A Zostavax shingles vaccine lawsuit claims that the vaccine causes instead of prevents shingles.

Plaintiff Janet V. claims that she was inoculated with the Zostavax vaccine on or around Oct. 30, 2009. She states that she chose to have the vaccine to help prevent her from contracting shingles, as is the intended purpose of the treatment. She claims that on or around March 18, 2015, she developed a rash that was diagnosed as shingles (herpes zoster).

She claims that she has to have ongoing treatment for the shingles she developed. The Zostavax shingles vaccine lawsuit claims that Janet developed the shingles as a direct and proximate result of being inoculated with the Zostavax vaccine six years prior.

Allegedly, Merck, the makers of Zostavax, marketed Zostavax as a safe and effective vaccine via television ads, billboards, online advertisements, and other advertising methods. However, according to Janet, the company allegedly knew or should have known that the vaccine could cause a patient to develop shingles, but failed to disclose this information to medical professionals and patients, falsely advertising the vaccine.

The Zostavax shingles vaccine lawsuit states that most vaccines are created by using a dead virus that is then injected into a patient, to get a patient’s immune system to recognize the virus and be able to fight it off in the future. Allegedly, a dead virus used in a vaccine is used because it cannot make a patient sick, like a live version of the virus could.

The shingles vaccine class action lawsuit goes on to state that some vaccines use a weakened, or attenuated, virus instead of a dead virus, the goal being to expose the body to a more potent version of the virus than a dead virus would, thus strengthening the body’s immune response. Zostavax is allegedly one such vaccine.

The Zostavax shingles vaccine lawsuit goes on to state that when a weakened virus is used instead of a dead virus, the weakened virus can reactivate and become dangerous to a patient, effectively infecting them with the disease in its full force. This occurs when an attenuated, or weekend virus is “under-attenuated.”

Allegedly, research shows that the live VZV virus, used in the Zostavax shingles vaccine, has been shown to reactivate when it has been injected into a patient, causing the patient to develop shingles. Reportedly, this risk is even higher in geriatric patients, for whom the vaccine was innately approved in May 2006.

Supporting their claim that the virus in Zostavax is much more potent than the virus in other vaccines, and that it can cause patients to develop shingles, the Zostavax lawsuit notes that Zostavax contains a minimum of 19,400 plaque-forming units of the VZV virus, while another vaccine on the market, Varivax, contains only a minimum of 1,350 plaque-forming units.

Allegedly, Merck knew or should have kwon of the risks associated with using an attenuated version of the VZV virus in the vaccine, and knew or should have known that the virus used was under-attenuated and could cause injury to patients. Allegedly, Merck was negligent in releasing a dangerous vaccine onto the market.

The Zostavax Shingles Vaccine Lawsuit is Case 3:18-cv-30036-MAP, in the U.S. District Court for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.