AstraZeneca product withdrawn
'Rare events' back in the spotlight
At the end of April AstraZeneca admitted in court that its product could cause clots that could kill. A proportion of the claimants who were vaccinated after the 7th April were asked by the legal team to withdraw from the case because at that point AstraZeneca added a line into their patient information leaflet to include a rare risk of clots as an adverse event. There seems to be no recognition that adding a line to a patient information leaflet that most patients never saw was never going to be enough to counter the incessant propaganda about the “safe and effectives”. It was healthy young people who were vaccinated after this data including BBC presenter Lisa Shaw whose family will not now receive any part of the claim in this case.
In the meantime, Brianne Dressen, who was injured during the trial is now suing AstraZeneca for breach of their contract to cover any medical costs associated with participating in their trial.
On 5th March, AstraZeneca applied to the EMA for their product to be withdrawn and global withdrawal has now begun. The company claimed lack of demand was the reason. “As multiple, variant COVID-19 vaccines have since been developed, there is a surplus of available updated vaccines. This has led to a decline in demand for Vaxzevria, which is no longer being manufactured or supplied. AstraZeneca has therefore taken the decision to initiate withdrawal of the marketing authorisations for Vaxzevria within Europe." The UK had stopped using the product long ago without officially giving a reason.
The story has had good press coverage reinforcing the myth that the only relevant vaccine injuries were incredibly rare. In the meantime the number of people unable to work through long term sickness rockerting with vaccine rollout and is now 800,000 more than the 2 million level that had been pretty stable since 2012.
The story has also been used as an opportunity to repeat the lie that millions of lives were saved. By any reasonable measure of the overall impact of disease this claim is clearly deranged.
It looks like the vast majority of vaccine injured people will not be seeing any kind of justice or compensation without a dramatic change in how we as a society deal with these issues.
In health corruption injures and kills people that is why rules need to be in place to prevent corruption. But when the people in charge of setting the rules are corrupt themselves then we stand no chance, it is systemic in government and institutions.
When we were discussing this week in my work bubble of people who could and should question, the full narrative rules ok "Too many jabs on the market and incredibly rare events". I was able to get them to acknowledge the validity of more general points such as universal jabbing without a risk vs benefit assessment and subsequent injury in people at no risk from the disease is a problem and that informed consent is also important, but there all curiosity stopped; an uncomfortable silence followed to allow us to move on to more comfortable topics like Bridgeton. I do wonder if there is anything at all that will make the general population query the last four years. From optimistically believing the dam will burst, I now think it is going to need a TV series in about 20 years.