Vaccine damage after the Moderna vaccination

The following batch numbers of the Moderna vaccine are associated with recognized vaccine injuries:

Vaccine damage after the BioNTech vaccination

Batch numbers have also been identified in the BioNTech vaccines that are frequently associated with vaccine injuries:

Can you find your batch number in one of the lists above – or are you experiencing unexplained health problems after a Covid-19 vaccination? Then you should have your claims legally reviewed. Contact us now – we'll help you gain clarity and enforce your rights.

Der Beitrag Impfschäden nach Corona-Impfung: Besonders schadensträchtige Chargennummern erschien zuerst auf R&U.

On November 28, 2024, the Paul Ehrlich Institute (PEI) surprisingly published the Excel list of all suspected reports, which had previously been kept secret. This represents direct confirmation of the previously refuted theory that there is a significant batch-dependent risk of harm in the vaccines. The PEI had repeatedly claimed to the public and the press that no such differences were detectable in Germany, while neighboring countries such as Denmark, the Netherlands, Spain, and the Czech Republic had observed and confirmed exactly the opposite.

Only with the publication of the data on November 28, 2024, did it become apparent that the PEI had been aware of the batch-related damage for some time and had kept this information secret. The published data clearly shows that the 149 potentially damaging batches identified by the law firm Rogert & Ulbricht also fully match the damage reports listed by the PEI. These batches were reported a total of 235 times, but only 145 batches had a significant number of suspicious activity reports (over 40).

The law firm Rogert & Ulbricht had already correctly identified the top 10 most harmful batches of Comirnaty, well before the PEI. The PEI was aware of these findings and did not support the law firm in its efforts to inform the public, even though it was the PEI's responsibility to ensure proper drug oversight and to inform the public in a timely manner.

The law firm Rogert & Ulbrich published the top 10 most damaging batches at the time, all except batch ER9480, which were affected by the following batches:

• EX8679 (1st vaccination, 1st place)
• FD7958 (1st vaccination, 4th place and 2nd vaccination, 2nd place)
• FC3095 (1st vaccination, 8th place and 2nd vaccination, 4th place)
• EX3510 (1st vaccination, 7th place and 2nd vaccination, 23rd place)
• FE6975 (1st vaccination, 2nd place and 2nd vaccination, 1st place)
• EW8904 (1st vaccination, 4th place and 2nd vaccination, 39th place)
• ER9480 (1st vaccination, 28th place and 2nd vaccination, 33rd place)
• ET3045 (1st vaccination, 9th place and 2nd vaccination, 49th place)
• FD9234 (1st vaccination, 6th place and 2nd vaccination, 3rd place)
• EX3599 (1st vaccination, 3rd place and 2nd vaccination, 42nd place)

Although the Paul Ehrlich Institute was aware of the accuracy of this data, it did not support the law firm in its efforts to clarify the matter. However, it was the PEI's responsibility to oversee drug regulations and to inform the public promptly.

The PEI has now made the raw data from the safety reports from December 2020 to December 2023 publicly available.

