Covid Vaccine Adverse Reaction and Bereaved Groups

Summary

This transcript details a legal submission from groups representing individuals affected by COVID-19 vaccine injuries and bereavement. It highlights the censorship of social media posts sharing vaccine side effects, the lack of government support, and the inefficiencies of the Vaccine Damage Payment Scheme (VDPS). The submission stresses the urgent need for reform, emphasizing the distress caused by delays in compensation and recognition of injuries. It calls for meaningful changes to ensure that future vaccination programs are trusted and that those affected by vaccine injuries are given the support they deserve.

Takeaways

• 😀 Censorship of vaccine injury stories on social media has silenced affected individuals, preventing them from sharing their experiences.
• 😀 74% of UK vaccine-injured individuals reported being censored when discussing their adverse reactions on social media platforms.
• 😀 The UK government failed to adequately create a system for capturing and reporting adverse vaccine reactions, relying instead on censorship.
• 😀 Social media became a crucial platform for individuals to connect and support each other, especially when official channels were silent on vaccine safety.
• 😀 There has been no meaningful government-led effort to use media to increase awareness of vaccine injury reporting or offer compensation.
• 😀 The lack of support and recognition for vaccine injury cases has contributed to growing vaccine hesitancy and distrust in health authorities.
• 😀 The Vaccine Damage Payment Scheme (VDPS) has been criticized for being inadequate, slow, and failing to meet the needs of those affected by vaccine injuries.
• 😀 There have been significant delays (18 months to 2 years) in processing claims for those seeking compensation through the VDPS.
• 😀 Reform of the VDPS is urgently needed, as the current system is unfair and does not effectively address the needs of the injured or bereaved.
• 😀 The psychological and emotional impact of being vaccine-injured, combined with bureaucratic delays and rejection, has caused further distress for affected individuals and their families.

Q & A

What was the primary issue raised by the speaker regarding social media censorship?

The speaker highlighted that individuals affected by vaccine injuries were censored on social media platforms. Their posts, which shared personal experiences of adverse reactions, were removed under claims of medical misinformation, silencing their voices and preventing important discussions around vaccine safety.

How did social media play a role for those affected by vaccine injuries, according to the speaker?

Social media allowed individuals who suffered vaccine injuries to connect with others in similar situations, share their stories, and offer emotional support. It provided a platform for those whose concerns were largely ignored by mainstream media and official sources, particularly in the early stages of the pandemic.

What criticism did the speaker express about the UK government's response to vaccine injuries?

The speaker criticized the UK government for failing to effectively use social media and other platforms to increase awareness about vaccine injury reporting systems. They also condemned the lack of support and access to compensation for those who were affected, suggesting that the government was more focused on silencing the discourse rather than addressing the concerns.

What issue did the speaker raise about the Vaccine Damage Payment Scheme (VDPS)?

The speaker argued that the VDPS was inadequate and not fit for purpose. They highlighted delays in processing claims, the unfair 60% disablement criterion, and the lack of an effective system to assist those severely affected by vaccine injuries, calling for urgent reform of the scheme.

What does the speaker suggest is the impact of the VDPS's inadequacy on public trust in vaccination?

The speaker suggested that the inadequacy of the VDPS and the delays in processing claims contributed to growing vaccine hesitancy. They warned that failure to address these issues would likely damage public confidence in future vaccination programs.

How long did individuals typically have to wait to have their claims processed under the VDPS?

Individuals often faced long waiting times, ranging from 18 months to 2 years, before their claims were processed and they received compensation, causing significant distress to those who were already dealing with the effects of vaccine injuries.

What moral duty did the speaker emphasize regarding the government's responsibility towards those affected by vaccine injuries?

The speaker emphasized the government's moral duty to provide justice and adequate support for individuals who suffered disabilities or death as a result of receiving the vaccine, particularly since the vaccination program was part of a government-run health protection scheme.

What did the speaker suggest the inquiry must do to help those affected by vaccine injuries?

The speaker called for the inquiry to thoroughly investigate the evidence and make clear, meaningful recommendations for reform. They urged for an interim report and a robust monitoring framework to ensure that affected individuals receive the necessary support as soon as possible.

Why does the speaker argue that effective support for the vaccine injured is linked to vaccine hesitancy?

The speaker argues that the lack of effective support for those injured by the vaccine undermines public trust in the vaccination system. If people see that there is no safety net for those who are harmed, they may be less willing to engage with future vaccination programs.

What key point did the speaker make regarding the government’s response to the VDPS over time?

The speaker pointed out that despite promises from both the previous and current government to review and reform the VDPS, no meaningful action had been taken, even four years after the start of the vaccination program.