Regarding the Vaccine Damage Payment Scheme – An Open Letter to the Press

A Letter to The Mail & The Telegraph from Jonathan Hall

Last month, HART covered the flawed system on the Vaccine Damage Payment Scheme, which seems designed to make the smallest payments possible to the least number of applicants possible. Also from the recent People's Vaccine Inquiry conference, it appeared that any hope that the scheme would be improved was predicated on confirming that injuries, whist tragic for the individual(s) involved, are of course, in the words of Hugo Keith, KC, 'very rare, even extremely rare'. The vaccine-injured have been calling out the unfair and inadequate system for 3 years now, and their core-participant witnesses spoke particularly eloquently about this at Module 4 of the UK Covid-19 Public Inquiry.

It is apparent that the MSM are beginning to cover more about vaccine injuries and to criticise the VDPS system, though still from the prism of 'very rare', and accompanied by the usual claims of millions of lives saved.

We were recently contacted by citizen journalist, Jonathan Hall, who has written two letters to the Mail and to the Telegraph, the latter with a particularly long list of references which are a useful resource.

With his permission, we are printing both letters in full below.

To John Ely, Deputy Health Editor, DailyMail.co.uk

21st February 2025

Hi John,

I have read your recent article published in The Mail focusing on the latest figures for Covid-19 vaccine bereaved and injured, and the Yale University research findings on mRNA vaccines.

While it does a good job of briefly summarising controversies and failings related to the Vaccine Damage Payment System (VDPS), perhaps a future article could provide a more in-depth analysis of the VDPS's failings and go much further in reporting on the criticisms from applicants, campaign groups, the public and politicians calling for a major overhaul of this extremely unfair and not fit for purpose scheme? Please refer to my open letter to the The Telegraph on this issue in which I raise a number of key points and criticisms, including questions about the 'independent' third party assessor contracted by NHSBSA, and revealing information about the government's impact assessments indicating a cap on successful claims. Please investigate these matters among the others discussed in the letter.

Attached is a PDF copy of the letter, and it is published on my website blog here:

And HART have released an informative article that's worth reading with testimony from a doctor: https://hartuk.substack.com/p/the-flawed-assessment-of-vdps-claims

Also, I notice you have ended the article by repeating the official narrative lines of 'rare' adverse events (when there is strong evidence to the contrary), 'independent experts' (who are likely not independent at all), Covid vaccines saved million of lives (based on highly biased and flawed modelling by Imperial College etc. and Airfinity who are also not 'independent' but work closely with vaccine firms), and Covid induced myocarditis (while data shows myocarditis cases took off after the rollouts). So I ask you to read the sections in my letter related to evidence that challenges the official narrative (in particular see the US V-safe data and the German/US insurance data) and please reconsider. The Daily Mail would be doing the public a valuable service by raising these questions, as newspapers are doing in other countries, such as Bild in Germany for example, so politicians, vaccine firms etc. have to face the realities, take responsibility for their actions, and payout a lot more money for the deaths, injuries and immense suffering evidently at numbers far greater than currently being officially admitted. You must sense there is massive cover-up going on?

When the truth is widely known, those affected with life-changing disabilities and lost family are more likely to receive the support they need in terms of financial assistance and medical care. Why should vaccine firms rake in record profits while there are record levels of adverse events, and numerous examples of product defects including spike bio-distribution, DNA contamination etc. These are due to design and production faults, not just 'side effects', the faults are causing the 'side effects'. 'All medicines have side effects' we are told. Yes, some a lot more than others due to safety failures. And it seems the vaccines firms and regulators (MHRA, FDA, EMA, TGA) were not regulating properly by missing and even being aware of these faults, but pushed ahead in this highly profitable 'too big to fail' operation anyway, exposing the public to major risks. While recklessly going even further by coercing the jabs on to children and pregnant women with very little safety data. The JCVI were over-ridden by the government using very flimsy data and arguments, ignoring their own ethics committee, which led to one of worst public health decisions in British history. They cannot simply get away with this lightly, the press has do it's job in the public interest and hold them to account, or what kind of society do we live in? And it will happen again if nothing is done, innocent children, mothers, your own family members put at risk and harmed so companies can profit more.

