Bereaved Family Receives Rare Acknowledgement of Informed Consent Failure, But Media Reports Again Contain Serious Flaws
Reporting on incorrect risk information by providing more incorrect risk information... and worse.
In a rare admission, a medical practice has acknowledged that it failed to properly warn a 26-year-old Briton of the risks associated with AstraZeneca's Covid vaccine before his death two weeks after receiving the shot.
Jack Hurn, from Redditch, developed blood clots on the brain in June 2021 after receiving the jab at the Revival Fires Clinic in Dudley.
At the time, guidance recommended offering alternative vaccines to individuals under 30 due to known risks associated with the AstraZeneca vaccine. Despite this, Jack was administered the AstraZeneca jab, which led to his death.
Anchor Medical Practice has admitted a breach of duty but not accepted liability. His family is now taking legal action against the practice and related networks.
Tracey Hurn, Jack’s mother, added: “His last words were ‘I am scared, I am scared’. We have to live with that for the rest of our lives. Our son was terrified."
Jack, a former Coventry University student, and his girlfriend, Alex Jones, travelled from their home to the Dudley centre on May 29, 2021, for the vaccination. Despite the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) issuing new guidance on April 7 recommending Pfizer or Moderna for those under 30, this information was not adequately communicated to them.
Alex revealed that the seriousness of the side effects was not clearly conveyed. “It was not made clear to us that it was fatal and the blood clots were on the brain. That would have made a difference to us,” she said.
The local Primary Care Network managed the vaccination centre, with Anchor Medical Practice being the lead practice. However, they did not administer the vaccine themselves.
In a letter seen by the BBC, lawyers representing Anchor Medical Practice revealed, “It is admitted that Jack was told the risk magnitude was one in 250,000 in respect of clotting when the actual risk magnitude for his age group was one in 50,000. The failure to provide the correct risk magnitude for blood clots at the time of obtaining Jack’s consent was a breach of duty.”
Despite acknowledging the breach, the lawyers argued, “It is for the claimant to prove that Jack would have refused the vaccination had the correct risk magnitude been communicated to him, so we make no admissions in that regard."
Jack began experiencing headaches on June 6, eight days post-vaccination, and sought help at Alexandra Hospital in Redditch, where a blood clot was identified. The following day, he suffered a stroke and was transferred to Queen Elizabeth Hospital in Birmingham, where he died on June 11. His family was informed that nothing more could be done.
Staff of Queen Elizabeth Hospital denied Jack’s family visitation rights while he was hospitalised due to Covid restrictions.
Dr Sandhu of Anchor Medical Practice conveyed condolences to Jack’s friends and family, stating, “Our deepest condolences are with Jack's friends and family following his tragic death. We are in legal conversations, so it is hard to comment in full on the background."
Dr Sandhu also clarified the operational structure, explaining that the vaccination program was a collaborative effort by Dudley and Netherton Primary Care Network (PCN), with Anchor Medical Practice. The clinicians at Revival Fires on the day of Jack’s vaccination were from various PCN practices.
The incident has drawn significant public outrage and criticism towards the authorities for their handling of the vaccination process. Many believe that had there been genuine informed consent, Jack’s death could have easily been prevented.
Mainstream Media Fails Again…
The BBC was one of few mainstream media outlets to report on the story. Initially, they laid out events objectively. Towards the end, however, their coverage inevitably fell afoul of selection bias and, worse, outright falsehood.
There were two major problematic statements. The first concerned a World Health Organisation (WHO) estimation, claiming nearly 400,000 lives were saved in England due to the Covid vaccine program:
What they failed to tell readers is that this statistic was based on modelling - one of the weakest forms of “evidence” used to validate a scientific claim.
The second concerned a quote from the National Health Service (NHS) on the so-called “extensive” safety reviews Medicines Healthcare products Regulatory Agency conducts:
In November of last year, former civil service employee Nick Hunt discovered via FOI requests that MHRA did not follow up on half of adverse events reports linked to Moderna’s Covid vaccine. Worse yet, they confessed an absence of any systematic process for evaluating causation of an adverse event reported through the UK’s Yellow Card Scheme.
Reports since then have indicated the agency cut corners and dropped inspection standards. Rather than carrying it out themselves, MHRA outsourced inspections to two private companies, which conducted them virtually (probably via Zoom). Just over a year ago, they announced a resumption of physical inspections, signalling that they hadn’t been carried out since 2020.
Other crucial context was likewise omitted. For instance, considering the article’s emphasis on the omission of risk information, it seems relevant that investigators deleted the adverse reactions of trial participants from the trial. As does the controversial nature of AstraZeneca’s phase III trials, which involved mixed locations, varying protocols, and the lack of a saline placebo.
Mind you, this is the same taxpayer-funded organisation that admitted reporting alleged vaccine injury victims who shared their experiences on social media platforms like Meta. As a result, Meta censored the alleged victims.
Providing incorrect risk information is small fry. Censoring likely correct risk information is where it’s at - at least for the BBC.
Hopefully one day soon, the media will report on Jack’s preventable death with the accuracy and respect he deserves. RIP. (I could not find a crowdfunder linked to his case but will post a link to it here if/when I do).
Do you think if things stay the way they are our best days are ahead of us?
Are you going to sit down and watch as our media parrot narratives that lead to yet more invasive, authoritarian, censorious policy?
If you want to do something today to help change that, you can opt for a paid subscription and help citizen journalists like me attempting to stop it.
Brutal. I am scared, too, Jack. With a self spreading death injection, we may all end up as you did.