UK COVID-19 inquiry|29 Jan 2025
Testimony by solicitor Sarah Moore on the vaccine damage payment scheme (VDPS).
Introduction
Sarah Moore has been asked by the Inquiry to provide a statement to assist its examination of the workings of the UK Vaccine Damage Payment Scheme (the VDPS) and its assessment of whether any reforms are necessary to the VaccineDamage Payment Act (the VDPA) in which the VDPS is rooted. Ms.Moore is a a solicitor of the Court of England and Wales. She is currently invovled with litigation over the Astrazeneca COVID vaccine.
‘‘Some individuals within the AstraZeneca Litigation Group who have suffered significant life changing injuries have made the decision not to apply to the VDPS.’’
-Paragraph 62 of statement
Testimony highlights
I recommend watching the full 40 minute session if you want to know all there is to know about the VDPS which is examined in great detail with chair Baroness Hallett asking questions for the concluding 7 minutes.
Main points:
‘Devastating’ consequences as a result of vaccine injury
No reform of VDPS for 45 years
‘No mean feat’ to litigate and take on 'big pharma' and UK government
17,519 applications to VDPS to date
‘Unprecedented’ numbers of adverse events reported
VITT is accepted as caused by the Astrazenca vaccine
60% disablement criteria ‘beyond rational explanation’
UK VDPS acceptance rate ‘lowest in the world’
UK VDPS scheme ‘slowest in the world’
Vaccine injury support groups removed by Facebook as ‘anti-vax’
Statement highlights
‘‘That lack of willingness can be explained, until now, with reference to the fact that there have been relatively few applications to the VDPS over the years. Consequently, incumbent Governments have likely seen the VDPS as a "footnote" issue in terms of public health policy.’’
-Paragraph 18
‘‘Advancing a civil claim against a vaccine manufacturer in the UK is fraught with difficulty as several high- profile vaccine cases have shown.’’
See for example, Loveday v. Renton [1990] 1 Med. LR 117, The Times, 31.3.1988 and the MMR Litigation. As described by Fairgrieve & Goldberg in Product Liability, para.9.58 and footnote 221.
-Paragraph 29
‘‘The claimant lost part of their small intestine due to infarction caused by the COVID-19 AstraZeneca vaccine, which had to be surgically removed and led to hospital admission, including a stay in the ICU.’’
-Paragraph 86
‘‘It is noteworthy that 74% of the Claimants within the AstraZeneca Litigation had vaccine causation for their injuries confirmed by the VDPS on the balance of probabilities, whereas only 50% of this group have reached the level of "severe disablement" required to access any financial support from the VDPS.’’
-Paragraph 96
‘‘In its refusal to consider reforming the VDPS, the Government may be calculating that it can minimise the cost of VDPS payments by keeping the VDPS payment figure at its current low level.’’
-Pragaph 97
Media reports
I noted an online report in the Dorset Echo see here.
Thanks for your attention. Like, comment and share if you care.
Utter tosh: "These people who have paid the highest price - which we have all benefitted from.."
There has been zero benefit to society through compliance to this or any other Pandemic demand. Everyone in this group had their own reasons for submitting but heroes they were not. I know some who took it to go on holiday. One of them is now disabled.
British citizens will be saddled with compensation for this debacle for many many years.
Isn't it ironic we have one of the lowest vaccine injury payment schemes in the world and also interestingly one of the slowest vaccine injury payment schemes in the world but we were the fastest in the world to deploy the vaccines. They found enough money and they found enough manpower to jab those arms when they wanted to, all of it is a quagmire of corruption. I agree with the above commenter there are no heroes in any of the covid compliance but the state are determined the pandemic theatre continues.