Just as Moderna were recently found guilty by the PMCPA (the Prescription Medicines Code of Practice Authority) for luring young children into Covid vaccine trials with teddy bears and cash, being approached via What's App adverts. This frankly sinister and abusive behaviour was among a number of other charges including misleading claims, bribery, unlicensed uses of a vaccine, failing to maintain high standards, and bringing disrepute to the pharmaceutical industry. Only to be fined a miniscule £44,000 when they made $34 billion in profits during 2021 and 2022 alone. It totally outrageous they are let off so lightly for these major offences. It should be £44 million! The public have had enough of this, and the press needs to cover these scandals with the same attention given to any scandal in recent times. So, please show some journalistic principles and start holding these entities to account for the crimes they've committed. This PMCPA watchdog has no teeth, is justice and a strong disincentive to repeat the offences served with such a small fine? Clearly not.

Moderna Fined for Luring Children into Covid Vaccine Trials With Teddy Bears | Will Jones

https://dailysceptic.org/2025/02/12/moderna-fined-for-luring-children-into-covid-vaccine-trials-with-teddy-bears/

Moderna fined for ‘luring children into Covid vaccine trials’ with teddy bears | The Telegraph

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/02/12/moderna-tried-lure-children-into-covid-trials-teddy-bears/ https://archive.is/9mz5u

And start criticising the Covid 'Inquiry' for the blatant stage managed whitewash it truly is by not allowing major issues to be discussed and further investigated. It's clearly been setup as a damage limitation exercise to protect government and corporate interests, and reinforce official narratives in the hope this will maintain the 'media consensus' and convince mainstream opinion. Please let it be known it has been a colossal failure in this regard and public trust is at an all time low as a result. Everyone knows someone who's been badly affected, it's an absolute insult to cover it all up this way, gaslighting the public under the pretence the vaccines were 'safe and effective', just more lies. As if the public have not been lied to enough already, all they can do is try to double down and insert manipulative figures such as Hugo Keith KC to shut down any genuine lines of enquiry. The questions have to be pre-approved anyway, which edits out all the difficult issues they seek to ignore.

Read this article for a good summary of all things wrong regarding the Covid 'Inquiry':

The Covid Inquiry Calling the Vaccines “Safe and Effective” is Like the Post Office Inquiry Calling Horizon “Reliable” | Ben and Molly Kingsley https://dailysceptic.org/2025/02/11/the-covid-inquiry-calling-the-vaccines-safe-and-effective-is-like-the-post-office-inquiry-calling-horizon-reliable/

And watch these presentations at the People's Vaccine Inquiry for some 'real world' perspectives:

PVI Press Conference : the Covid Inquiry Module 4 Public Hearings | HART Group https://peoplesvaccineinquiry.co.uk/press-conference/

Incidentally, many of the findings in the Yale paper have been known for quite some time but are further confirmatory evidence showing mRNA vaccines have major flaws and need withdrawing, even if investors will lose a lot of money. A big part of the problem is profiteering and corruption. Again, mRNA technology is 'too big to fail' but evidently it is failing public health safety, badly.

So, good article generally, and well done for getting the Yale paper in there, as that looks likely to be a game changer, but please go further in your investigating and reporting to challenge official narratives with the evidence I've pointed to. The letter also has extensive footnotes as supporting evidence that you can research to and I have an online research archive with over 1500 links here:

Sincerely,

Jonathan Hall

Below is Jonathan's full letter to the Telegraph, with an extensive reference list.

10th February, 2025

To The Editor, The Telegraph

10th February 2025

Sir,

While articles by The Telegraph reveal how the VDPS (Vaccine Damage Payment Scheme) has failed many struggling with lost family members and life-changing injuries caused by Covid vaccines, more in-depth reporting is needed to further examine and inform the public of this unfair and not fit for purpose scheme. Those responsible including the vaccine firms, government departments, the MHRA, public health agencies and the corporate contractors involved are essentially required to be fully investigated and held to account.

To highlight one of the issues here, I suggest your team focuses on NHSBSA's business arrangements with Crawford and Co, the company named in an FOI request as the 'independent medical assessor' contracted to manage VDPS claims since March 2022. Crawford and Co is a US owned corporation that describes itself as the 'world's largest publicly listed independent provider of claims management and outsourcing solutions to carriers, brokers and corporates, with an expansive global network'. And is also a 'leading third-party administrator (TPA) of workers’ compensation claims, liability claims, disability and leave management and medical management services' via it subsidiary TPA company Broadspire of which may also be associated.

