What are the common factors in the Swine Flu vaccine Claims and future Covid 19 "vaccine" Claims?

What are the common factors in the Swine Flu vaccine Claims and future Covid 19 "vaccine" Claims?
  • 30 July 2021

In 2009 people all over the world were told the emergency use vaccine for Swine Flu pandemic was safe. In 2020/2021 people all over the world were once again been told that the experimental vaccines for SARS CoV2 (which is a gene therapy and not really a vaccine in its true definition) is also safe for this latest WHO declared pandemic.


Looking back, in 2009 the adverse reactions reported for the Swine flu vaccine was a drop in the ocean compared to what is already being reported for the SARS CoV2 medical experimental "vaccination" campaign currently underway globally.

A closer look at the daily growing numbers of adverse reactions including deaths for the SARS-CoV2 experimental vaccines (2020/2021) indicates that many claims against countries is something that will happen.

We can expect to see an avalanche of claims being made against all governments starting soon. The tsunami of claims will increase in line with governments coercive measures increase as well. Claims that once again will be paid for out of tax-payers contributions and not out of pharmaceutical coffers.

However, serious doubts have been raised on the ability of governments ability to meet all financial compensation claims in the short, medium or long-term. It is already clear as a result of the number of adverse reactions reported to date, and which are rising daily, that governments may not have the financial resources required to meet the demands for compensation that will arise.

What both “pandemics” shows us is the lengths government leaders are prepared to go, in an endeavour to meet unreasonable and in our opinion very questionable contractual terms agreed with the various players in the pharmaceutical industry by government representatives - all, in our opinion detrimental to the protection of citizens interests and really their public health.


Do you really believe that they are acting any different now? We don’t believe they are, and after you read the leaked Phizer contracts, I am sure you will have the same opinion as us.


Now let’s take a look at what the courts decided in 2019, 2020 and 2021 in regard to some claims regarding the Swine Flu vaccines.


The Cases

  •  €4.5 M settlement agreement has been reached in 3 of the 100+ Swine Flu vaccines injury claims against the UK state (Ireland and England)
  • Tony Holowan stated on TV and Radio in 2009 that it was safe for parents to vaccinate their children. This was untrue. In fact it was a blatant lie.
  • This lie led to many childrens injuries, and claim court awards for which Tax Payers will foot the bill as GSK was given full indemnity.

Overview of the cases

  • Settlements totalling more than €4.5m were approved by the High Court in three cases over the administering for the swine flu jab which caused sleep disorder.
  • The cases involve two under-18 year olds and an adult man. Nothing can be reported to identify them by order of the court.
  • The cases were against the Minister for Health, the HSE, and Glaxosmithkline Biologicals SA (GSK) — the producer of swine flu vaccine Pandemrix.
  • GSK was previously given an indemnity by the State concerning any adverse reactions to the vaccine.
  • It was claimed in all three cases that the plaintiffs developed narcolepsy.
  • These settlements arose out of general terms agreed in groundbreaking settlement which paved the way for the resolution of 80 cases over the Pandemrix vaccine.
  • In the first case, Ms Justice Miriam O'Regan approved a settlement of €1m for a teenage boy who received Pandremix when he was six and subsequently developed moderate to severe narcolepsy. In the second case of another teenage boy, the judge approved a settlement of €1.75m after his counsel Jomathan Kilfeather SC said there was a complicating factor in this case because the child had also been diagnosed with autism which meant that his life in the future will be very different. Mark Tighe reported in the Sunday Times 8 November 2020 on the settlement made with 15 year old Ben Blackwell who was represented by Dermot Gleeson SC.
  • “Gleeson said that Blackwell’s case centred on his parents not being able to give informed consent in allowing their son to take the vaccine in February 2010 when he was four years old. The state and GSK have been accused of giving out wrong or incomplete information about the lack of testing done on Pandemrix’s suitability for children.
  • Gleeson told the judge that Blackwell’s case involved “harsh criticism” of public health officials, including Dr Tony Holohan, who was chief medical officer in 2009.
  • The barrister said the evidence would include transcripts of media interviews given by Holohan at the time, in which he assured the public that Pandemrix had been fully tested and was as safe as regular flu vaccines.
  • Blackwell’s senior counsel said this was untrue, as Pandemrix contained a new adjuvant, a booster ingredient that triggers an autoimmune response, which had not been used previously and which had not been tested on children.
  • Gleeson quoted interviews that Holohan did on RTE and Newstalk at the time in which he said Pandemrix was “fully licensed and clinically tested” and “like all other influenza vaccines, which have an excellent safety profile”.
  • On one radio show, Holohan said the adjuvant in Pandemrix was “nothing new”, but Gleeson insisted it was “completely new”. He added: “We say people weren’t told the truth.”
  • Gleeson said by the time that Blackwell was vaccinated, the swine flu pandemic was “entirely over in Ireland” and had not proven as infectious or toxic as initially feared.

