Posts

TGA Dodges Simple Vaccine Questions

, ,

This is a great session to demonstrate how far Estimates has fallen. I asked a perfectly simple question: if a person followed the TGA’s COVID-19 “vaccine” schedule, how many shots would they have had by now? Watch as they bob and weave to avoid answering this simple question.

Part of the reason for this is to use up time. The TGA session attracts a lot of interest, and my time is limited, so the longer they can draw out the answer, the fewer questions they have to answer.

I then asked about a new study showing that the COVID-19 jabs produced spike proteins for almost two years after injection, despite being told that the vaccines stayed in the injection site and passed out of the body in a matter of hours.

Professor Lawler tried to discredit the research, which was conducted by Yale, and refused to acknowledge that the spike proteins from the “vaccine” were being produced for years after vaccination, despite the paper stating exactly that. A substantial amount of my time was spent on them saying very little that they could be held accountable for later.

I also asked about other studies linking vaccines with autism and received a similar response: the link between vaccines and autism has been discredited—nothing to see here, move on. The link between autism and vaccination has been well established, even with the small number of papers that have survived the bullying from big Pharma to protect their sacred cash cow.

I will not stop pursuing the truth about vaccine harm.

Note: This video combines two separate sessions into one video file.

Transcript 1

CHAIR: Senator Roberts.  

Senator ROBERTS: My questions are all to do with the TGA. Technology is marvellous, isn’t it? Potentially hundreds of doctors and constituents are watching. The TGA approach to COVID has been based—correct me if I’m wrong—on two original shots, then boosters to maintain currency, because MRNA technology offered waning protection over time. If a person had taken the recommended COVID shots at the time they were recommended, from March 2021 until now, how many COVID injections would the person have had?  

Prof. Lawler: I’m not sure, necessarily, whether that’s a TGA question. The role of the TGA is very much to—  

Mr Comley: I think we have an appropriate officer joining the table, Dr Anna Peatt, who I think can help you on this because I think she’ll need to go to the nature of ATAGI’s advice for vaccines for individuals. I think it would also go to the question about different categories of individuals receiving different recommendations over that period of time, reflecting the risk profile for those individuals. Dr Peatt, would you like to, perhaps, have a crack at this?  

Dr Peatt: Yes, I will. It’s actually quite a difficult question to answer because the eligibility for COVID-19 vaccines has changed over the course of the pandemic. So, really, you can’t actually answer the question unless you know the specifics of the individual that you’re referring to. Someone who was aged 75 years or over at the start of the pandemic may have had upwards of eight vaccines over that course, but it really depends on the individual circumstances. In Australia we don’t have vaccination mandates at the moment, so it also comes down to people’s individual choices. But, ultimately, it comes down to vaccinators’ advice.  

Senator ROBERTS: So eight in total, most likely. Can you confirm the TGA is still recommending boosters every six months for immunocompromised people and every 12 months for adults under 64.  

Prof. Lawler: I can’t confirm that, because the TGA’s role is not to recommend immunisation. The TGA’s role is to assess the safety, quality and efficacy of therapeutic goods.  

Senator ROBERTS: But you do monitor the injections, the results and the DAENs, don’t you? Do you have a role—  

Prof. Lawler: That’s correct.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Good.  

Prof. Lawler: No. That’s correct, but that’s not the same as what you asked previously. The difference is that the role of the Therapeutic Goods Administration is to assess pre-market therapeutic goods for safety, quality and efficacy, and, where appropriate, to undertake post-market monitoring. That’s why we undertake pharmacovigilance activity and assess adverse events. That is not the same as monitoring and recommending specific immunisation schedules. That’s the role of ATAGI.  

Senator ROBERTS: I understand that. But surely you would monitor the number of doses that people have because, as I understand it, don’t you monitor DAENs? Isn’t the monitoring super critical, especially when you have provisional authorisation for these injections?  

Prof. Lawler: As I think we provided previously, the vaccines that we’re discussing are not provisionally registered. They have transitioned to full registration. But, as I said, the role of the TGA is to monitor adverse events as and when they occur, and as they are reported.  

Senator ROBERTS: Last week, I understand that Yale School of Medicine released a preprint of a study titled ‘Immunological and Antigenic Signatures Associated with Chronic Diseases after COVID-19 Vaccination’. That study found that spiked protein remained in patients who had received at least one COVID vaccine for, in one case, 709 days and counting. When did the TGA realise that spiked protein from the mRNA technology could stay in the body for years?  

Prof. Lawler: Can I clarify, because I have previously indicated there are quite a lot of studies out there, is that the Bhattacharjee article from Yale last week? I think it is.  

