Some Claimants Forced to Drop Legal Action Against AstraZeneca

Some of the vaccine injured and bereaved involved in a class action lawsuit against AstraZeneca have been forced to abandon their claims after the pharmaceutical giant argued the risk of blood clots was known about by the time they received their jabs.

With the court case due to begin at the High Court in London on Friday, 12 of the injured or the grieving relatives of the bereaved were told it was very unlikely the case as a whole could succeed if their claims remained because AstraZeneca had issued a leaflet warning of the possibility of potentially deadly blood clots from April 7, 2021, around three months into the vaccine rollout.

One of those forced to drop out is Gareth Eve, the husband of BBC radio presenter Lisa Shaw, who died aged 44 from complications caused by the vaccine. Mr. Eve shared his frustration on social media platform X.

“Regardless, I will keep pushing for the support we all deserve,” he said, tagging Health Secretary Victoria Atkins and a number of BBC and LBC journalists who had promoted the “safe and effective” narrative about the vaccine that killed his wife.

In a separate post in which he shared a link to an article in The Telegraph, Mr. Eve welcomed the news that AstraZeneca has reportedly admitted its vaccine did cause the deaths and damages in the ongoing cases.

He said: “Unfortunately, my wife Lisa’s case is no longer able to be part of this action. I hope the remaining cases succeed.”

Related Stories

And he added, “All I ask is the opportunity to speak to the Government and AstraZeneca. This could be solved with a conversation. Please, take the time to listen to us.”

The document, which was supposed to be available at vaccination centres, warned that “extremely rare cases of blood clots with low levels of platelets have been observed following vaccination with COVID-19 vaccine AstraZeneca.”

Lawyers believe that this could shield the pharmaceutical firm against cases brought by families whose relatives were given a dose supplied after April 7, 2021.

Vikki Spit, who is still involved in the claim and whose partner, known as Z, died after taking the vaccine, confirmed to The Epoch Times that some families had been forced to drop their cases.

Her partner of 20 years, a musician, was given his only dose of the AstraZeneca vaccine on May 5, 2021, but the batch from which his dose came was delivered to the vaccination centre before April 7, meaning she can still claim.

The logo for AstraZeneca is seen outside its North America headquarters in Wilmington, Del., on March 22, 2021. (Rachel Wisniewski/Reuters)

Ms. Shaw received her only dose of the AstraZeneca vaccine on April 29, 2021—almost a week before Z received his—but her husband has dropped his claim because of the later delivery date of the batch from which she received her fatal dose.

Ms. Shaw and Z were in the same hospital at the same time—the Royal Victoria Infirmary in Newcastle—with their grieving partners later becoming friends through the support group, Vaccine Injured and Bereaved UK.

Ms. Spit told The Epoch Times: “Thankfully I’m still in the claim. But I’m absolutely devastated for those who’ve been left behind though. We hope we can still include them somehow.”

She said the “technicality” of the leaflet meant that “the onus is being placed on the vaccine injured and killed” instead of on the pharmaceutical company.

“I think it’s about brand reputation more than money for them. They could afford to pay people off and settle out of court, but that would mean admitting liability, so they will look for any excuse to avoid this.”

Ms. Spit said she also thinks “the floodgates might open” for many more claims, which have not yet been accepted possibly because the cause of death on people’s death certificates has not been given as vaccine-related.

“They rolled it out to older people first, and so the deaths were less obvious than when it was given to younger age groups,” she said.

The class action is being brought in the civil courts, with the victims represented by solicitors Leigh Day, which is arguing the vaccines were a product “not fit for purpose” under the Consumer Protection Act.

The government has previously said, in response to a petition to revoke manufacturers’ indemnity, that it “cannot comment on the terms on which COVID-19 vaccines were supplied as these are confidential.”

The vaccines were all licensed by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency under emergency use authorisation after the World Health Organisation (WHO) declared the COVID-19 virus spreading to be a “pandemic,” despite the WHO having declared the disease to be one of “non serious consequence” just prior to the first lockdown being announced in the UK.

The AstraZeneca jab was withdrawn from use in several countries once it became clear that it was causing deaths and serious damage to people. Its use in the UK was withdrawn for younger age groups, with the other brands of vaccine, chiefly from Pfizer and Moderna, being offered to under-30s from April 2021 and to under-40s the following month.

Following two test cases last year, 63 cases in total were laid before the court, but 12 have now dropped out and 51 claims are ongoing, according to people familiar with the case who spoke to The Epoch Times.

The burden of proof for those wishing to be part of the court case was high, in that the vaccine had to have been put on the death certificate as the cause of death in the case of the bereaved, or those harmed by the jabs had to have an official diagnosis of a specific set of conditions with medical professionals agreeing that the damage was caused by the vaccines.

The Oxford AstraZeneca jab is not an mRNA jab but a viral vector one, and was rolled out to much fanfare in January 2021, with the government urging the UK population to “come forward” and get vaccinated, claiming it would reduce transmission as well as protecting the individual.

Thousands more people have claimed the VDPS but have had their claims rejected for not reaching the threshold of 60 percent disabled, even though they may have been left with serious, ongoing health problems and be unable to work.

MP Sir Christopher Chope is attempting to get a private member’s bill through the House of Commons to reform the VDPS, but it has not yet been debated and may not be given time in the current Parliament before the forthcoming general election.

Sir Christopher submitted a question asking the Department of Health for the date the AstraZeneca jab was withdrawn from use in the UK. The reply he received from minister Maria Caulfield does not acknowledge any problems with the vaccine and states that the contract with the pharmaceutical giant was ended because its competitors were considered to offer better protection.

Ms. Caulfield’s response reads: “AstraZeneca completed its COVID-19 vaccine supply agreement with the Government in 2022. Since the beginning of the COVID-19 vaccine booster programme in September 2021, in line with advice from the Joint Committee on Vaccine and Immunisation (JCVI), the vaccines deployed in the national programme have primarily been mRNA vaccines that were considered to provide a strong booster response.”

The Epoch Times contacted Leigh Day solicitors and AstraZeneca for comment.