Oxford AstraZeneca Covid jab was ‘defective’, claims landmark legal case

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 suffered “personal injuries and consequential losses arising out of his sustaining Vaccine Induced Immune Thrombosis with Thrombocytopenia as a result of his vaccination on 23 April 2021, with the AstraZeneca Covid-19 vaccination”, which the legal claim alleges was “defective”. 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. 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 as a result of his vaccination on 23 April 2021, with the AstraZeneca COVID19 vaccination 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 efficacy, the court documents draw on a ruling by the Prescription Medicines Code of Practice Authority, 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 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 efficacy of the vaccine was misleading because members of the public reading the press release might assume that the published efficacy rate was an absolute risk rate.”