In typical PR style, NHSBSA states the claims are sent to an 'independent third-party medical assessor' and decided by 'independent medical assessors' described as 'General Medical Council (GMC) registered doctors with a license to practice and at least 5 years experience'. This may be reassuring to an unsuspecting public, but if VDPS claimants were accurately informed that their claims are to be decided by doctors working for Crawford and Co, a corporate third-party claims management company, they would likely and quite rightly want to know much more about how reputable and qualified as 'independent medical assessors' they are?

Incidentally, just a brief internet search on customer feedback about Crawford and Co and Broadspire via websites such as Trust Pilot shows predominantly 1 star ratings and a lot of angry comments. The website Glassdoor also reveals some disturbing reports by former staff about the companies work and management culture within various UK offices. These comments and reports are not directly related to managing VDPS claims but they indicate the companies may have issues, raising questions if they are suitable for the role? Generally, is a commercially driven company with a corporate management strategy an appropriate choice?

Now to the point - how can Crawford and Co actually be an 'independent assessor' if the company is being contracted and paid by NHSBSA? Management will carry out what has been negotiated and is expected of them to deliver on the contract terms, goals and budget etc. Is there public access to the contract negotiated? And how does the public know that Crawford and Co and/or Broadspire would not engage in questionable business and medical practices similar to when in 2011 it was hired by Johnson & Johnson to act as TPA for patient claims after the company had thousands of US lawsuits related to a hip replacement product recall? The move brought debate amongst industry and legal experts with critics arguing Broadspire worked to limit payouts and gain control of medical records and materials that could be used against patients in court. Unfair claims denial of injury compensation is a complaint claims management firms are often accused of, sometimes by employer/client collusion with insurers/TPA's, bringing severe consequences for claimant’s. There are also a number of nefarious tactics firms use to interfere with and delay the processing of claims. Is NHSBSA able to check and have oversight of Crawford's activities so to detect and prevent malpractice?

There is also the fundamental question about whether doctors employed by Crawford and Co can really be considered as 'independent medical assessors' when they are likely to be trained, instructed, incentivised and so on by management, their peers and the work culture? Even well intentioned and well trained doctors could potentially be drawn into a conflicts of interest (COI) and would they generally be inclined to question and challenge improper medical or management practices in this work environment? How does the NHSBSA monitor Crawford and Co's management? Are staff concerns discussed, acted on and properly investigated? Also, how can claimants know the assessors are qualified in the relevant specialist medical areas to a high enough standard and have the necessary professional experience? Why is there is a lack of transparency on this important issue in which FOI requests are refused by NHSBSA on the grounds of privacy concerns?

Patients have a right to receive this information which could be made available in a format compatible with privacy laws without disclosing personal details such as by using anonymised data. It is NHSBSA's duty to patients to be more transparent about the medical assessor and claims processing as practiced by similar schemes in other countries. How does the contracting of a corporate TPA for this role affect transparency? And is NHSBSA able to track how medical records and personal data are being used by Crawford and Co? I urge you to question NHSBSA and Crawford and Co on such matters of transparency and accountability.

The medical assessors make the crucial final decisions on assessing whether the vaccine induced causality can be proven and if the level of disability meets the 60% threshold criteria required to receive a one-off payment of £120,000. Patients with very severe physical and neurological disabilities are known to be given assessments below 60% and be judged 'not disabled enough' even when causality is proven. For example, John Cross became paralysed and spent seven months in hospital with chronic pain and numbness. He was slowly able to eat, walk and talk again but relapsed several times. After waiting for over 2 years with only a review of his medical records, and a claims process that simply involved filling in a form with no personal contact or face-to-face assessment, his claim was rejected. Traumatised by the decision and overwhelmed with facing the struggle ahead, John's mental health rapidly deteriorated and he tragically took his own life. This year a survey by UK CV Family, a charity support group for the Covid vaccine injured and bereaved reported that 73% of its members have considered suicide. John's family are campaigning for VDPS reform and I hope The Telegraph will assist them and others in a similar situation by reporting on their campaigns.

