AstraZeneca in court over Covid vaccine death and injury

Test case claimants – including the British family of one person allegedly killed – is suing the pharmaceutical giant, saying the vaccine was ‘defective’ and efficacy rates vastly overstated.

SYDNEY, AUSTRALIA - NCA NewsWire Photos AUGUST, 19, 2020: A general view of AstraZeneca's headquarters in Sydney. Australians will be among the first in the world to receive a COVID-19 vaccine, if it proves successful, through an agreement between the Australian Government and UK-based drug company AstraZeneca. Picture: NCA NewsWire/Bianca De Marchi

Australia’s wariness and ultimate rejection of the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine during the height of the COVID-19 crisis is playing out before the British High Court.

Here in central London the pharmaceutical vaccine maker is being sued for tens of millions of pounds in a test case brought by the British family of one person allegedly killed by the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine, and another who was brain injured, allegedly as a result of the vaccine. AstraZeneca has denied any liability.

About 80 others – such as 42-year-old West End actor Melle Stewart, originally of Brisbane, who suffered a devastating brain bleed and has a titanium plate to protect her skull from emergency surgery after receiving the AstraZeneca vaccine in south west London in April 2021 – are awaiting the court’s decision before pursuing further damages of about $160m.

West End actor Melle Stewart suffered a devastating brain bleed after receiving the AstraZeneca vaccine in south west London.

Central to the legal case initiated under the Consumer Protection Act is the claimants’ arguments that the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine was defective, the vaccine’s safety was misleading and the vaccine’s efficacy was vastly overstated.

At the rollout of the vaccine in January 2021 the company and the British government promoted Oxford AstraZeneca vaccine saying it was 62 to 90 per cent effective in preventing symptomatic Covid-19 with an average of 70 per cent.

Politicians, such as the health minister repeatedly reassured the British public that the homegrown vaccine was safe.

However, the court has been told that the absolute risk, which measures how much the vaccine reduces an individual’s baseline risk of getting ill from covid at a point in time was dramatically lower than the figures bandied about.

“In fact, the absolute risk reduction concerning COVID-19 prevention was only 1.2 per cent, the court papers claim.

Former British health minister Matt Hancock had provided Oxford-AstraZeneca with an indemnity from 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”.

Former British Health Secretary Matt Hancock. Picture: Hannah McKay/AFP

Mr Hancock said: “The data so far on this vaccine suggests that there will be no adverse reactions, and so no liability.”

In Australia during the first half of 2021, the brutal border quarantine system was still shielding the country from the ravages of the virus which had swept through Britain, Europe and the United States.

But after some concerns were raised by US authorities linking the vaccine to suspected blood clotting issues, Australian officials ruled on April 8 that people aged under 50 should not receive the Oxford AstraZeneca vaccine, but be provided with the Pfizer vaccine instead.

However in lockdown Britain at that time, that advice was only given to those aged under 30 because of what was described as a “vanishingly” rare side effect of blood clots in the brain by Britain‘s Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, MHRA.

It would be another month before those under 40 in Britain were recommended to have a vaccine other than Oxford-AstraZeneca, with officials such as June Raine, the chief executive of the MHRA, saying the benefits of the Oxford AstraZeneca vaccine “continue to outweigh the risks for the vast majority of people”.

In Australia, by June of that year, the Minister for Health Greg Hunt had ruled only those aged over 60 would be eligible for the Oxford AstraZeneca shot because after administering 3.3m doses locally, two people had died, and around 60 had suffered from blood clots.

The Minister for Health and Aged Care, Greg Hunt. Picture: NewsWire/Brendan Beckett

Almost unique in the world, Australia had the luxury of time: to be able to wait for imports of the mRNA vaccines such as Moderna and Pfizer to complete its mass vaccination program.

However in the UK, 50 million doses of Oxford AstraZeneca vaccine were used in the first 12 months from January 2021.

Those who suffered a vaccine injury were entitled to receive a payment of A$230,000 from the government but those impacted say the amount is insufficient to cover the life changing impact brain bleeds and clotting has produced. MHRA figures show more than 80 people in the United Kingdom are suspected of dying from vaccine-induced thrombotic thrombocytopenia.

The high court case has been initiated by a father of two, software developer Jamie Scott who suffered a permanent brain injury shortly after receiving the vaccine in April 2021. He is unable to resume work. He has been joined in the litigation by the husband and two children of Alpa Tailor, 35, who died from a brain haemorrhage allegedly after having the Oxford AstraZeneca inoculation in central London in March 2021. In the legal defence AstraZeneca has denied causing injuries or deaths.

Independent studies claimed the Oxford AstraZeneca vaccine saved over six million lives globally in its first year.

AstraZeneca said patient safety was its highest priority and the vaccine continuously has been shown to have an acceptable safety profile.

It said regulators around the world consistently state that the benefits of vaccination outweigh the risks of extremely rare potential side effects.