Senator ROBERTS: Last week, Yale School of Medicine released a preprint of a study titled—  

Prof. Lawler: Thanks. So that is, as you say, an article in preprint. I would like to reflect on that article. The first line of the abstract reads: COVID-19 vaccines have prevented millions of COVID-19 deaths. And the intro says: The rapid development and deployment of COVID-19 vaccines have been pivotal in mitigating the impact of the pandemic. These vaccines have significantly reduced severe illness and mortality associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Additionally, vaccinated individuals experience a lower incidence of post-acute sequelae of COVID-19 … or long COVID, thus highlighting an additional potential benefit of receiving the COVID-19 vaccines. It might seem like I’m not answering your question in reading those first few lines out, but I think it’s really important that a feature of the public debate on this matter has been the convenient picking out of individual findings from papers. I think it’s really important to note that. In terms of the paper itself, it was a small study, with 42 cases that reported post-vaccination syndrome after COVID vaccination and it had 22 controls with no symptoms. There are some challenges with the article. There was a very small sample size, which included insufficient subgroup numbers to adequately assess the effect of previous infection. There was a lack of analysis of potential confounders, such as other medical conditions and medication use, and a lack of standardised case definition for PBS—noting that the symptoms of PBS are general and are associated with a range of other conditions. I think that there is some really interesting information in that article. I particularly like the introduction where it clearly indicates the benefits of vaccination. But I would also say that it is challenging, potentially, to draw too much of an inference from its findings.  

Senator ROBERTS: Professor Lawler, I don’t know which question you answered but let me ask my question again. When did the TGA realise spiked protein from the mRNA technology could stay in the body for years?  

Prof. Lawler: We will inform you when we have evidence that that is the case.  

Senator ROBERTS: So you are not aware of it at the moment?  

Prof. Lawler: We will inform you when there is evidence that it is the case that spiked protein persists in the body for years. I think one of the things that is most notable—  

Senator ROBERTS: Let’s move on then. You’ve answered the question. For clarity, if a person has spiked protein in their system years after injection, something must be making that spiked protein and renewing it in their system. Is that correct?  

Prof. Lawler: I might ask Professor Langham to respond to that.  

Prof. Langham: I think what Professor Lawler is trying to say is that we are not aware of any robust evidence that supports the presence of spiked protein being in the system of recipients of the COVID-19 vaccine for years. When we do undertake reviews of relevant studies—and I might add, this as an ongoing process that the TGA undertakes for every single product that is registered on the ARTG—our robust and thorough review of evidence is such that should there be a finding that we would consider scientific, then that absolutely would be accepted. That is the case for the question that you are asking. We are not aware of any scientific and robust findings that demonstrate prolonged circulation of spiked protein in the human body.  

Senator ROBERTS: Let’s continue. If a person already has spike protein in their system, and they need more mRNA technology—more spike proteins—and if, for that person, those are long lived as well, could there be people walking around with dangerous levels of spike protein as a result of following ATAGI’s guidelines? Surely you’ve considered this.  

Prof. Lawler: Thank you for the question. As we discussed previously, one of the roles of the TGA is to undertake ongoing post-market pharmacovigilance. As a result, we continually receive and accept reports of adverse events. We use those to work toward the identification of safety signals. We take more of a phenomenological approach to identifying risky safety profiles, as has been highlighted previously. We’re firmly of the view that the risk-benefit ratio of these vaccines is overwhelmingly positive.  

Senator ROBERTS: Let’s continue. The Yale study examined 64 vaccinated subjects. One in 64, in this case, retained spike for almost two years and counting. Extending that sample to Australian consumers, doesn’t that indicate, certainly, that tens of thousands of Australians are dealing with spike protein build-up in their body? Does even the possibility of that concern you?  

Prof. Langham: I think what we’ve been trying to say is that not all of the research that is published is of a high level of scientific quality.  

Senator ROBERTS: Excuse me, Ms Langham—  

Prof. Langham: I’m sorry, Senator. We’ve been here before. It’s Professor Langham, thank you.  

Senator ROBERTS: Sorry, Professor Langham—I mean that sincerely. I wasn’t trying to cast any aspersions. Professor Lawler just read glowingly, in response to one of my questions, about aspects of this study.  

Prof. Lawler: I’m not sure that ‘glowingly’ would describe by situation. I think there was a balanced argument. However, one of the things we do undertake when we scientifically review a paper is to look at the rigour of it. It is acknowledged within the paper that there are certain limitations to the study. Some of the findings include the fact that there were potential differences in the immune profiles of individuals with PBS and that PBS participants had lower levels of spike protein antibodies. There was serological evidence suggestive of recent Epstein-Barr virus reactivation. But I think it’s quite important—and it’s actually quite challenging to convey this in this forum—to note that the presence of a study saying something should not be taken as meaning that without a robust analysis of the rigour of that study. It’s important to note that this was a small case study. There were 42 cases and 22 controls. That means the ability to extrapolate from that in the way you suggested is actually really limited and potentially misleading. I don’t mean it’s deliberately misleading; it can lead to misleading outcomes.  

Senator ROBERTS: Let me understand from the previous Senate estimates and from this one. Are you saying that spike proteins are harmless?  

Prof. Lawler: No, I don’t believe we said that last time or this time.  

Senator ROBERTS: That’s why I asked the question—for clarification. The Yale study found immune cell— in this case T cell—exhaustion. Do you accept the science that mRNA technology has caused T cell exhaustion in some consumers, leading to a condition that causes chronic tiredness, brain fog, dormant conditions like Epstein-Bar and cancer becoming active again, and in general an increased susceptibility to new infection? 