It was deeply wrong and unjust for John Cross and his family to experience such appalling treatment by a failing system that is negligent and in urgent need of reform. Demonstrating just how shockingly bad the medical assessor can be its job, including the doctors, managers, directors and so on who are responsible. There are numerous other examples of malpractice and negligence, including various cases where a rejected claim has eventually been overturned by appeal, further revealing major inconsistencies and raising red flags regarding the quality and reliability of the medical assessments. As in the case of Clare Hibbs who was originally assessed at 25-40% disability and so rejected, but then after a long and strenuous appeal process was later to be re-assessed at 90-100% disability. How can the medical assessors make such a big mistake? Where does that leave the 98% of claims previously rejected? Have they really been assessed properly?

And there are reports where medical assessors have gone against the diagnosis of the patients own doctors and specialist consultants who oversaw their care to reject the claim. These are medical professionals who may well be more qualified and experienced and who vitally have an interpersonal face-to-face relationship with the patient to examine and communicate with them, unlike the remote desk-bound medical assessors. Is The Telegraph going to investigate and question NHSBSA and Crawford and Co about these injustices?

The 'all or nothing' 60% disability criteria has been widely criticised by families as being extremely harsh on those who may not have such a very high level of disablement such as paralysis but nonetheless have to cope with a range of life-changing disabilities that are severe to the level whereby they are no longer able to work or live a normal life. Typically they suffer a combination of physical, neurological, mental health issues and of course financial issues, no longer earning a regular income and having long-term care and treatment costs. For even the claimant's who do receive the £120,000 payment, a number of them say they have been forced to sue the vaccine firms for proper compensation despite the gruelling and expensive legal process because the payment is such a measly amount that falls well short of meeting the costs of lost income, care and so on. It has to be noted the VDPS is not defined as a compensation scheme by NHSBSA, the vulnerable persons and families affected have to mount a very difficult legal challenge for compensation. It is instead described as being a one-off payment scheme to support patients ongoing care and needs, but realistically not for long, as the government is no doubt well aware of. The fixed 'one size fits all' £120,000 payment is an insult to the bereaved and injured and symbolises how callous NHSBSA, the DHSC and all the organisations involved are by wilfully ignoring the real needs of these very unfortunate people. Keep in mind, this could potentially happen to anyone of us who suddenly find themselves in a desperate situation but then are treated so badly.

It is therefore in everyone's interests to ensure a proper compensation scheme exists that does away with the very strict and unfair 60% criteria and alternatively provides a flexible system where payments are based on a sliding scale commensurate with the level of disability and which covers the full range of claimant's needs. Will The Telegraph join the calls of families, support groups and the public petitioning for VDPS reform? The government should also by now understand that after heavily promoting and coercing mass vaccination on the public and urging millions of people to 'do their duty', only to then later break the social contract by shirking from their duty and responsibility of providing adequate compensation and care for when things do inevitably go wrong as they have forecast - how can they really expect the public to again place trust and have confidence in future mass vaccination policies? Public trust is now at an all time low, and so it is very much in the governments interests to completely overhaul the VDPS as a move to restore lost confidence.

One of the major frustrations is how incredibly slow the claims are being processed, taking over 1 year in many cases. As of 25^th September 2024, 15,804 claims in total have been received, 7,936 have been notified of an outcome with 188 entitled to a payment. 7,357 claims were rejected due to lack of causation and 391 rejected where criteria was met for causation but not for severe disablement. And regarding the time taken, 996 claims were received more than 12 months ago but have not yet reached an outcome, and of these, 283 claims were received more than 18 months ago with less than five stated as received over 24 months ago. 1,226 requests for a mandatory reversal have been received. 638 mandatory reversals have been reassessed. The average number of days it took from the receipt of mandatory reversal to receiving an outcome was 238. 38 appeals have been received and are awaiting to be heard by a tribunal. Fewer than five have an outcome. The FOI statement goes on to describe how part of the claim process is for the assessors to receive a full set of medical records 'and it can take time...to gather and securely supply copies of these records'. We are also told the review process 'can vary from case to case depending on the individual circumstances' and that there are occasions when requests for consent and proof of identity can hold up progress. Personally, I am not convinced by any of these justifications for such slow 6-24 month process times and would suspect the assessors and management are 'slow walking' the claims on purpose. Bereaved and injured persons in a vulnerable position simply should not have to wait so long, there are no excuses. If these departments are under-staffed, under-resourced etc., that's no excuse either, it's a failure by NHSBSA and Crawford and Co.