Batch comparison: PEI reports vs. Rogert & Ulbrich

Questions from the law firm to the Paul Ehrlich Institute

1. Why did the PEI deceive the public about the significant differences in the harmfulness of the batches?
2. What was the cause of the extreme damage caused by the ten most problematic batches? Why wasn't this investigated?
3. Who was responsible for batch testing and why were the defects in these batches not detected during the PEI testing?
4. Who performed the plasmid testing of the batches?
5. Who was responsible for testing the batches for endotoxins?
6. Who checked the batches for SV40 Enhancer/Promoter and SV40 ori?
7. Why was no real-time monitoring of the batches carried out with regard to the suspected reports, as required by Section 13 Paragraph 5 Nos. 9 and 10 of the IfSG by the PEI?
8. Why was the public not warned about potentially harmful batches, and why were these batches not recalled by the PEI?
9. If there are over 10,000 damage reports for EX8679, why wasn't there an alert at the PEI?
10. How did the Paul Ehrlich Institute react to the devastating results from the manufacturer BioNTech?
11. Why did the technical supervision of the Federal Ministry of Health (BMG) not intervene?
12. Was the Federal Ministry of Health informed of the abuses? Did no one raise the alarm?
13. Was the EU Commission informed about the security-related aspects?
14. Why wasn't the production and distribution of the genetically engineered product stopped?
15. Why does the PEI claim that no DNA is contained in the vaccines without conducting its own sequencing?
16. Why did the PEI state that BioNTech tested the toxicity of the spike protein with huACE2 mice, even though BioNTech only used BALB/C mice?
17. Why did the PEI not publicly declare that Comirnaty was classified in the OEB5 class, i.e. as highly toxic from 1 microgram?
18. Why is the list submitted in such an unsorted manner?
19. Why is there a discrepancy between the processing number and the case number?
20. Why do the published data from the PEI differ significantly from the previously published figures?
21. Why is there no press conference to explain the key data?
22. Why didn't the PEI record the number of vials distributed in Germany per batch?
23. Since the same batches were also distributed in Austria and Turkey: What efforts did the PEI undertake to compare the data?
24. What measures has the PEI taken to determine the cause of the differences in the frequency of injuries?
25. When can the public expect an evaluation of the PEI's statutory health insurance data?

As of today, March 2026, these questions remain largely unanswered.

Der Beitrag PEI bestätigte erst Ende 2024 heimlich chargenabhängige Impfschäden und verstößt gegen Aufsichtspflichten erschien zuerst auf R&U.

Anyone who becomes chronically ill after a vaccination faces a fundamental problem: the crucial information – which side effects were known to the manufacturer, how many suspected cases were reported, how the risk-benefit ratio of the vaccine was assessed – is not with the affected individual. It lies with the manufacturer. The German Medicines Act provides affected individuals with a legal tool in this situation: the right to information under Section 84a of the Act.

What exactly is Section 84a of the German Medicines Act (AMG)?

The German Medicines Act (AMG) contains a specific liability rule for pharmaceutical companies in Section 84. Anyone harmed by a medicinal product can, under certain conditions, claim damages. Section 84a AMG serves as a supplementary provision: This right to information is intended to provide affected individuals with the information they need to substantiate a claim for damages under Section 84 AMG.

The background is simple: In most cases, the burden of proof for a drug-related injury lies with the injured party. However, this party typically has no access to the manufacturer's product data, study results, and internal reporting systems. Section 84a of the German Medicines Act (AMG) is intended to partially compensate for this structural information imbalance.

If you would like to know whether Section 84a of the German Medicines Act (AMG) could be relevant in your case, please contact Rogert & Ulbrich.

Who can request information?

Anyone who can demonstrate that there are facts justifying the assumption that a drug caused the damage incurred is entitled to claim compensation. Full proof is not required; it is sufficient if a connection appears plausible.

In its ruling of March 9, 2026, the German Federal Court of Justice (BGH) clarified what plausibility means in this context: It does not require that the causal link between the drug and the damage be overwhelmingly probable. Plausibility can also exist if there are more reasons against than for the drug as the cause of the damage. The following circumstances, in particular, can be relevant to the question of plausibility: the close temporal connection between vaccination and the onset of damage, a vaccination injury already officially recognized, and expert medical assessments.

What information is included?

Section 84a paragraph 1 of the German Medicines Act (AMG) defines the subject matter of the information: The claim is directed at effects, side effects and interactions known to the pharmaceutical company, as well as suspected cases that have come to its attention. Furthermore, it extends to all other findings that may be relevant for assessing the acceptability of harmful effects.

In an earlier case, the Higher Regional Court of Koblenz had limited the claim to information relating to the specific medical condition of the injured party. The Federal Court of Justice (BGH) expressly rejected this limitation: The claim is comprehensive. To assess the risk-benefit ratio of a vaccine, all known side effects must be considered, not just the symptoms of the individual plaintiff.