Prof. Lawler: Part of the challenge in responding to that is that we’re responding to a definition outlined within the study as a post-COVID-19-vaccination syndrome that is characterised by a wide range of symptoms which have been, as far as I can determine, selected by the authors. They include such things as you’ve mentions, like exercise intolerance, excessive fatigue, numbness, brain fog, neuropathy and others. But the authors themselves note that PBS is not officially recognised by health authorities, and there’s no consensus definition of the syndrome. One of the things I was trying to say—and, again, I wouldn’t characterise it as a glowing endorsement of the article—is that it is encouraging that even small studies are looking at these things. One of the things that has been levelled at the TGA previously is that we are blind to science or not interested in hearing new ideas. It’s actually very encouraging to see this kind of research, but it needs to be taken within the context of rigorous research methodology.  

Senator ROBERTS: ‘Long COVID’, a phrase that Dr Skerritt used at estimates in May 2022, was the theory tested by Yale in a literature review entitled ‘The long COVID puzzle: autoimmunity, inflammation, and other possible causes’. That was published in May 2024. This studied viral persistence, inflammation, autoimmune damage and latent viral reaction following exposure to COVID, naturally or by injection. Minister, is your government ignoring a ticking time bomb with these mRNA vaccines, one that you are making worse by still recommending that people take these products? You’re still recommending it.  

Senator McCarthy: We certainly, through the health minister, look out for all Australians in relation to their care, health and wellbeing, but I will refer to officials in terms of the technical aspects of your question.  

Prof. Lawler: I’m not sure if I’m answering your question here, so I’m happy to hear it again if I’m not. One of the things that we do find that has been supported by multiple studies—in fact, studies that are cited within the Yale article—is that COVID vaccination actually leads to a decreased incidence of both the post-acute sequelae of COVID and also the prevalence of long COVID. So we know that those are not only protective for hospitalisation and death, as are their indications within the Register of Therapeutic Goods, but also protective for some of the long-term sequelae of COVID infection.  

Senator ROBERTS: Okay, let’s move on to vaccine harm generally. An article in Science, Public Health Policy & the Law—there’s an interesting combination; science, public health and law—titled ‘Vaccination and neurodevelopmental disorders: a study of nine-year-old children enrolled in Medicaid’ found: … the current vaccination schedule may be contributing to multiple forms of NDD; that vaccination coupled with preterm birth was strongly associated with increased odds of NDDs compared to preterm birth in the absence of vaccination; and increasing numbers of visits that included vaccinations were associated with increased risks of ASD. For those at home, an NDD is a neurodevelopmental disorder such as autism or OCD, and ASD is autism spectrum disorder. This study of 41,000 nine-year-olds in Florida came out this month and finds, with statistical certainty, that childhood vaccines are associated with neurodevelopmental disorders and autism. Have you seen this paper? And, if not, why not?  

Prof. Lawler: I’m familiar with the journal that you outline; I’m familiar with the nature of the articles that are provided for publication and the level of peer review that occurs. I’m not familiar with that journal article specifically, and it would probably be inappropriate of me to comment on it without it in front of me.  

Senator ROBERTS: The autism vaccine link is the most contentious issue in medicine right now, based on the number of people affected. Is this wilful ignorance on your part? Prof. Lawler: That is an interesting question. It’s not a contentious link. There was an article some years ago that drew links between the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine and the incidence of autism. That has been serially and profoundly debunked; it’s been retracted from the media. There’s no evidence currently that there is a link between vaccination and autism. Unfortunately, the continued promulgation of such a link is suspected to be one of the drivers of vaccine hesitancy and falling vaccine rates.  

Senator ROBERTS: I would argue, based upon the timing, that the COVID shots, the mandating of COVID shots and the adverse effects of the COVID shots would have done a lot of damage to the credibility of vaccines in general. If I give you the link, Professor Lawler, will you undertake to review the study and come ready to discuss the connection between vaccines and neurodevelopmental disorders, including autism, at the next estimates?  

Prof. Lawler: I’m very happy to receive any link and read any article, and to come back and have a comment. I do have with me Dr Sophie Russell, who’s the acting director of the Pharmacovigilance Branch.  

Dr Russell: Thanks for the question. I’ll just make one small comment about the Yale study. The Yale study that you refer to was not able to properly account for previous COVID-19 infection due to insufficient case numbers. We would, of course, be happy to provide on notice a broader critical analysis, but I’ll reinforce what Professor Lawler has said—that, to date, the TGA has not found a causal association between any vaccination and neurodevelopmental disorder—and I would like to reassure you that we are continually monitoring for those particular adverse events in COVID-19 vaccinations.  

Senator ROBERTS: In that paper, entitled ‘Vaccination and neurodevelopmental disorders: a study of nine-year-old children enrolled in Medicaid’, I’ve seen a graph. The multiplier for ASD is 3.14—the vaccinated have 3.14 times more ASD than the unvaccinated; for hyperkinetic syndrome it’s three times; for epilepsy or seizures it’s 4.2 times; for learning disorders it’s 9.8 times—almost 10 times; for encephalopathy it’s 7.7 times; and, for at least one of the listed neurodevelopmental disorders, it’s four times. Let’s move on—  

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, just before you do, in a couple of minutes I’ll be seeking to rotate the call, as I understand Senator Rennick has some more questions. You still have the call, but I’m just giving you some early warning that I’ll be seeking to rotate in a few minutes.  

