Government Clarifies Vaccine Injured Can Sue Manufacturers Despite Indemnity
The Government has responded to a petition calling on it to “remove indemnity from the manufacturers of COVID-19 vaccines, to allow individuals to pursue claims for compensation against them” by clarifying that “individuals’ right to sue the producers of the vaccine” has not been removed.
Instead, the indemnity “determines who will pay the manufacturer’s losses arising from such a claim”. This means the vaccine injured can sue the manufacturers, though the Government will foot the bill.
The Government’s response states:
In August 2021, amendments to the Human Medicines Regulations 2012 were made to support the rollout of COVID-19 vaccines. Although the legislation provides partial immunity from civil liability for vaccines supplied under emergency authorisation, it preserves individuals’ right to sue the producers of the vaccine under Part 1 of the Consumer Protection Act 1987. This provides an important level of protection if the safety of the product is not such as people are generally entitled to expect, taking all circumstances into account, and if that defect causes personal injury.
The Government adds that, as far as the Vaccine Damage Payment Scheme (VDPS) is concerned, “the figure of £120,000 is a one-off lump-sum payment, not designed to cover lifetime costs for those impacted”.
“A successful claim to VDPS does not stop an individual from bringing litigation against the vaccine manufacturer for damages as the VDPS is not a compensation scheme,” it adds.
The Government’s full response to the petition is as follows.
The Government cannot comment on the terms on which COVID-19 vaccines were supplied as these are confidential.
Even though the COVID-19 vaccines have been developed at pace, at no point and at no stage of development has safety been bypassed. These vaccines have satisfied, in full, all the necessary requirements for safety, effectiveness and quality.
The speed of the vaccine rollout put the U.K. in a strong position. The U.K. was the first country in the world to grant a temporary authorisation for and deploy the Pfizer and Oxford/AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccines. The U.K. was the first major European economy and first G20 member to vaccinate 50% of its population with at least one dose, and to provide boosters to 50% of the population.
The benefits of the COVID-19 vaccines rollout have been demonstrated in terms of public health and allowing the gradual and safe removal of restrictions on everyday life over the past 18 months.
In general, indemnities given to manufacturers do not prevent individuals from pursuing a legal claim against a manufacturer for compensation. Rather, the indemnity determines who will pay the manufacturer’s losses arising from such a claim.Although the details of indemnity schemes are commercially confidential, we understand that many governments entered into such arrangements to ensure ready access to COVID-19 vaccines.
In August 2021, amendments to the Human Medicines Regulations 2012 were made to support the rollout of COVID-19 vaccines. Although the legislation provides partial immunity from civil liability for vaccines supplied under emergency authorisation, it preserves individuals’ right to sue the producers of the vaccine under Part 1 of the Consumer Protection Act 1987. This provides an important level of protection if the safety of the product is not such as people are generally entitled to expect, taking all circumstances into account, and if that defect causes personal injury.
The Vaccine Damage Payment Scheme (VDPS) is a no-fault scheme that provides a one-off, tax-free payment of £120,000 to claimants who have been found, on the balance of probabilities, to have been seriously disabled as a result of a vaccine for a disease listed in the Vaccine Damage Payment Act 1979. The figure of £120,000 is a one-off lump-sum payment, not designed to cover lifetime costs for those impacted.
It is in addition to the Government support package to those with a disability or long-term health condition, including Statutory Sick Pay, Universal Credit, Employment and Support Allowance, Attendance Allowance, and Personal Independence Payments.
A successful claim to VDPS does not stop an individual from bringing litigation against the vaccine manufacturer for damages as the VDPS is not a compensation scheme.
This means that, notwithstanding the indemnity, the vaccine injured can bring action for damages against the vaccine manufacturers, albeit with taxpayers on the hook for the bill.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
There are a number of very serious issues in this statement.
1. The courts and Judges have been bought so the chances of successful litigation are remote.
2. This government statement is absolutely chock full of blatant lies:
“Even though the COVID-19 vaccines have been developed at pace, at no point and at no stage of development has safety been bypassed. These vaccines have satisfied, in full, all the necessary requirements for safety, effectiveness and quality.”
