse reactions, and so no liability.”

The particulars of claim state: “Public statements by the Government as to the safety

of the vaccine are relevant circumstances to be taken into account in considering the

level of safety that persons generally were entitled to expect from the AZ vaccine.”

Writing for The Telegraph , Sarah Moore, partner at Hausfeld, the law rm bringing

the claim, says: “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.

“By beginning a legal battle against AstraZeneca, the vaccine injured and bereaved

will use the law to seek accountability and compensation for the deaths of their loved

ones and the life-changing injuries that many in the group have sustained.”

Government urged to settle cases

Sir Jeremy Wright KC, the former attorney general, urged the Government to step in

and settle the legal claims before they came to court – given that ministers had

indemni ed AstraZeneca.

Sir Jeremy, who has raised the case of Mr Scott, who is one of his constituents, with

Rishi Sunak, said: “It is very, very strange the Government has not come up with a

way to settle these cases where the cause is clear. I don’t get it from a professional

point of view, or from the political point of view, because of the damage done if these

cases are not settled quickly.”

Sir Jeremy added: “There is no sense of urgency on this. There is no realisation in the

Government this is an impending problem . The PM told me he would nd out more

about it and come back to me. But that was some time ago – long enough that I would

expect to see progress. Given indemni cation is a fact, this is a government problem.

The Government should not be washing its hands of this. None of us can be con dent

we won’t have to go through all this again one day, and if we do, then con dence in

mass vaccination needs to be in place.”

‘Patient safety is our highest priority’

The second claim is being brought by Anish Tailor, whose wife died in April 2021, just

under a month after having the vaccine. An inquest in September 2021 determined

she died from blood clots and bleeding on the brain caused by “vaccine-induced

immune thrombosis and thrombocytopenia”. According to the claim lodged in the

High Court, Mrs Tailor ’s family are seeking damages of up to £5 million.

In a statement AstraZeneca said: “ We do not comment on ongoing litigation matters,”

but it added: “Patient safety is our highest priority and regulatory authorities have

clear and stringent standards to ensure the safe use of all medicines, including

vaccines. Our sympathy goes out to anyone who has lost loved ones or reported health

problems.

“From the body of evidence in clinical trials and real-world data, Vaxzevria has

continuously been shown to have an acceptable safety pro le and regulators around

the world consistently state that the bene ts of vaccination outweigh the risks of

extremely rare potential side e ects.”

It pointed out the MHRA had granted the vaccine “full marketing approval… for the

UK based on the safety pro le and e cacy of the vaccine”.

AstraZeneca also pointed out that it supplied three billion doses of the vaccine to more

than 180 countries and that an independent study had found it had been responsible

for saving six million lives.

Sir John Bell, who was chief adviser to the Government on life sciences and an adviser

to the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation, said: “It is an asteroid-like

risk from the AstraZeneca vaccine. There is a risk of getting hit by an asteroid but it

isn’t very big.”

Listen to ‘ The Forgotten Vict ims’

, a ne w episode of The Lockdo wn Files podcast, u sing the

audio player in this art icle , or on Apple Podcasts , Spot if y , or wherever yo u get yo ur

podcasts.

Breaking News Alerts Newsletter

Sign up to receive instant updates on the biggest news stories

Sign up

Related Topics
3691

Vaccines, Coronavirus, AstraZeneca, Matt Hancock, Boris Johnson

The Telegraph values your comments but kindly requests all posts are on topic, constructive and respectful.

Please review our commenting policy.

Show comments

More from News

Live Politics latest news: No 10 did not sign o nal The US and China are gearing Live Ukraine-Russia war Suella Braverman is playing How Israel and Ukraine’s rst

Labour and Lib Dems call on version of Braverman's article up for a space war that could live: 40,000 Russian troops on fears of Jewish ladies forged a friendship

Sunak to sack Braverman accusing police of bias render orbit unusable poised for major assault on community, says Sadiq Khan under re

over police protester Avdiivka

By Charles Hymas DAVID AXE By Charles Hymas By Colin Freeman

comments

9 Nov 2023, 11:01am 9 Nov 2023, 10:54am By Harriet Barber 9 Nov 2023, 10:34am 9 Nov 2023, 10:18am

By Jack Maidment 9 Nov 2023, 10:39am

9 Nov 2023, 11:05am

More from The Telegraph

Humza Yousaf has betrayed a The £7 kitchen appliance that Man Utd implode after Ukraine-Russia war live: Politics latest news: Labour Israel 'fought Hamas in

sacred day of remembrance costs £51 a year to run Marcus Rashford's red card in Moscow sending Ukrainian and Lib Dems call on Sunak tunnels' in 10-hour battle for

for many Scots Copenhagen POWs to ght on frontlines to sack Braverman over key Gaza stronghold - follow

police protester comments latest