Senator ROBERTS: I understand from previous testimony that the TGA has a lab with more than 100 staff, which is a lot. Can you tell me what steps you have taken to monitor spike protein activity amongst Australian consumers of the mRNA technology used in COVID?  

Prof. Lawler: I’ll ask Dr Kerr to join us at the table. I would probably contest the comment that that’s a lot of staff. We have staff that are appropriate to the role of ensuring qualities and standards within our therapeutic goods.  

Senator ROBERTS: I wasn’t casting aspersions that way, Professor Lawler; I was saying that that’s a lot of staff to do some of the work that I’ve just raised.  

Prof. Lawler: We have a lot of work to do. I think the numbers are quite appropriate.  

Dr Kerr: May I have the question again, please?  

Senator ROBERTS: I understand from previous testimony that the TGA has a lab with more than 100 staff. Can you tell me what steps you have taken to monitor spike protein activity amongst Australian consumers of the mRNA technology used in COVID?  

Dr Kerr: The subject of our testing is actually the vaccine itself. We have spent a lot of time ensuring that the vaccine complies with the quality requirements. We do look at the expression of the protein from the vaccine in vitro, but we do not take samples from Australians to test for the COVID spike protein. That is not our role.  

Senator ROBERTS: So you don’t monitor it in that way?  

Dr Kerr: We’re not a pathology laboratory. We don’t take samples from Australians—from humans.  

Senator ROBERTS: So the answer to my next question: have you been actively testing people to check spike protein levels and to test for antigens indicating myocarditis, Guillain-Barre, Epstein-Barr—which is also called herpes 4—and the other 1,240 other known side effects of mRNA technology, as provided by Pfizer? Have you been testing for anything to do with that? These are known adverse events from Pfizer. Have you been testing?  

Dr Kerr: I might defer to my colleague Dr Russell.  

Dr Russell: As Professor Lawler highlighted earlier, we take a broader approach to postmarket safety issues. Published literature and clinical testing are all part of our assessment. When we are looking into safety signals in the postmarket space, we’re looking at that in the Australian context. We are looking at the number of cases that are reported to the TGA and the number of cases that are reported to the World Health Organisation database; we’re liaising with our comparable international regulators and looking at published literature. There’s a variety of areas that we look to, to consider the strength of the evidence between a clinical condition and vaccination, and that informs our regulatory actions.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, but how do you know about the incidents if you’re not actually testing?  

Prof. Lawler: Sorry—the incidence of clinical episodes?  

Senator ROBERTS: Adverse events, yes—actively checking people for spike protein levels.  

Dr Russell: Just to clarify, I’m not aware of any evidence that correlates spike protein levels with a clinical syndrome or diagnosis. What we are looking for in the postmarket space is clinical symptoms or conditions that are caused by the vaccine.  

Senator ROBERTS: Wow. Thank you.  

Prof. Lawler: If I could just add to that, we’ve endeavoured to be clear previously—and I won’t on this occasion read out the SQoNs that we’ve answered—that our pharmacovigilance program, in keeping with the standard and accepted practice of regulators around the world, is based on clinical adverse events. As Dr Russell has highlighted, there is not a correlation that is currently identified between spike protein levels and clinical events. Our adverse event monitoring process, our pharmacovigilance process, in keeping with the actions and practice of regulators globally, is to capture, analyse, understand and, where necessary, respond in a regulatory fashion to safety signals identified through clinical events. So those clinical events are identified. As I’ve mentioned, we have many events—I don’t have the number in front of me, but certainly over 100,000—of variable severity that we have analysed and responded to, and we have made significant regulatory changes in response to that. The clinical approach that we take to adverse event monitoring is entirely in keeping with the pharmacovigilance practices of global regulators.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Professor Lawler. So you don’t do testing, so you presumably rely upon adverse event notifications. Ahpra have ensured those reports were not made. You can’t possibly be relying only on the few doctors with the courage to stand up against Ahpra—or was ‘rare’ the outcome you worked back from? Did you just assume it was rare and work backwards to justify it?  

Prof. Lawler: It’s unfortunate that Ahpra isn’t here to respond to that. I think it’s pretty clear that—  

Senator ROBERTS: It’s well known.  

Prof. Lawler: Sorry, Senator. What’s well known?  

Senator ROBERTS: It’s well known that Ahpra has been suppressing doctors’ voices. 

Prof. Lawler: I would make the distinction if I may—and, again, Ahpra is not here to respond and defend itself against that comment—that what you are characterising as misinformation around vaccine and the disease is very different to the reporting of adverse events. I would also contend that the volume of adverse events that were reported would indicate the threshold for reporting adverse events is quite low, and that’s exactly where we want it to be. We want to be detecting adverse events.  

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, I am due to rotate the call, but if there’s time we we’ll come back to you. We have about 25 minutes, so can I just get an indication of who has further questions?  

Senator Rennick, Senator Kovacic and Senator Roberts, you have further questions?  

Senator ROBERTS: Yes, please. 

Transcript 2

Senator ROBERTS: I want to go back to continue the discussion we had about testing, or the lack of testing. In estimates in May 2022, I asked whether the mRNA from the vaccines, the injections, transcribed into the patients’ own DNA, permanently modifying their DNA. In light of the work that has been done since, including the latest Yale study that I quoted, could a plausible theory be that the mRNA technology does indeed transcribe and the mRNA technology does permanently alter the human genome in some people?  