In practice, this means that affected individuals may, under certain circumstances, demand that the manufacturer provide information on the entire spectrum of reported suspected cases, including thrombosis, myocarditis, or nerve problems that have been documented in other cases.

The hurdle: plausibility instead of probability.

The distinction between plausibility and probability established by the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) is the core of the ruling. In practice, the requirement of preponderance of probability had effectively excluded many affected individuals: those who do not have access to the manufacturer's internal data can rarely prove that the vaccination was predominantly the cause of their injury. This led to a paradoxical result – the information was needed to establish the right to access it.

The Federal Court of Justice (BGH) has broken up this circularity: Plausibility is sufficient for obtaining information. Further requirements must then be met for damages – based on the information obtained.

Why manufacturers don't provide this information voluntarily

Even though the right to information is enshrined in law under Section 84a of the German Medicines Act (AMG), one should not expect pharmaceutical companies to readily release this information. The companies in question have significant legal and economic interests in not disclosing internal data. Experience shows that legal enforcement of this right is often necessary.

Section 84a of the German Medicines Act (AMG) provides an exception in paragraph 1, sentence 4: There is no right to information if information must be kept secret by law or if confidentiality serves an overriding interest of the pharmaceutical company or a third party. This exception clause gives manufacturers some leeway in their arguments. Whether invoking it is justified in a specific case must be clarified in court if a dispute arises.

If you believe you have a right to information, you should not rely on voluntary disclosure. Get in touch.

When is it worth hiring a lawyer?

The right to information under Section 84a of the German Medicines Act (AMG) is a technically demanding approach that requires precise legal knowledge. Formulating the request for information, arguing its plausibility, and pursuing it in court are not easily accomplished without legal assistance. At the same time, you should be aware that statutes of limitations may apply. If you have legal expenses insurance, you should check whether your insurance will cover the costs before retaining legal counsel.

Conclusion

Section 84a of the German Medicines Act (AMG) grants those injured by vaccines an important right: access to information held by the manufacturer that is essential for a proper assessment of their own situation. The German Federal Court of Justice (BGH) ruling of March 9, 2026, significantly strengthened this right. However, each case remains subject to individual review: the right to information is not an automatic path to compensation, but rather a necessary first step to gaining transparency about one's own situation.

Der Beitrag Auskunftsanspruch – Wie Impfgeschädigte an die Daten des Herstellers kommen erschien zuerst auf R&U.

Becoming suddenly ill after a COVID-19 vaccination – and then not even being able to find out what the manufacturer knew about potential risks. For many affected individuals, this was the reality for a long time. The Federal Court of Justice (BGH) – the highest court for civil matters in Germany – changed this on March 9, 2026. The ruling means that the hurdle to obtaining information from the vaccine manufacturer is now significantly lower. Rogert & Ulbrich explains what this means in concrete terms – and what it doesn't mean.

What exactly happened?

Pia Aksoy is a dentist from Mainz. On March 5, 2021, she was vaccinated with the then-new AstraZeneca vaccine. Vaxzevria She got vaccinated against Corona. Three days later, she was permanently deaf in one ear.

The employers' liability insurance association – a state authority – officially recognized the vaccine injury. Nevertheless, her lawsuit against AstraZeneca failed: neither the Mainz Regional Court nor the Koblenz Higher Regional Court ruled in her favor. The courts demanded too much. She was required to prove that the vaccination was the cause – even though she needed precisely the information that AstraZeneca refused to provide.

The Federal Court of Justice (BGH) has now resolved this paradox.

What did the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) decide?

The Federal Court of Justice (BGH) has overturned the ruling of the Higher Regional Court of Koblenz and sent the case back to that court (case number: VI ZR 335/24). This means that the Higher Regional Court of Koblenz must now decide the case anew – with lower standards.

The most important ruling by the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) is that for the right to information to be valid, it is sufficient if a connection between the vaccination and the damage is plausible. Plausible means: It could have been the case. Not: It was certainly or most likely the case.

