FOI docs: AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine linked to over 48,000 heart disorder cases in 2021 alone
By kevinhughes // 2026-01-28
Copy
 
  • FOI requests revealed 48,472 reports of heart disorders linked to AstraZeneca's COVID vaccine submitted to the U.K.'s MHRA in 2021 alone. The MHRA later disputed the figures, claiming only 13,010 cases, but could not explain the discrepancy.
  • Internal MHRA discussions showed regulators delayed public warnings despite knowing the risks, fearing "vaccine hesitancy" would undermine rollout efforts. Multiple European nations suspended the AstraZeneca jab over clotting concerns, but the U.K. continued promoting it as "extremely rare" in side effects.
  • AstraZeneca admitted in court (2024) that its vaccine could cause blood clots in "very rare cases," fueling a class-action lawsuit by injured victims. Independent researchers (e.g., Oxford's Jefferson and Heneghan) accuse regulators of suppressing data and serving political/pharma interests over public safety.
  • MPs and advocacy groups demand an inquiry into the MHRA's handling of vaccine safety, alleging it identified risks early but failed to act transparently. Critics highlight systemic regulatory capture, pointing to MHRA's history of delayed recalls (e.g., thalidomide) and industry collusion.
  • Reanalysis of U.K. data suggests early safety studies obscured risks by comparing vaccines to each other instead of the unvaccinated. Peer-reviewed studies (e.g., Cleveland Clinic) found more vaccine doses = higher COVID risk, contradicting official narratives. The scandal underscores eroding public trust in institutions that prioritize profits and mandates over informed consent and transparency.
Confidential documents obtained through Freedom of Information (FOI) requests reveal that Astrazeneca's vaccine for the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) vaccine remained in widespread use despite 48,472 reports of heart disorders submitted to the British Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) in 2021 alone. Hailed as a "triumph for British science" by then-Prime Minister Boris Johnson, the AstraZeneca (AZ) vaccine became the cornerstone of the U.K.'s early pandemic response. However, concerns mounted rapidly after its January 2021 rollout, with reports linking it to potentially deadly blood clots and heart defects. The revelations raise serious questions about transparency, regulatory oversight and whether earlier action could have prevented harm. Despite these warnings, internal MHRA discussions—detailed in newly uncovered FOI files—show regulators were aware of the sheer volume of adverse event reports but hesitated to issue public alerts. The MHRA has since disputed the figures, claiming the actual number of spontaneous heart disorder reports was 13,010, nearly four times lower than the FOI-obtained data. A spokesperson admitted they could not explain the discrepancy, stating: "We are currently reviewing previously released figures in more detail to identify any potential discrepancies." Minutes from an April 2021 meeting of the Commission on Human Medicines (CHM) COVID-19 Vaccines Benefit-Risk Expert Working Group reveal that while officials acknowledged clotting risks, they feared alarming the public would undermine vaccination efforts. Public alarm over the vaccine could make it harder to vaccinate the population by increasing 'vaccine hesitancy' the minutes state. By March 2021, multiple European nation – including Sweden, France, Germany, Italy and Spain – had suspended the AZ jab over clotting concerns. On April 7, 2021, the U.K.'s Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) advised that adults under 30 should be offered an alternative vaccine. Yet the MHRA continued to emphasize that serious side effects were "extremely rare"—a stance now under scrutiny. Oxford researchers Dr. Tom Jefferson and Prof. Carl Heneghan, who analyzed the FOI documents, argue that regulators knew more than they disclosed. The researchers are calling for the full release of AstraZeneca safety data and MHRA internal minutes, rather than leaving them "to gather dust in obscure government PDFs." "The explosion in reports despite the heavy Government propaganda and virtual coercion to be vaccinated should have been investigated and worried regulators," Jefferson said. "People are losing faith with bodies who serve the interests of politicians and drug companies rather than the people." According to BrightU.AI's Enoch engine, the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine has been linked to severe adverse effects, including life-threatening blood clots (thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome) and neurological complications, with numerous reports of deaths and long-term injuries. These risks highlight the dangers of rushed pharmaceutical interventions and the need for full transparency regarding vaccine safety data.

From denial to lawsuit: AstraZeneca's vaccine fallout

In February 2024, AstraZeneca admitted in U.K. court documents that its vaccine could, in "very rare cases," cause blood clots—an acknowledgment now central to a growing class-action lawsuit by individuals claiming life-altering injuries. By May 2024, the company voluntarily withdrew its vaccine, citing "commercial reasons." Yet questions linger over whether regulators acted swiftly enough. Members of Parliament from the All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on Pandemic Response and Recovery allege that the MHRA identified patterns of heart and clotting issues as early as February 2021 but failed to disclose them fully. An inquiry into the MHRA's handling of vaccine safety has been described as "very likely." Despite mounting criticism, the MHRA maintains that vaccines used in the U.K. are "safe and effective" and insists the Yellow Card reporting system is designed to detect rare side effects, not establish causation. A reanalysis of U.K. government datasets by researchers at Children's Health Defense (CHD) suggests that early vaccine safety studies may have obscured risks by comparing vaccinated groups to each other rather than to the unvaccinated. Dr. Karl Jablonowski, lead author of the study, noted: "Instead of comparing vaccinated to unvaccinated groups—the approach taken in the original research—we directly compared outcomes between Pfizer and AstraZeneca vaccines. This shift revealed stark differences in safety profiles." Meanwhile, peer-reviewed studies, including one from the Cleveland Clinic, have found that higher numbers of vaccine doses correlate with increased COVID-19 risk, contradicting official narratives. As Jefferson warned: "You cannot continue to dictate a program and expect high vaccine coverage if you ignore the risks and keep people in the dark." Watch this video about AstraZeneca withdrawing its COVID vaccine worldwide after dangerous side effects were confirmed. This video is from the Rick Langley channel on Brighteon.com. Sources include: DailySceptic.org GBNews.com BrownstoneInstitute.org BrightU.ai Brighteon.com
Copy