Prof. Lawler: We did have an exchange with Senator Rennick earlier around the incorporation of DNA and RNA into the human genome. There was a comment made around it being down to a series of highly improbable steps. The challenge that I think we face—and I’ll ask Dr Kerr to add to that—is that there is a point at which a plausible theory requires supporting evidence. In the absence of that supporting evidence, it needs to be rejected. We’ve had 50 years of biotechnology in this field, there have been many billions of doses of these vaccines and other vaccines of similar technology administered, and there’s been no evidence of such incorporation. As to the plausible theory, there are some mechanisms that you could arguably say lead to that in very unusual circumstances, but there is no evidence and no real-world data to support that. Dr Kerr.  

Dr Kerr: Thank you. I’ll add to Professor Lawler’s statement that there’s a very rigorous regulatory framework that operates globally to ensure that any residual DNA in biotechnology products or the mRNA vaccines is adequately controlled and the risks are adequately managed.  

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, will you review the legal position of the TGA, specifically the issue of them committing malfeasance in office due to their wilful ignorance of harms from the pharmaceutical industry products they promote?  

Senator McCarthy: I reject, outright, your question in this regard, and I’m sure the government does have great faith in the TGA.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I want to move on to a major anti-hydroxychloroquine study published in Biomedicine & Pharmacotherapy under Dr Danyelle Townsend. It has been retracted after its dataset was exposed as unreliable, bordering on outright fraudulent. The paper, titled Hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine with or without a macrolide for treatment of COVID-19: a multinational registry analysis, found that treating hospital patients with HCQ, hydroxychloroquine, resulted in an increased mortality rate and led to health authorities banning hydroxychloroquine as a treatment for COVID. This was the reverse outcome to what many practitioners were experiencing prescribing hydroxychloroquine for COVID. Minister, did your government issue restrictions against using hydroxychloroquine for COVID on 24 March 2020—I know the Liberal Party was in office at the time. Did the government issue restrictions against using hydroxychloroquine for COVID on 24 March 2020 to make room in the market for the vaccines, despite a body of evidence saying hydroxychloroquine was effective?  

Senator McCarthy: I’ll defer to the officials.  

Prof. Lawler: I was not in this role at that time; I had a different role in a different place. My understanding, though, is that the decision on hydroxychloroquine was based on a position supported by global regulators that there was a lack of efficacy in this and, similarly, concerns that individuals seeking to use the treatment might potentially perturb them and deter them from validated effective treatments. I’m certainly not aware that there is any underlying motivation to benefit any other treatment on a commercial basis.  

Senator ROBERTS: So it was an internationally agreed position?  

Prof. Lawler: In terms of our established relationship with regulators, it is my understanding that it was a fairly agreed position that hydroxychloroquine was not an effective treatment for COVID.  

Senator ROBERTS: So now it’s a ‘fairly agreed’ position. It didn’t rely on the science; it was just fairly agreed? 

Prof. Lawler: Senator—  

Senator ROBERTS: Were there any studies done—any basis for this in fact, in data?  

Prof. Langham: It absolutely was an evaluation of the science and the concerns for public safety that led to changes in the restriction in the prescribing of hydroxychloroquine. There was no supportive evidence for its efficacy and, as there was a concern that people were—and absolutely were—moving towards taking hydroxychloroquine in the false belief that it was going to help them with COVID, there were fewer people that were being vaccinated and there was also a greater risk of a poor outcome. That restriction was removed on 1 February this year. 

Prof. Lawler: I also highlight that we’ve answered this question about hydroxychloroquine before, in SQ22- 000147 and also SQ21-000687.  

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Let’s move on. In Senate estimates in May 2021, Professor Skerritt, your predecessor, the former head of the TGA, said of the COVID vaccine injection technology: … the idea is to introduce sufficient spike protein to activate the immune system so that it mimics a COVID infection so that your B cells and T cells can start to mount an immune response to protect the person from catching COVID. He also said: … it’s the messenger RNA that’s translated into protein which is a spike protein. Messenger RNAs are inherently unstable. In fact, that’s why the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines require this little lipid coat, this little lipid nanoparticle. … … … And the lipids are hydrolyzed, destroyed by the body fairly rapidly … Is this still an accurate statement of the technology behind COVID MRNA vaccines?  

Prof. Langham: The specifics of your concern around that statement?  

Senator ROBERTS: Is it accurate? Is Professor Skerritt’s statement accurate still?  

Prof. Lawler: The process of immunogenicity as described by Professor Skerritt absolutely is. There’s the central dogma that MRNA is translated to protein. It’s the mechanism by which proteins are created. The MRNA is coded for spike protein. It’s created within the cell and expressed on the cell’s surface. That then engenders an immune response through antigenic presentation. That is the standard process for vaccine utilisation. As Professor Skerritt highlighted, the MRNA is inherently unstable and readily broken down. That’s why it’s encapsulated with a lipid nanoparticle which contains four different types of lipid. That enables its introduction to the cell, where it can exert its cellular effect.  

Senator ROBERTS: Is it true, as he said, that the lipids are hydrolysed and destroyed by the body fairly rapidly?  