To illustrate: Someone drinks a glass of water and becomes ill shortly afterward. That alone isn't enough. But if the water was known to be contaminated and similar illnesses occurred in others, a connection is plausible. The right to information works on a similar principle.

Have you experienced health problems after receiving a COVID-19 vaccination? Talk to Rogert & Ulbrich before deadlines expire.

What does "right to information" mean?„

The German Medicines Act (AMG) contains a rule that many people are unaware of. It is called the right to information and is found in Section 84a of the Act.

It essentially states: If someone has potentially suffered harm from a medication or vaccine, they can request information from the manufacturer. For example: What did the manufacturer know about possible side effects? How many people have reported similar complaints? What internal findings exist regarding the product's risks?

This information is not an end in itself. It is the first step. Only when one knows what the manufacturer knew internally can one assess whether a claim for damages is warranted.

Until now, many affected individuals failed precisely at this point: The courts demanded proof of a connection before providing the information. But for that, the information itself was needed. A vicious cycle that has now been broken.

What information must the manufacturer now release?

According to the Federal Court of Justice (BGH), the right to information is comprehensive. Specifically, this means that the manufacturer must not only disclose information about the complaint that the affected person possesses. They must disclose all known side effects and suspected cases – in other words, the complete picture.

Why this is so important: To determine whether a vaccine had a poor overall benefit-risk ratio, all available data is needed. A selection is not enough.

In the case of Ms. Aksoy, for example, this means that AstraZeneca must not only release information on sudden hearing loss, but also on thrombosis, cerebral venous thrombosis and other reported damages with Vaxzevria.

What this verdict does not mean

This is an important point that needs to be clearly stated: The Federal Court of Justice ruling does not mean that vaccine manufacturers now have to pay damages. Nor does it mean that all those affected will automatically receive money.

The ruling only addresses the issue of disclosure. Whether damages are actually payable is a completely separate question. This would require, among other things, proof that the vaccine had a poor overall benefit-risk ratio at the time of vaccination. This is legally difficult and demanding.

In summary: The verdict opens a door. What lies behind it must then be discovered on a case-by-case basis.

Who could benefit from this?

According to experts, around 5,000 lawsuits concerning potential COVID-19 vaccine injuries were pending nationwide. This ruling could open up new avenues for some of these cases.

However, there is an important caveat: In some cases, lawsuits were filed only for damages, not for disclosure. Whether a claim for disclosure can still be enforced then depends on whether the statute of limitations has expired. Anyone who hasn't yet taken action should therefore not wait any longer.

When should I consult a lawyer?

If you became chronically ill after a COVID-19 vaccination and suspect a connection, now is a good time to seek legal advice. This is especially true if an authority has already recognized your vaccination injury, as the plausibility of a connection may be well-founded.

Deadlines are approaching. The longer you wait, the greater the risk that your claims will expire. If you have legal expenses insurance, you should clarify beforehand whether your insurance will cover the costs.

Further information on the right to information in cases of COVID-19 vaccination injuries can be found here.

Conclusion: An important step – but not a sure thing

The Federal Court of Justice (BGH) ruling of March 9, 2026, represents a genuine change for people who became ill after receiving a COVID-19 vaccination. Authorities or courts no longer need to demand almost conclusive proof before providing information. It is sufficient if a connection appears plausible.

This changes the initial situation. However, it is neither a guarantee of compensation nor a free pass. It is the first step towards greater transparency – and thus towards the possibility of having one's own situation properly assessed in the first place.

Der Beitrag BGH-Urteil zu Corona-Impfschäden – Was das für Betroffene bedeutet erschien zuerst auf R&U.

On March 9, 2026, the German Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof) issued a landmark ruling on pharmaceutical liability following Vaxzevria vaccinations (Case No. VI ZR 335/24). The decision concerns the requirements for the right to information under Section 84a of the German Medicines Act (AMG) and the claim for damages under Section 84 AMG. Rogert & Ulbrich represent clients nationwide in vaccination injury claims and monitor this development in case law.

