Prior to the pandemic,
Brianne Dressen of Salt Lake City was living the active life she always wanted. She went rock climbing with her husband, a chemist for the U.S. Army; ferried her two children to and from soccer games and piano practices; and taught preschool.
Everything came to a screeching halt in November 2020 — not as a result of the union-driven school closures, the lockdowns, or the outcome of the election, but with her participation in an AstraZeneca vaccine trial.
“I walked into the clinic fine, and walked out the beginning of a nightmare I wouldn’t wish on my worst enemy.”
The experimental vaccine allegedly left the 42-year-old Utah mother with a debilitating injury.
Dressen cannot bring a product liability action against the company on account of the
federal Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act. She can, however, possibly ding the British-Swedish pharmaceutical giant for breach of contract, which is exactly what she aims to do.
Dressen filed a
lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah Monday alleging that she developed a debilitating neurological condition as a result of the Oxford-AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine and that the British-Swedish pharmaceutical giant failed to cover the cost of her medical care as promised.
When presented with Dressen’s complaint, Daniel Horowitz, the host of “Conservative Review with Daniel Horowitz” on the Blaze Podcast Network and author of “Rise of the Fourth Reich: Confronting COVID Fascism with a New Nuremberg Trial So This Never Happens Again,” told Blaze News, “It is shocking how we now have thousands of academic and case studies of injuries affecting every organ system, yet victims remain alone with little legal recourse for compensation.”
“We have VAERS, V-Safe, documents from the vaccine manufacturers, and European Medicines Agency reporting, all showing catastrophic levels of injury, yet there is no critical mass of a political movement in any country at this point to repeal unbridled indemnity of these criminal enterprises,” continued Horowitz. “It’s also peculiar how AstraZeneca was taken off the market, but the mRNA shots, which are even worse, remain funded and promoted by government.”
Background
The Oxford-AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine was a viral-vector vaccine developed in collaboration with Oxford University and produced for various companies by the
Serum Institute of India.
While 32,000 Americans like Dressen participated in vaccine trials in the homeland and the Biden administration agreed to share up to 60 million doses with other nations, the AstraZeneca vaccine was never rolled out in the United States. It was, however, administered billions of times worldwide.
It quickly became clear that the vaccine was not as “safe and effective” as health authorities throughout the Anglosphere had guaranteed. After all, there were numerous reports of otherwise healthy recipients experiencing abnormal bleeding, low blood platelets, blood clots, and even dying.
German and Nordic researchers
determined that some recipients were developing a clotting disorder called “vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia,” which produced antibodies that activated platelets and led to clots.
Despite a growing number of likely victims, AstraZeneca
suggested there was “no evidence of an increased risk of pulmonary embolism, deep vein thrombosis (DVT) or thrombocytopenia, in any defined age group, gender, batch or in any particular country.”
The company’s claims have aged like milk.
Last year, Jamie Scott, a father of two left with a permanent clot-related brain injury, filed suit against the company. His complaint was followed by dozens more and ultimately a class-action lawsuit.
Several months after Scott sued AstraZeneca, the company admitted in a February court document that “it is admitted that the AZ vaccine can, in very rare cases, cause [thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome]. The causal mechanism is not known.”
The following month, the company withdrew its “marketing authorization” in the European Union. That application went into effect last week. The Telegraph
reported that AstraZeneca is expected to remove the vaccine from all other markets where it was approved.
‘Hollowed out’
Dressen’s
lawsuit, reportedly the first to be launched stateside against AstraZeneca, claims the company offered various written promises to participants in its vaccine trial, including financial reimbursement for each completed visit to the test clinic for various procedures; financial reimbursement for each completed phone call linked to the study; and compensation for study-related injuries.
“At the moment the substance entered Bri’s blood, a solemn contract had been formed.”
“Defendants defined ‘research injuries’ as ‘[i]njuries that have been caused by the vaccine, tests or procedures,'” said the lawsuit. “Defendants promised that ‘Sponsor will pay the costs of medical treatment for research injuries, provided that the costs are reasonable, and you did not cause the injury yourself.'”
“At the moment the substance entered Bri’s blood, a solemn contract had been formed,” said the complaint. “Her performance was complete and Defendants’ promises were irrevocable.”
When things went south, the lawsuit claims the company effectively left Dressen hanging.
“I was a completely hollowed out version of who I once was.”
Within an hour of receiving the shot, Dressen claims she experienced tingling in her arm. The paraesthesia apparently was not temporary or localized. It soon spread to her other arm.
“That evening other progressively worrying symptoms emerged: blurred vision, double vision, headache, sound sensitivity, a loud ringing in the ears (tinnitus), nausea, vomiting, fever, and chills,” said the lawsuit.
In the weeks that followed, a prickling sensation reportedly spread to Dressen’s legs. She indicated she lost 20 pounds from constant vomiting while this and her other symptoms worsened.
“I walked in to the clinic fine, and walked out the beginning of a nightmare I wouldn’t wish on my worst enemy,” recalled Dressen. “My little girl’s voice was too painful for my ears. My little boy’s hand was too painful for touch. There was no break, no reprieve, no escape. No answers, no help, only questions, and fear of what was overtaking my body more and more each day as new symptoms piled on.”
“I was a completely hollowed out version of who I once was,” added Dressen.
In June 2021, a team of neurologists from the National Institute of Health reportedly diagnosed Dressen as having “Post Vaccine Neuropathy.”
According to the lawsuit, Dressen is still “disabled” three years later; “a shadow of her former self: unable to work, unable to do any athletic activity, unable to parent the way she had, and unable to drive more than a few blocks at a time.”
Dressen
told the Telegraph that the worse part is that her children, now aged nine and 11, can’t remember the kind of person their mother was before the injury.
“It really sucks. The worse part, the biggest punishment of all of this, is the impact on my kids,” said Dressen.
Painful and costly
Dressen’s lawsuit claims that AstraZeneca ignored multiple requests for support until finally coughing up a meager $1,243.30, “a minuscule fraction of the medical bills and lost wages, among other financial costs, that Bri had incurred and will continue to incur.”
After all, Dressen’s biweekly medication supposedly ran her $3,500 per session. One of her current medications would cost her over $430,000 a year. With the help of insurance, she is presently paying roughly $119,000.
“The way we have been and continue to be treated is simply appalling.”
In order to access the $1,243.30, Dressen would have to release AstraZeneca of further responsibility for her care.
“The way we have been and continue to be treated is simply appalling,” Brian Dressen, the plaintiff’s husband, is quoted as saying in the complaint.
The Telegraph reported that Utah law enables complainants who sue for breach of contract to claim for damages and costs resulting from the alleged breach. While Dressen is not suing for a specific amount, she could possibly have AstraZeneca on the hook, not only for her legal and medical bills, but for additional damages — including for lost income and emotional distress.
A spokeswoman for the company told the Telegraph that AstraZeneca would not comment on ongoing litigation. She did, however, say, “Patient safety is our highest priority. From the body of evidence in clinical trials and real-world data, the AstraZeneca-Oxford vaccine has continuously been shown to have an acceptable safety profile and regulators around the world consistently state that the benefits of vaccination outweigh the risks of extremely rare potential side effects.”
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Read more