Prof. Langham: Yes, that’s correct.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. 

/2 Comments/by

Questions Raised with APVMA on mRNA Vaccine Approvals

,

During the recent estimates, I raised several questions regarding the approval and use of mRNA vaccines by the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA). I inquired if the APVMA has authorised any mRNA vaccines. Mr Hansen confirmed that, as of now, no such vaccines have been approved. To ensure thoroughness, Dr Maria Trainer, joined the discussion. She reiterated that no permits or authorisations for mRNA vaccines have been issued, although she stated that there is a general permit for small-scale research (Permit 7250) that might cover such activities.

I questioned whether the New South Wales Department of Primary Industries had acted with APVMA’s consent in importing, testing, and manufacturing an mRNA vaccine for border disease. Dr Trainer clarified that while no specific permits were issued, research could legally occur under the general permit. For clarity, I asked for confirmation on whether the Elizabeth Macarthur Institute holds such a permit and was told that this would be provided to us on notice.

I also addressed concerns about the development of mRNA vaccines for lumpy skin disease and foot-and-mouth disease by the Elizabeth Macarthur Institute. Dr Trainer confirmed that no applications for these vaccines have been received, with Mr Hansen adding that notifications about genetic material for vaccines would likely fall under the jurisdiction of the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (DAFF) and Biosecurity.

Lastly, I raised the issue of foot rot vaccines for sheep, noting that an overseas manufacturer has been approved while an Australian manufacturer has had its approval withdrawn. The overseas vaccine is more expensive and less effective.

I urged the government to commit to a process that ensures the availability of the more effective and affordable Australian-made vaccine for our sheep farmers. Senator Chisholm agreed to take this on notice, and Mr Hansen expressed openness to discussions with the Australian manufacturer for product registration.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Let’s go to my first and most important set of questions. At previous estimates, I have asked if an mRNA vaccine has been approved by your agency, and the response was, ‘No it hasn’t.’ So let me first update, has the APVMA authorised for use any mRNA vaccines? 

Mr Hansen: I understand the answer is still no, but if we are going to go down a line of questions on registration of vaccines, do you want me to get an expert to the table? 

Senator ROBERTS: Yes, if you like. That’ll make it quick. 

Mr Hansen: Excellent. It will be Dr Maria Trainer, but, as far as I’m aware, the answer is still no to that. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. The New South Wales department of primary industries has imported, tested and now manufactured an mRNA vaccine for border disease for New South Wales at the Elizabeth Macarthur Institute. Was that action taken with the consent of the APVMA? 

Dr Trainer: We have not issued any permits or authorised any messenger or any vaccines in Australia anywhere, but we do have a general permit for small-scale research, permit 7250, that potentially would allow for the research being conducted. 

Senator ROBERTS: You don’t know if they are doing research, but they could legally be doing research under a permit? 

Dr Trainer: Yes. 

Senator ROBERTS: Could you take that on notice to provide whether or not the Elizabeth Macarthur Institute has such a permit? 

Mr Hansen: Provided they met the criteria around the small scale, and that’s spelt out under the permit, then we wouldn’t be informed about it. But that’s something we can certainly make an inquiry about. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, and could let us know on notice, please. The Elizabeth Macarthur Institute has also declared they are developing mRNA vaccines for lumpy skin disease and foot-and-mouth disease. Have they applied for or advised you of their handling of this incredibly dangerous genetic material? 

Dr Trainer: At this point in time, we’ve received no applications to register or authorise any messenger RNA vaccines. 

Senator ROBERTS: So you haven’t heard from them? 

Mr Hansen: No, not on that, and I’m not sure that we would be the people that they would notify about bringing in the genetic material for the vaccine. That would be more likely DAF and biosecurity. 

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. I was told when looking into this matter that once we have foot-and-mouth disease and lumpy skin disease material in Australia, we can risk our disease-free status. Is it a true statement that if the Elizabeth Macarthur Institute mishandles this material and one animal is infected with foot and mouth, Australia will lose our disease-free status and the $20 billion a year this brings in? 

Mr Hansen: That’s well and truly in the domain of DAF and biosecurity. 

Mr Lowe: That’s an outcome 2 question. 

Mr Fennessy: I can tell you that some of the work we may have done in the past is done offshore, so not in Australia. We might work with overseas labs. But it doesn’t come into Australia unless there is a biosecurity permit, and there haven’t been any permits allowed for that. 

Senator ROBERTS: Who should we put a question on notice to in regard to that? 

Mr Fennessy: To the department. 

Senator ROBERTS: I’ll get on to something quickly. I’ll put most of it in a letter to the minister on a question on notice. There’s also foot rot for sheep. I’m advised that an overseas manufacturer has been given approval and the previous Australian manufacturer has not had its approval withdrawn. The overseas manufactured vaccine is more expensive for sheep farmers based on the need to more frequently apply it plus the cost. It is less effective, and the locally made, therefore, is more effective, cheaper and of higher value than the foreign made. We also have a declaration from a veterinarian that the local product is far more effective. Minister, is your government prepared to commit to a process—I’ve condensed a lot of things into this, and I will put it in detail in a question on notice—whereby it identifies or quantifies the need for this Australian manufactured vaccine and work on foot rot with the relevant parties to ensure the availability of this vaccine for Australian sheep farmers? 