So, what are the figures for the number of medical assessor staff and hours employed and what is the amount of money spent by the NHSBSA on the third-party contract with Crawford and Co for reviewing the VDPS claim applications? On the first question, an FOI request response by NHSBSA from October 2022 states that although the information requested is not held they estimate on average, from a pool of approximately 40 trained assessors, an equivalent of 11 full-time equivalent working hours is spent carrying out medical assessments. And regarding the second question, Esther McVey MP received an answer to this question on November 24^th 2024 from Under-Secretary for the Department of Health and Social Care, Andrew Gwynne, that the total amount spent from 2022 onwards is just over £25 million. In an article by Carl Heneghan and Tom Jefferson focusing on the relationship between total amounts spent and paid out, they calculate that as 188 claimant's received £120,000 totalling £22.6 million, it's £2.5 million less than the cost of reviewing and rejecting the claims! This is yet another example of government bureaucracy and outsourcing to corporations costing the taxpayer excessive amounts but delivering far short of acceptable standards. Also, compared to the vast amounts of money into multi-billions of pounds spent, profited and wasted during Covid, why is there so little funding available? How much is Crawford and Co profiting while the staff levels are so low? The authors further highlight interesting findings about the government's impact assessment of the VDPS indicating 'the cost management plan was designed to ensure only 25% of vaccine claims related to adverse events would be successful', or 75% of claims unsuccessful. Did the cost management plans place a limit on the amount of successful claims without care of the severe consequences to the majority of VDPS claimants? How have these plans influenced the claims management contract work given to Crawford and Co and the 'independent' medical assessors? These are key questions for The Telegraph to further investigate in-depth.

To recap, as of 25^th September 2024, 15,804 VDPS claims in total have been received. However, considering what is known about reporting issues and data manipulation malpractice related to the adverse event (AE) reporting systems, namely Yellow Card in the UK, VAERS in the US, and Eurosurveillance for the EU, it is reasonable to question the amount of under-reported deaths, injuries and those fraudulently misreported. Also, when factoring-in data from other sources, including health agency post-marketing safety data systems, health insurance and actuarial industry data, public survey results data and government data on disability claim rates and cause of death and excess deaths, a different picture emerges that challenges the basis of the official narratives about vaccine injuries being 'rare' and only affecting a 'minority' of people. There is much evidence of firms working with agencies in attempts to hide and cover-up data, clearly showing 'bad faith'. As in the case of the V-Safe post-marketing safety data system in the US, one of the best data sets available to assess vaccine injury rates that by software app collected questionnaire data from around 10 million users. Despite the Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) attempting to prevent the public release of the V-Safe data for 464 days the Informed Consent Action Network (ICAN) legal team led by Aaron Siri was successful in its demand for the release. It showed 7.7% of people reporting the need for medical care, and 70% of those users sought outpatient/urgent clinical care, emergency room care and/or were hospitalised. In Germany, data ignored by health agencies covering 72 million people provided from health insurers was released revealing over 2.4 million patients were seen by doctors for adverse events and also a large increase in people dying 'suddenly and unexpectedly' by more than fourfold from previous years. This is but one of many examples of insurance industry data releases reporting unprecedented disability and mortality rates corresponding with the vaccine rollout time frames in the US, Germany and other countries. Analysis of the situation in the UK by professional industry analysts Edward Dowd (former Blackrock finance analyst) and Josh Stirling (former Bernstein equity analyst) focusing on disability rates and cause of death point to a similar pattern of massively under-reported deaths and injuries combined with concerning forecasts ahead. This suggests that a significant proportion of the UK populations deaths, injuries and disabilities have not been formally attributed to the Covid-19 vaccines and the 15,804 total claims figure is very low in contrast. The Telegraph's article published last year questioning the link between the vaccines and excess deaths was commendable but I hope for more frequent and comprehensive reporting on this critical public health issue. Please also investigate, like newspapers in other countries, on whether adverse events and injuries are really so 'rare' as we are told? Evidently it is the 'tip of the iceberg' and the full scale and depth is being concealed. What is a realistic estimate of deaths linked to the vaccines since rollout to the present when considering MHRA's apparent inability to identify and follow up on reported vaccine deaths, the lack of autopsies and misattribution of the deaths to other causes? Also, when the rise in excess deaths from non-Covid causes have reached greater numbers than during the pandemic and are prevalent in younger to middle age groups?

