A 26-year-old who had recently graduated from Redditch in the UK received the first dose of the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine on May 29, 2021. His memory and spirit endure as the family and his girlfriend initiate a legal probe into the matter. Jack Hurn went with his girlfriend Alex to get immunized against COVID-19, and when both arrived at a vaccine center in Dudley they expressed their preference for the Pfizer vaccine. They were informed by the staff that COVID-19 vaccine was not available. The young British couple made their concerns known to the staff about the AstraZeneca vaccine. They explained that they were “aware of concerns around the use of AstraZeneca for younger people.” At that time, in fact, medical advice was such in Britain that people under 40 should not receive another vaccine due to concerns about blood clots, especially in females. However, vaccine center staff assured the young couple the vaccine was safe, and they went and received the jab. Just days later, 26-year-old Jack Hurn started experiencing bad headaches. He was then rushed to Birmingham’s Queen Elizabeth hospital where he was declared in “catastrophic” condition with blood clots in the brain. On June 11, Jack Hurn died from the AstraZeneca vaccine.
The family wants answers. They hired an attorney and initiated an inquest at Birmingham and Solihull Coroner’s Court, reports UK’s ITV News Central.
Attorney Michael Portman-Hann went on the record about the young man stating, “Jack, a first-class honors graduate of Coventry University, https://www.coventry.ac.uk/ had recently bought his first home with his partner, Alex Jones, who also received her vaccine at the same time. She only found out after his death that he was planning to propose that summer.”
Not surprisingly, Jack’s family (parents Tracy and Peter, and sister Abby as well as his girlfriend Alex and her family) “are completely devastated and are still trying to come to terms with what happened,” shared the attorney.
He continued, “Jack and Alex asked staff at the vaccine clinic about the Pfizer alternative as they were aware of concerns around the use of AstraZeneca for younger people. Alex and Jack were reassured by the staff at the center that the vaccine was safe, and with no Pfizer doses available that day, they felt encouraged by vaccine staff to go ahead with what was on offer."
Jack’s family, who live in Devon, found it very difficult to get up-to-date information from hospital staff over the course of a number of days. Confusion at the time reined—was that accidental or intentional?
"Given the family’s concerns over advice given during the vaccine clinic visit and what happened in the period between Jack being admitted to hospital and his death, we are supporting them to find answers which we’re hopeful an inquest will help provide."
UK media ITV News Central reports they have reached out to NHS England to elicit a response on this matter. The British government health service declined a comment while the inquest continues.
What about this Vaccine?
ITV News Central shares information about the AstraZeneca vaccine. Originally developed at Oxford University, they offer the vaccine knowledge project which offers reliable and authoritative information on Covid-19 vaccines.
A TrialSite Opinion
COVID-19 ushered in an unprecedented mass vaccination campaign with novel vaccines employed to combat the pathogen. Organized medicine lined up in support of these products, meaning they were deemed safe and effective. And--for the most part--they have been safe and effective. The vast majority of persons inoculated don’t experience adverse events, and the vaccines have been shown to reduce serious illness and death associated with COVID-19. But when hundreds of millions of people are treated with a novel drug or vaccine—even if shown to be safe and effective—adverse events and deaths are bound to occur.
Governments in much of the world took an all or nothing approach—not offering a more personalized, tailored, risk-based approach to combating the virus. For example, very few young people were at risk for serious COVID-19, yet all were strongly encouraged, and in some cases, mandated to get vaccinated even if there are some risks associated with the jab. Of course, with subsequent variants more young people were afflicted—that’s true and a big reason why governments accelerated the mass vaccination program.
But government mandates ultimately were predicated on the ability of the vaccines to reduce community transmission which they have not done, especially starting with the Delta and then Omicron variants of concern. SARS-CoV-2, a dynamic mutating pathogen, starts to more easily evade vaccine induced antibodies with these mutant variants. Yet many studies still show they help protect lives, especially after a booster dose. Early on, talk of 70% vaccination rates would lead to eradication through herd immunity was reckless on the part of governments and public health agencies. Anyone with any degree of scientific knowledge in this field is aware of the dynamic, mutational nature of this pathogen.
Real questions persist. How long the vaccine boosts last represents one important question. What are the long-term health implications of three or four booster doses? These questions haven’t been studied. TrialSite has concerns about these critical questions that do not seem politically correct to ask in today’s environment with censorship and a universal argument for one truth. Typically, if that’s the case, then there very well may be more problems around the corner.
The vaccine injured (and deceased) must be recognized, and either they or family members compensated. This is the right thing to do. It’s not enough to say Jack Hurn was expendable because so many other people had their lives saved. Here is a 26-year-old healthy young man that had his whole life ahead: career, marriage, children; a whole lineage is now eliminated. His life matters.
In situations like COVID-19 there are not always black or white realities, but often shades of gray, and a spectrum of decisions that come with tradeoffs. COVID-19 has been a devastating pandemic that’s taken over a million lives in America alone.
While some front-line doctors argue if early treatment with existing repurposed drugs would have been embraced by the government hundreds of thousands of live would have been saved. On the other hand, the medical establishment declares such talk hearsay and a contributor to vaccine hesitancy which leads to death. Is it the case that only one side is correct? Couldn’t both have some truth in their argument?
The topic here isn’t an easy one but this media won’t shy away from asking the tough questions while not pandering to extreme, anti-vaccine interests for example, which might seek to use this crisis to further various political, economic, or healthcare agendas. On the other hand, we’ll continue to look very carefully at industry’s role, and government’s support of various practices during this pandemic.