Senator Chisholm: I’ll take that on notice. 

Mr Hansen: I can provide one more sentence to that, which is that the Australian-made vaccine had an emergency permit because there was no other registered product available in the market. The moment that there became a registered product that had actually come through the front door and had met all the safety criteria, the criteria for an emergency use permit no longer met. We would love the producer of that Australian-made product to come back through the front door for registration as a product, and we’re open to conversations with them on that when they are interested. 

Senator ROBERTS: So would veterinarians and so would farmers. They would love that Australian manufacturer to come back. I must say, Chair, Mr Hansen’s comments have been exactly as you said: precise, succinct and direct. I love your forthcoming and forthrightness. 

Senator Chisholm: You were the problem!  

CHAIR: You got the MR tick of approval, so you’re on a roll here. Thank you very much, Senator Roberts. 

/by

A Conversation with Professor Dalgleish & Doctors Marik and Kunadhasan

, ,

Disclaimer: The captions in this video are auto-generated and may contain inaccuracies.

Professor Angus Dalgleish

Professor Angus Dalgleish, M.D., F.R.C.P., F.R.A.C.P., F.R.C.Path, F.Med.Sci is a renowned oncologist practicing in the United Kingdom, who splits his time between clinical patient care and research. Prof. Dalgleish serves as an advisor to a number of biopharmaceutical companies and is a principal investigator in several clinical trials. Prof. Dalgleish has been a Professor of Medical Oncology at St George’s University of London and Consultant Physician at St George’s Hospital since 1991. He has served as the President of the Clinical Immunology and Allergy Section of the Royal Society of Medicine. He is a Fellow of The Royal College of Physicians of the UK and Australia, Royal College of Pathologists and The Academy of Medical Scientists.

Prof. Dalgleish studied Medicine at University College London, where he obtained an MBBS and a BSc in Anatomy. Among his main interests are: immunology and melanoma, use of anti-angiogenic agents & low dose chemotherapy in resistant solid tumor disease of the prostate, colon & breast. A clinical researcher of international repute, he has made significant contributions to the study of the immunological basis of AIDS and to the field of cancer vaccines. He is the current Principal of the Cancer Vaccine Institute.

To view his bio, click on Prof. Angus Dalgleish’s profile

To view his published articles, click on Prof. Angus Dalgleish’s Work

Copied from: https://www.ldnscience.org/ldn/ldn-researchers/angus-dalgleish

Doctor Paul Marik

Prior to co-founding the FLCCC, Dr. Marik was best known for his revolutionary work in developing a lifesaving protocol for sepsis, a condition that causes more than 250,000 deaths yearly in the U.S. alone.

Dr. Marik is an accomplished physician with special knowledge in a diverse set of medical fields, with specific training in Internal Medicine, Critical Care, Neurocritical Care, Pharmacology, Anesthesia, Nutrition, and Tropical Medicine and Hygiene. He is a former tenured Professor of Medicine and Chief of the Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine at Eastern Virginia Medical School (EVMS) in Norfolk, Virginia. As part of his commitment to research and education, Dr. Marik has written over 500 peer-reviewed journal articles, 80 book chapters and authored four critical care books and the Cancer Care Monograph. His efforts have provided him with the distinction of the second most published critical care physician in the world. He has been cited over 54,500 times in peer-reviewed publications and has an H-index of 111. He has delivered over 350 lectures at international conferences and visiting professorships. As a result of his contributions, he has been the recipient of numerous teaching awards, including the National Teacher of the Year award by the American College of Physicians in 2017.

In January 2022 Dr. Marik retired from EVMS to focus on continuing his leadership of the FLCCC and has already co-authored over 10 papers on therapeutic aspects of treating COVID-19. In March 2022 Dr. Marik received a commendation by unanimous vote by the Virginia House of Delegates for “his courageous treatment of critically ill COVID-19 patients and his philanthropic efforts to share his effective treatment protocols with physicians around the world.”

Copied from: https://covid19criticalcare.com/experts/paul-e-marik/

Dr Jeyanthi Kunadhasan

Is an anesthetist and perioperative physician from Victoria, Australia.

She has been in medical leadership at her previous hospital as well as statewide; as chair of the Medical Senior Group representing consultant doctors,
as well as a previous chair of the Advisory Committee of Blood Matters Victoria.

Her clinical interest is Patient Blood Management, where she spearheaded many initiatives that sustainably brought down the unnecessary transfusion rates in major surgeries, leading to improved patient outcomes and lower costs to the health system.

In December 2021, when vaccine mandates were rolled out, Dr. Kunadhasan requested a risk assessment. Her goal in doing so was to warn her employer at the time about the risks of the shots, while at the same time trying to keep her job and avoid taking the injection herself. Unfortunately, instead of taking a pause and considering Dr. Kunadhasan’s request, in December 2021, Dr. Kunadhasan was fired by her employer.

She is currently the treasurer of the Australian Medical Professionals Society (AMPS).

Dr. Kunadhasan is also the lead author on “Report 42, Pfizer’s EUA Granted Based on Fewer Than 0.4% of Clinical Trial Participants. FDA Ignored Disqualifying Protocol Deviations to Grant EUA” and subsequently wrote two articles in Spectator Australia, explaining her findings in the Pfizer documents.

