Landmark legal case questions efficacy of Oxford-AstraZeneca Covid vaccine

VITT victims sue AstraZeneca over vaccine-related injuries


According to a report published by The Telegraph, the Oxford-AstraZeneca Covid-19 vaccine is being challenged as "defective," and its efficacy is being claimed to be "vastly overstated." The report states that test cases have been brought forward by individuals who experienced severe health complications after receiving the vaccine.

One of the claimants, Jamie Scott, experienced a permanent brain injury due to a blood clot shortly after receiving the vaccine in April 2021. Another claim is being filed by the widower of Alpa Tailor, who tragically passed away after receiving the vaccine.

AstraZeneca, in response to the allegations, reiterated that patient safety remains their highest priority. The company stated that their vaccine has consistently shown an acceptable safety profile and that regulatory bodies worldwide have consistently affirmed that the benefits of vaccination outweigh the risks of extremely rare potential side effects.

If successful, these test cases could pave the way for around 80 further claims, potentially amounting to £80 million in damages. The claims are centered around a newly identified condition called Vaccine-induced Immune Thrombocytopenia and Thrombosis (VITT), which emerged following the rollout of the AstraZeneca vaccine.

Independent studies have previously demonstrated the effectiveness of the AstraZeneca vaccine in preventing Covid-19 infections, saving over six million lives globally in its first year of deployment. The World Health Organization (WHO) supported the vaccine, declaring it safe and effective for individuals aged 18 and above. The WHO also emphasized that cases of VITT prompting this legal action are extremely rare.


Although the AstraZeneca vaccine was initially hailed as a triumph for British science by then-Prime Minister Boris Johnson, it is no longer being used in the UK for the autumn boost program. The UK government now recommends three other vaccines instead. The decision to exclude the AstraZeneca vaccine for individuals under 40 was made due to the perceived risk of receiving the vaccine outweighing the potential harm posed by Covid-19.

AstraZeneca has denied causing Jamie Scott's injuries in its legal response. The court battle will shed light on the claims of vaccine defectiveness and misleading efficacy, potentially leading to significant changes in the compensation system for those who suffer adverse effects from government-recommended vaccines.

The Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine played a crucial role in the fight against Covid-19, with millions of doses administered worldwide. However, for a small number of individuals, the vaccine resulted in serious health complications, triggering a sense of despair and prompting the pursuit of justice.

By challenging the vaccine's safety and efficacy, these test cases aim to address concerns surrounding the AstraZeneca vaccine and its potential adverse effects. As the legal battle unfolds, the outcome could have far-reaching implications for the future of vaccine monitoring and compensation systems.

Join our WhatsApp Channel to get the latest news, exclusives and videos on WhatsApp