The '12 million lives saved' claim is often referred to by the BBC, The Telegraph etc. and is usually inserted towards the end of articles in support of the official narrative, as if by MHRA decree or OFCOM 'guidelines'. A typical example being 'despite the ordeals of an unlucky few, the AZ vaccine was an amazing discovery that saved lives and pulled the UK out of a never-ending cycle of lockdowns'. The source is described as an 'independent study' by 'disease forecasting company' Airfinity, and readers are naively led to believe if it's 'independent' then it must be true! However, it does not take a seasoned reporter to find out what the truth is, but only a 10 minute web search to learn that Airfinity is not 'independent' at all, the company works closely with AZ and other vaccine firms as clients. So, they will likely deliver an analysis agreeable to their clients. Why do BBC or Telegraph journalists not question these obvious COI's at all? If you want to know just how 'independent' the CEO of Airfinity is then read his article calling for NATO to manage pandemic responses. What a great idea to install the military into public health! What could possibly go wrong? Although who is actually 'pulling his strings' to promote such ideas in the press? It's no big surprise the 'independent study' by Airfinity is based on more modelling from Imperial College, but alas 'Professor Pantsdown' is in exile this time. Yet still Airfinity has plenty of faulty assumptions for over-inflated figures to be pulled out of thin air. I refer you to an article by Dr. Heneghan and Dr. Jefferson that picks apart all the major errors in the study, and I urge The Telegraph to re-evaluate the credibility of the Airfinity study and fully investigate any COI's.

MSM may now deflect away from 'The Twilight Zone' living nightmare to the 'success story' of vaccines but the reality was citizens were targeted with relentless propaganda as the state spent near to £900 million on PR campaigns using unethical fear and trauma tactics, while subsidised newspapers militaristically called on the public to 'do their duty', join 'jabs army' and fight in the 'War on Covid' to end lockdown via the 'jabs for freedom' strategy. Only to discard the inevitable casualties who were cruelly marginalised and censored. Government plans for scientifically flawed, immoral vaccine passports, a two-tier society and mandates reminiscent of authoritarian regimes were scrapped, unmasking a very ugly manifestation of totalitarianism. Critics were illegally put under surveillance and harassed by military psychological warfare units deploying armies of trolls, bots and dis-info agents that used their dirty tricks for disrupting debate via social media etc. Big Tech giants enforced censorship, deplatforming and debanking akin to an Orwellian 'Ministry of Truth' in which even accounts of the vaccine bereaved and injured were shut down and labelled as 'anti-vaxxers'. Media 'personality disorders' acted as bullying ringleaders calling for persecution of the unvaccinated until 'the science changed' of course, after which these moronic sociopaths were finally forced to face the realities known for a long time that the vaccines and multiple boosters did not prevent transmission or reinfections.

Every person should support actions to ensure people are given proper compensation and care when there is a vaccine related death or injury as it can potentially happen to anyone who suddenly find themselves, family members or friends in a very unfortunate situation. Also, whatever an individuals or organisations views are on vaccine issues, traditional shared values of common decency, fairness, human rights and dignity have a higher place if we are to live in a civilised society. Government and the vaccine industry cannot be allowed to avoid their responsibilities by abandoning vulnerable people and treating them so inhumanely as if they were expendable collateral damage. The VDPS offers too little, too late, to too few and is urgently in need of an overhaul. This huge scandal deserves as much attention as any reported in recent times by the UK media.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Hall | Website | Research Archive

For a full list of references for the letters go direct to Jonathan’s article here.

Please note:

Readers are encouraged to support the work of UKCV Family and VIBUK who are campaigning for reform of the VDPS on behalf of the vaccine injured and bereaved. There is also a public petition that calls on the government to review the scheme that can be signed until June 9th.

UKCV Family
https://www.ukcvfamily.org https://x.com/ukcvfamily

VIBUK
https://x.com/VIBUK_Official

Review the Vaccine Damage Payment Scheme – Petition
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/701729