    • He said the vaccine was approved under emergency legislation which allowed it to be administered to children without having been tested.
    • “It’s mind-boggling, but that’s what was done,” said Gleeson.
    • He said the health authorities also had information that Pandemrix was causing six to eight times more adverse reactions than another vaccine, Arepanrix.
    • The state’s barristers have said they were keen to run the case to protect the reputations of “distinguished public servants” who had unjustly been accused of acting “in bad faith”.
    • Paul Gallagher, now the attorney-general, said in a hearing this year that the evidence did not support these attacks on public servants.
    • The legal costs of the plaintiffs in a previous Pandemrix case, that settled before the hearing finished, were estimated at €6m. The state has not revealed the costs of defending the actions.

  • And in the third case, Ms Justice O'Regan approved a €1.8m settlement for a man in his 20s who received the vaccine in 2009. He was also diagnosed as suffering from a mental disorder when doing his Junior Certificate which meant he required continuing support and was unlikely to get employment.

    • His lawyers had recommended that an application for wardship be made to the president of the High Court which would mean the settlement would be managed for his benefit.
    • This was because his treating doctor said his condition affects his ability to perform independently and he was a very vulnerable young man with complex medical needs.
    • His mother, who took the case on his behalf, told the court via remote link she and her family had concerns that if her son went into wardship that this would be a further loss of control over his life. He had a very supportive wider family and his sister was prepared to manage the settlement along with him if he was not taken into wardship, she said.
    • The judge said she felt constrained by his doctor's views and it was in his interests that she transfer the matter to the president's list for an inquiry into the possibility of wardship. She approved the €1.8m settlement.
  • On the first day in the first case taken against the state Senior Counsel Dermot Gleeson said GSK had anticipated legal action over the Pandemrix vaccine before it was sold to Ireland. He was continuing an opening statement on 9 October 2019 in the case by Aoife Bennett, a 26-year-old student from Naas Co Kildare.
  • Mr Gleeson said "unusual" contractual clauses insisted upon by GSK showed the pharmaceutical company had anticipated being sued.
  • The court heard that GSK insisted on being indemnified by the HSE against any legal action arising from the vaccination programme in 2009.
  • The court was told that legal correspondence during the procurement process shows some advisers were uncomfortable with the terms being sought by GSK and said they would never agree to them in normal commercial circumstances.
  • Senior Counsel Dermot Gleeson said the documents showed GSK was also insisting on a clause which meant the HSE could not settle any cases or say anything about it or the vaccine even if it was the right and cost-effective thing to do. This, he said, amounted to an "unconstitutional agreement" and was "profoundly disquieting" whereby an agent of the State was yielding its power to conduct its own litigation with a citizen of Ireland.
  • He said the most remarkable clause of the contract was GSK's insistence that it could give confidential information to the HSE's lawyers but the HSE would not have access to that information.
    • "They anticipated litigation and here they were providing detailed arrangements to control the litigation and to control the way in which the barristers were employed by the HSE," Mr Gleeson said adding: "It lets the cat out of the bag that GSK expected litigation."
    • The agreement between the GSK and the HSE amounted to a "constitutional conspiracy" where the rights of a citizen are affected.
    • Mr Gleeson said the clause required the HSE to subordinate their best constitutionally directed instincts and advice to GSK. "An agent of the State was being directed and controlled by a foreign pharmaceutical company."
    • The case will hear allegations that the Minister and the HSE encouraged vaccination when it was aware the Pandemrix vaccine was not as safe as other vaccines.
    • It is also claimed the HSE entered into an indemnity agreement with GSK in 2009 as a condition of the company supplying the vaccine.
    • It is also claimed that the Irish Medicines Board - now the HPRA - wrote to the Department of Health in September 2009 noting there was no safety data available with the swine flu vaccines and no data was yet available from clinical trials which were then underway.



  1. Settlements of more than €4.5m approved by the High Court in three cases over swine flu jab
  2. Court hears claims GSK 'directed and controlled' HSE over swine flu vaccine
  3. Swine flu jab litigants offered €25,000 bonus to settle early


Rate this item
(0 votes)
Read 591 times

Add comment

Security code