Vaccine damage payments scheme: a remarkable rejection
Imagine Jane is found dead after being shot in the heart from behind by a known violent criminal Victor.
While we know the shot would have killed Jane, it is theoretically possible that she could have died of a purely coincidental heart attack immediately before the bullet entered her heart. Now imagine further that a judge rules that Victor did not murder Jane because ‘on the balance of probabilites’ she died of a heart attack before the bullet struck.
While that sounds like an extreme horror/fantasy story a not too different scenario has been played out in a claim to the vaccine damages payment scheme.
In December 2024 I was asked to estimate the probability that a stroke suffered by a healthy woman within minutes of a covid vaccine (in November 2021) could have happened purely by chance, i.e. was not caused by the vaccine. I produced this article with my analysis.
The woman, who we will call Jane, was unconscious for 2 weeks after getting the vaccine and has since been immobile, right-side paralysed and unable to speak. Sadly, but not unsurprisingly, Jane’s application and subsequent appeal to the vaccine damage payment scheme have been rejected. The most recent rejection stated that ‘on the balance of probabilities, the vaccine did not cause the disability in question’ :
Jane’s family have decided to make another appeal and asked if I could provide a formal statement to support this. Because some additional/different information about the case was now available my analysis is somewhat different (and actually simpler) than that produced in the previous article. The (redacted) summary of my formal report states:
- On 4 November 2021 at 3:45pm XXXXXXXX (referred to subsequently as “Jane”) received a Pfizer Covid vaccine booster jab having previously had two doses of the AstraZeneca vaccine earlier in 2021.
- At some time within the next 20 minutes Jane, who was then a 72-year-old healthy and very active woman, suffered a stroke (a catastrophic intercranial haemorrhage) leaving her unconscious for 2 weeks and since then immobile, right-side paralysed and unable to speak.
- I have been asked by Jane’s family if it is possible to determine the probability that Jane’s injury was caused by the vaccine.
- It is not possible to provide a definitive answer to this question, but we can estimate the expected number of women aged 65–75 in England suffering a stroke coincidentally (i.e. not caused by the vaccine) shortly after a covid vaccine in a year. Then we can compare that number with the incidence of actual reported strokes of women aged 65-75 year shortly after a covid vaccine in 2021.
- Based on historical data about strokes in England, there is about a 1 in 1.2 million probability that a randomly selected woman aged 65-75 who takes 3 covid jabs in a 1-year period would suffer a stroke coincidentally within 20 minutes of receiving one of the jabs. That is, therefore, an incredibly unlikely event. But, because there are about 3 million women aged 65-75 in England, if they all took 3 covid vaccines in a 1-year period there is about a 92% probability at least one would suffer a stroke coincidentally within 20 minutes of a jab. However, it is highly unlikely (less than 5% probability) there would be more than 5 such women. We would expect (statistically) between 1 to 5. That means Jane could have been one of the 1-5 such extremely unlucky women.
- However, while it is difficult to get an accurate estimate, based on reports of adverse reactions to systems such as the Yellow Card Scheme and VAERS, it is likely that at least many dozens of women aged between 65-75 (far more so than men) suffered strokes within 24 hours of a covid vaccine in England in 2021. Even without clinical evidence to determine if these cases could have been caused by the vaccine, the fact that there have been many more than the 1 to 5 expected coincidental cases, suggests that the vaccines significantly increase the risk of strokes.
- Hence, I believe there is sufficient statistical evidence to conclude that the stroke was several times more likely to have been caused by the vaccine than by chance.
- There is also evidence to suggest that there is a 1 in 800 probability of a serious adverse reaction following a covid Pfizer vaccine. While low, this probability is much higher than the 1 in 3.5 million probability of a coincidental stroke within 20 minutes of a covid Pfizer vaccine. Hence, there is no question that ‘on the balance of probabilities’ it is far more likely that Jane’s injury was caused by the vaccine.
- Moreover, there is additional evidence that strongly supports the hypothesis that the vaccine was a causal factor in Jane’s injury. Specifically, it is known that the Pfizer batch, number FH0114, from which Jane received the vaccine was especially problematic. There are 1,970 separate adverse reaction reports for that batch alone, of which there are 73 within 24 hrs with a diagnosis that relates to clots (strokes, pulmonary emboli, dvt, clots in eyes etc). The batch comes from a spun up factory in Belgium.
My full (redacted) report, which contains the details of the above calculations, is here:
In conclusion, taking account of basic analysis of historical stroke data, reports of adverse reactions following covid vaccines and the specific problems of the Pfizer batch from which Jane was injected, it is far more likely that the vaccine was a causal factor in Jane’s injury than the coincidence hypothesis. So it seems the decision-makers on the vaccine damages payment scheme do not understand what ‘balance of probabilities’ means.
I acknowledge the help of Dr Scott McLachlan in accessing VAERS data
See more here Substack
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Trackback from your site.