Are the People Who Were Harmed By Covid Vaccines in the UK being Adequately Compensated?

[Social Media]

 

Is the system letting down people who were harmed by Covid vaccines? There is nothing in life that is free of risk. That includes vaccines. But the evidence is compelling that the benefits of getting immunised with those vaccines recommended in the UK far outweigh the possibility of serious side effects.

 

The level of benefit from Covid vaccines is well documented. And the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine is credited with saving more lives in the first year of its use than any other - 6.3m globally compared to 5.9m for Pfizer/BioNTech’s jab.

However, we need to discuss not just the huge positives that Covid vaccines brought, but also the small minority left injured or bereaved by the AstraZeneca vaccine.

 

Around 50 families affected by rare blood clots have begun a group legal action for compensation under the Consumer Protection Act, arguing that the vaccine was not as safe as the public were entitled to expect. This includes people who have been left with severe physical injuries, those who are unable to work, and bereaved families who lost a loved one due to vaccine damage.

 

They are a tiny fraction of all those vaccinated, but that is no comfort to the families affected, who feel like they have been airbrushed out of the pandemic and that their pleas for support have been ignored.

 

Those families include Jane and Ian Wrigley from Buckinghamshire.

Jane, 62, used to run, ski and climb mountains. Now she can barely walk due to extreme weakness down her left-hand side.
  Two weeks after receiving the AstraZeneca vaccine in March 2021, Jane was admitted to hospital. She suffered blood clots in her brain and required emergency surgery to remove part of her skull. Jane’s medical records clearly state that she suffered these blood clots as a direct side effect of the vaccine.

 

Her husband Ian is now her full-time carer. Jane told me: “Before I had the vaccine I was a very independent, active woman doing half marathons and enjoying my life. Now I’ve lost every bit of independence.”

Her case, and those of others affected by blood clots, raises serious questions about whether the system is letting down those who have suffered serious harm as a result of taking Covid vaccines. 

 

Almost 25m adults in the UK received a first dose of the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine in 2021, and nearly all those had a second. It is estimated that the Covid vaccine programme prevented over a quarter of a million hospital admissions and over 120,000 deaths in the UK up to September 2021.

 

The side effects of vaccination are usually mild and short-lived such as a sore arm, fever and fatigue. However, in the very rare event that something goes seriously wrong, we have a right to expect that we will be supported. This is a kind of social contract between individual and state.

 

That’s where the Vaccine Damage Payment Scheme (VDPS) comes in. The VDPS was established in 1979 in the wake of a scare over the safety of the whooping cough vaccine in use at the time. The government-backed scheme offers a one-off financial payment of £120,000 in the event that, on the balance of probability, a vaccine has caused at least 60% disablement. Between the late 1970s and 2020 there were just below 6,500 claims under the scheme for all vaccines and 944 awards.

 

Something dramatic has happened since the pandemic. There have been more than double the number of claims under the VDPS for Covid jabs than during the previous four decades for all other vaccines combined. Since the pandemic there have been almost 16,000 claims against Covid vaccines and 180 awards. Just over half of all claimants have yet to find out if they have been successful.

 

So what is happening? Of the awards, all but a handful are for damage done by the AstraZeneca Covid vaccine, which is no longer used. There is a long list of different health conditions that qualify for a payment but the AstraZeneca jab had one specific rare side effect not seen in the mRNA vaccines produced by Pfizer and Moderna, which are now the mainstay of all Covid booster campaigns.

 

The side effect is a type of blood clot, often in the brain, combined with low platelet levels, almost always within a few weeks after receiving the first dose. This can cause damage in the brain and to multiple other organs.

 

Last year, the government announced that it had modernised the operations of the VDPS to allow cases to be processed more quickly and increased the number of staff dealing with claims from four to 80. But a huge backlog of claims has built up.

 

Based on a report from the BBC 2024-10-26

 

 

 

[Red Phoenix]

The article starts by making the case that Covid-19 vaccines were safe, and that harms were rare and minor. 

But you have to read to the end of he article to find this paragraph which kind of undermines that narrative:

Something dramatic has happened since the pandemic. There have been more than double the number of claims under the VDPS for Covid jabs than during the previous four decades for all other vaccines combined. Since the pandemic there have been almost 16,000 claims against Covid vaccines and 180 awards. Just over half of all claimants have yet to find out if they have been successful.

 

Edited October 26 by Red Phoenix

[Red Phoenix]

It's also tell-tale that the article does NOT address the effectiveness or the necessity of the jabs, that often were mandated to all age-categories without any risk/benefit consideration.