The facts: Sudden hearing loss three days after vaccination

A 40-year-old dentist was vaccinated with the COVID-19 vaccine Vaxzevria on March 5, 2021. Immediately after the vaccination, she noticed a tingling sensation in her left hand. Three days later, she experienced complete hearing loss in her right ear, accompanied by tinnitus, gait instability, and numbness. The university hospital diagnosed her with idiopathic sudden hearing loss. A recovery of her hearing is not expected.

The plaintiff asserted claims for information and damages against AstraZeneca, a pharmaceutical company. The Mainz Regional Court and the Koblenz Higher Regional Court dismissed the claim. The Federal Court of Justice overturned the appeal judgment and remanded the case.

Have you experienced health problems after receiving a Vaxzevria vaccination? Have your case reviewed before deadlines expire.

What the court decided

The court clarified several important points that apply to all those affected.

First: You don't have to prove that the vaccine caused your injury. It's enough if it's plausible – that is, comprehensible. The court explicitly stated that even if, at present, more evidence points against the vaccine as the cause than in favor of it, you can still request information.

Secondly, if the temporal relationship between vaccination and illness is close and no other cause can be proven, the law presumes that the vaccine was to blame. The manufacturer must then prove that something else was behind it – something concrete.

Thirdly: The doctors diagnosed the plaintiff with so-called "idiopathic sudden hearing loss." This only means that the cause has not been definitively established medically. The court clarifies: This is not proof that the vaccine was not to blame. It merely means that it cannot be said with certainty.

This is good news for everyone affected. Get in touch – we'll assess your individual situation.

What information can you request from the manufacturer?

Before claiming damages, one has the right to request information from the pharmaceutical company: What did the company know about the risks of the vaccine? What side effects were reported?

Previous courts have often restricted this right, ruling that information is only available about side effects that precisely match one's own medical condition. The Federal Court of Justice has now clearly stated: This is wrong. You can demand comprehensive information – about all known risks of the vaccine, including those affecting other patients. Only those who understand the bigger picture can assess whether a drug, overall, does more harm than good.

Do not sign any settlements or accept any rejections before you have asserted this right to information.

What about the official approval of the vaccine?

Vaxzevria was officially approved by the European Union. Many courts have used this as an argument: official approval means the vaccine is safe – and therefore no compensation can be claimed.

The Federal Court of Justice sees things differently. Admission is a decision based on the state of knowledge at the time. For a damages claim, what matters is what science knows today. And a court must determine this current state of knowledge through an independent expert – not by referring to old official assessments.

The Higher Regional Court of Koblenz had failed to do precisely that – and therefore its judgment was overturned.

If you feel that your procedure is based on outdated principles, have the decision reviewed.

What does that mean for you personally?

If you have become ill after receiving a vaxzevria vaccination and previously thought you had no legal recourse, you should have your situation reassessed. This is especially important if your doctor has classified the illness as "without a discernible cause," if a lawsuit has already been dismissed, or if you have not yet sought legal advice.

Important: There are deadlines for claims for damages. Anyone who was vaccinated in 2021 and learned of their injury early on should not wait any longer.

Read here the entire judgment.

Rogert & Ulbrich – Your lawyers for vaccine injury cases

Dr. Marco Rogert and Tobias Ulbrich specialize in claims for damages under the German Medicines Act. Since 2021, the law firm Rogert & Ulbrich has been representing individuals nationwide who have suffered health problems following a Vaxzevria vaccination and continuously monitors case law in this area.

Rogert & Ulbrich will examine whether and how a claim for information or compensation can be enforced on your behalf – both out of court and in court. In doing so, we collaborate with medical experts who assess the individual circumstances of your case.

Do you want to know if you are entitled to any benefits? Get in touch and secure your claims.

Der Beitrag BGH-Urteil zu Vaxzevria – Was Impfgeschädigte jetzt wissen müssen erschien zuerst auf R&U.