“The benefits of the COVID-19 vaccines rollout have been demonstrated in terms of public health and allowing the gradual and safe removal of restrictions on everyday life over the past 18 months.”
So let’s not assume this will open the floodgates. I am sure some brave people will have a go but they will not receive a proper hearing and some escape clause will facilitate Pfisser’s walking away without guilt.
This is just a sop. Will any cases even get to court?
It seems you have not researched the information about how the testing was fiddled and how the Pharma companies made lying claims that were not tested until we found out as a result of the data that they were not true for the vaccines. Safety was compromised quite deliberately and if our government has indemnified these companies against that they have not acted in our best interests.
“It seems you have not researched the information about how the testing was fiddled”
You hard faced, ignorant sod.
Get to court? We all know there’s not a cat in hell’s chance of that happening.
If that is true, the Treasury can expect quite a few real cases for damages in due course to shell out for, if they are acting as insurers for the manufacturers, or the NHS, in effect. It will be interesting to see whether any victims succeed in suing for damages via the County Courts, as one does if injured by anything else – such as a physical injury caused on the road (I am an experienced litigant that way, unfortunately). It would vary a lot on individual circumstances, not necessarily limited to a financial cap. I suggest that dealing with an experienced legal firm that handles injury cases.
Governments all over the world better get on the ball, sharpish. They need to find grounds to repudiate the contracts with pfisser/murderna. Let’s face it, seeing as barely anyone on the planet has seen the actual, unredacted contracts, the governments can make up their own. Let pfisser/murderna prove which ones are the real ones 😉 In any event, fraud and misrepresentation are a good starting point. “Safe and effective” – a blatant lie, as only *now*, 2 years in are pfisser/murderna starting to have a look-see at possible adverse events like the odd dose of ‘mild’ myocarditis and what have you. They have been stating categorically for 2 years that there were no or only very rare side effects – lies, lies, lies. Myocarditis concerns were raised by the US and Israeli militaries back in April 2021 – a year and a half before the producers looked into this surely classifies as criminal negligence. Some things cannot be excluded by contract, and contracts can be voided as being against the public interest. The UK needs to watch out, there’s going to be some forum shopping going on and countries that used AZ will probably be trying to get the UK… Read more »
I absolutely agree Jane. The fact that the pharma companies have told lies from the start means they have invalidated their contracts and they have definitely acted against the public good.
It is certainly not a legal or moral right that the UK taxpayers should have to pick up the bill for the pharma industry’s complicity in untold personal damages and the wilful deaths of thousands, or possibly millions of people. They have no defence and they bloody well know it.
How long do you think it will be before we have tv and radio ads saying “Have YOU been damaged by the covid vaccine?” Not long, I reckon.
It would be revealing if one spotted which channels carry adverts like that, wouldn’t it, if you cross review who funds them?
You are an optimist T o b.
Fraud removes all indemnity.
That is why so many wise heads are looking into finding indisputable evidence of fraud.
Are individual ministers of government and members of Sage protected from prosecution ?
It might depend on exactly where they said it, i.e. inside Parliament or somewhere else.
If Alex Jones has just had to pay out $1.4bn in total (by my reckoning) for his obnoxious and highly upsetting false claims about the dead victims of Sandy Hook; what then is an appropriate amount for Bourla, Von Der Leyden, Johnson, Handcock, Zahawi, Javid, Gove, Sturgeon, Drakeford, Sridhar, Whitty, Vallance, Van Tan, Piers Morgan etc for their false claims that resulted in life changing injuries and deaths to thousands??
A clue to the government’s position lies within this statement:
“The benefits of the COVID-19 vaccines rollout have been demonstrated in terms of public health and allowing the gradual and safe removal of restrictions on everyday life over the past 18 months.”
Clearly the criminals currently running this country (in to the ground) are effectively going to back the pharma companies.