Edited October 26 by Red Phoenix

[Foxx]

59 minutes ago, Red Phoenix said:

But you have to read to the end of he article to find this paragraph which kind of undermines that narrative:

 

Out of 16,000 claims half have been processed, so 8,000.  Out of the 8,000 only 180 were successful.  The other 7,820 were bogus.

 

It's a case of bad logic:  something's wrong with me, I was vaccinated some time in the past, so it must be caused by the vaccine.

 

It's not the first time this has happened:  my child has autism, he received the MMR vaccine, so it must be the fault of the vaccine.    Despite its having comprehensively been proven that the vaccine does not cause autism, there are still fools who believe this is the case and don't vaccinate their children, leaving the offspring at risk of life-changing or lethal diseases.  

So, no, the narrative is not undermined.

[Red Phoenix]

7 minutes ago, Foxx said:

 

Out of 16,000 claims half have been processed, so 8,000.  Out of the 8,000 only 180 were successful.  The other 7,820 were bogus.

 

It's a case of bad logic:  something's wrong with me, I was vaccinated some time in the past, so it must be caused by the vaccine.

 

It's not the first time this has happened:  my child has autism, he received the MMR vaccine, so it must be the fault of the vaccine.    Despite its having comprehensively been proven that the vaccine does not cause autism, there are still fools who believe this is the case and don't vaccinate their children, leaving the offspring at risk of life-changing or lethal diseases.  

So, no, the narrative is not undermined.

 

Are you serious?

Claiming that almost 98% of Vaccine harm claims under the UK's Consumer Protection Act are Bogus is more than a stretch, it is absolutely ridiculous. 

As your probably know vaccine harmed people have to go through quite a bureaucratic process with many requirements to make a claim, and then a 'commission' looks at it.  "Lack of evidence" that their claim is indeed vaccine-induced is one of the major dismissal reasons, but it is the commission that decides whether their symptoms could be caused by the vaccine. Sounds fair, if the commission charged with that decision is indeed objective but here we encounter an issue as the following example illustrates.

In New Zealand they have a similar system, and there it turned out that Medsafe - the NZ counterpart of the UK commission - dismissed any association by claiming that only a very limited list of disease types could ever be the result of a vaccination. Thus people dying from heart attacks, strokes, sudden onset cancers, types of neurological illness, unexplained sudden death, accidents due to brain fog, acute kidney illness and suicide were all excluded as unrelated. We now know that all of these categories of illness could be related to adverse effects of COVID-19 vaccination.

You can read more about it in this thread, which I posted 2 days ago in this Covid-19 sub-forum

>

 

[KhunLA]

"Safe & Effective" ... that's embarrassing

... you mean ... they were not ???

 

Oh my, who would have thought 

[cdnvic]

Removed poorly, or completely uncited misinformation.

[frank83628]

On 10/26/2024 at 8:25 AM, Foxx said:

 

 

 

It's not the first time this has happened:  my child has autism, he received the MMR vaccine, so it must be the fault of the vaccine.    Despite its having comprehensively been proven that the vaccine does not cause autism, there are still fools who believe this is the case and don't vaccinate their children, leaving the offspring at risk of life-changing or lethal diseases.  

So, no, the narrative is not undermined.

proven by whom exactly, big pharma funded scientists and researchers?

 

 

[driver52]

6 minutes ago, frank83628 said:

proven by whom exactly, big pharma funded scientists and researchers?

 

 

poinless arguing with them, total denial........the human race should be disgusted with itself the amount of harm and damage that has been caused....

I guess that's what happens when arrogance and 'the science' thinks it knows better than 1000s of years work from mother nature....

anyway, too much money in cures and websites eh? 

[BruceWayne]

On 10/26/2024 at 1:15 AM, Red Phoenix said:

It's also tell-tale that the article does NOT address the effectiveness or the necessity of the jabs, that often were mandated to all age-categories without any risk/benefit consideration.

 

Do you (or anyone else) know what happened to the resident AN pandemic pug ?

Too many of these things or was it something else?

 

 

[BruceWayne]

On 10/26/2024 at 1:15 AM, Red Phoenix said:

It's also tell-tale that the article does NOT address the effectiveness or the necessity of the jabs, that often were mandated to all age-categories without any risk/benefit consideration.

 

Smelt a rat as soon as they said they were going to prioritise jabs for pensioners and those with 'learning difficulties' in the UK.

 

What do those 2 groups have in common?

 

Edited November 1 by BruceWayne