These so-called “vaccines” have definitely shown their benefits to public health and they are all negative. The “removal of restrictions” that should never have been imposed but which supported the evil scam.
“In August 2021, amendments to the Human Medicines Regulations 2012 were made to support the rollout of COVID-19 vaccines…”
That’s without doubt NOT something to be proud of and certainly condemns those in charge at the time and by God are they facing a long and hefty charge sheet. So if anybody is up for this momentous challenge I wish them well and I will be happy to drop a few bob in any campaign fund.
We’d all be dropping a few bob into it, via taxation, unfortunately. Normally, when someone is sued for causing some trouble or other, and is insured, it’s the rest of the insurer’s customers that pick up the tab via their premiums, when the insurer has to settle up with the claimant.
Oh my god, the lies! Para 2 is unbelievable in its confident affirmation, which in fact is easily disproved. I despair. Black really is white and 2 +2 = 5.
Who writes this rubbish?
Pfizer et al.
Please take the time to sign the petition, let’s get this to debate.
So they’re allowing it because (1) it’s another way to bleed taxpayers dry, and (2) they can use it to undermine one argument against compulsory jabs, namely that we’ve zero comeback if we’re harmed.
Compensation with our own money ! Dirty Dirty F- – – ers, my internal vitriol knows no bounds for these absolute scum bags !!!…
Let me get this right:
Did I miss anything?
There will be your legal expenses – solicitors, barristers, specialists etc. If you succeed, the other side, that is to say, you and others will be ordered to settle up for that lot as well.
Yes, we can add that to the bill. After all, we are headed towards, “You will have nothing and you will be happy“. We can at least see how the first part of that is going to work.
Putting it like that, it all seems so logical – but still f***ing outrageous
As I see due to the mix n’ match of various jabs, anyone persuing a claim will be told ‘how do you know it is our vaccine that caused the damage?’ I knew it would be a get out clause when Pfizer and Moderna said they could be swapped around.
Where have you been Judy?
Good to see you posting again.
When you see the way Sarah Stock, Professor of Maternal and Fetal Health at Edinburgh University, denies the damage caused by the jabs you can rate the chances of Joe (or Josephine) Soap proving their case is absolutely zero. Check out the current HART newsletter for full details. Apologies but I cannot copy n paste the link.
Professor Sukharit Bhakdi said in his Telegram channel that a report by Dr Michael Moritz was a ‘game changer’. Apparently, myocarditis caused by the injection is not accompanied by certain proteins that appear with myocarditis from other causes.
As long as there can be an autopsy (obviously, only in the case of a fatality!) there is an opportunity to prove the injection was to blame.
So people can sue but they pay the bill themselves through the tax system. No, thank you. Big pharma has misappropriated billions with its vaccines; big pharmacy can use those billions to compensate the injured and the families who lost loved ones.
” Even though the COVID-19 vaccines have been developed at pace, at no point and at no stage of development has safety been bypassed. These vaccines have satisfied, in full, all the necessary requirements for safety, effectiveness and quality.”
If that was the case, they’d have medium to long-term safety data.
They haven’t got any.
The extensive list of adverse effects has grown, month by month, because the population was used as the guinea-pigs.
The Government REFUSES to investigate the deaths, severe disabilities and now the excess deaths we are experiencing.
There isn’t a Court in the land who will find that these products are dangerous: far too many powerful people would be affected and the Establishment protects its own.
The government’s response is:
lie
lie
lie
lie
lie…
As we now know the Vaccine sellers fiddled the results of the pre-release tests and did not carry them out thoroughly particularly with regard to pregnant women. Whatever the deal with our government was, there must be a case against these big pharma companies for negligence.
The manufacturers will be fully liable for the bill if their safety studies are deemed to have been fraudulent which of course they clearly are.
https://metatron.substack.com/p/covid-vaccination-victims-file-criminal
The Swiss are starting to get the ball rolling.
A good overview and a powerful presentation and start.
Meanwhile, Hancock swans around in the jungle rather than languishing in jail. You literally could not make this stuff up.