Copied from: https://wowintl.org/jeyanthi-kunadhasan

/1 Comment/by

New Data Shows COVID mRNA Injections Causes Harm and Death

, ,

Three years ago, I promised to hound down those who perpetrated the greatest crime in Australian history — COVID — and I will continue to do so.

I have addressed the Senate five times now to explain the latest data that shows the harm being caused to everyday Australians from our COVID response, including the mRNA injections.

This is my sixth update on COVID science, using new, peer-reviewed published papers, referenced by the lead author. (References detailed on my website).

The shocking data shows that COVID mRNA injections have negative efficacy and harms more people than they protect. Even more concerning, the latest report shows that children who were injected with mRNA “vaccines” not only all contracted COVID but are now more likely to develop cancer over their lifetimes.

It’s time to call for a Royal Commission!

I will return to this crime of the century in December during my third COVID inquiry, titled “COVID on Trial”, featuring leading Australian and international doctors and lawyers, and presented before cross-party Members of Parliament.

Transcript

Three years ago I promised to hound those who perpetrated the greatest crime in Australian history, and I will continue to do so. Here’s the latest evidence of COVID-19 being the crime of the century, taken from new, peer-reviewed, published papers referenced to the lead author. In the Polish Annals of Medicine publication, FIRN conducts a limited literature review of the progression and reporting of COVID-19 vaccine severe adverse events, or SAE, in scientific journals, finding: ‘The literature has gone from claiming there are absolutely no SAEs from mRNA based vaccines in 2021 to an acknowledgement of a significant number of various SAEs by 2024. These adverse events include neurological complications, myocarditis, pericarditis and thrombosis.’ FIRN said, ‘This warns that science should be completely objective when evaluating health risk, because social and economic considerations often influence.’ 

Why has it taken three years for the medical community to find its voice? Firstly, it takes time to do the work to produce a peer-reviewed study, especially one critical of its pharmaceutical industry masters. Secondly, money talks. All the big pharma research money, grants, fake conferences and lavish destinations are a hard influence to overcome. Big pharma money is now going in so many different directions. Like the proverbial boy with his finger in the dyke, cracks are finally appearing. That’s why the misinformation and disinformation bill has been advanced: to get rid of these embarrassing truths in time for the next pharmaceutical industry fundraiser. 

Only in the last year have scientists been able to publish articles that acknowledge a high number of serious adverse events, or SAEs, linked to the mRNA based vaccines. There’s so much in recent published science that most people are unaware of because of pharmaceutical industry control. Here are the recent top 10 reasons to lock the bastards up. There is the Thacker study. Speed may have come at the cost of data integrity and patient safety, finding FISA falsified and misrepresented data. There is the Facsova study. A study of 99 million doses found clear proof of myocarditis, pericarditis and cerebral thrombosis, and the study extend only for 42 days after each dose, yet we know people are dropping dead suddenly years after they took one in the arm for big pharma. The Fraiman study found the excess risk of serious adverse events of special interest was higher than the risk reduction for COVID-19 hospitalisation relative to the placebo group in both Pfizer and Moderna trials, yet they never said more people would get seriously ill from the injections. The Benn study found no statistically significant decrease in COVID-19 deaths in the mRNA vaccine trials, while there was actually a small increase in total deaths. Doshi and Lataster’s study highlighted counting window failures—that is, how long after injection before an adverse event was counted. Pfizer and their cronies did not count adverse events in the first week after injection, which is when many occurred, and stopped counting after six weeks. This likely led to exaggerated effectiveness and misleading safety pronouncements, including serious adverse events being apportioned to unvaccinated people. The Raethke study noted a rate of serious adverse vaccine reactions of approximately one per 400 people—astonishing! 

Mostert’s study drew attention to the baffling problem of people dying suddenly years after injection, suggesting it may be the thing they were injected with that caused it. Lataster’s study from the University of Sydney, who provided input to this speech, demonstrated there are correlations between COVID-19 vaccination and European excess deaths and found that COVID injections increased the chance of COVID-19 infection and even the chance of COVID-19 death. The Furst study provided evidence that a healthy vaccine participant bias is at play. They only studied healthy people. That further implies that the effectiveness of the COVID-19 vaccines is being exaggerated, beyond the effects of counting window issues and other data manipulations. 

This brings us to the latest peer reviewed and published paper from Robin Kobbe and others. It studied children five to 11 years old one year after they had taken Pfizer mRNA vaccines, showing an elevated risk of developing cancer during their entire lives. Published on 30 July 2024 in the Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal, this report studied German children who had two Pfizer injections. This was a longitudinal study following healthy kids through two doses of vaccinations, with the resulting damage clearly attributed to the mRNA injections. 

I’ll return to this crime of the century in December when I conduct by third COVID inquiry called ‘COVID under trial’ with leading Australian and international doctors, lawyers and politicians, which will be held before cross-party members of parliament. I promise to hound down this crime’s perpetrators, and I will do exactly that. 

References

https://okaythennews.substack.com/p/covid-vaccine-science-catching-up

https://doi.org/10.29089/paom/193801

/8 Comments/by

Labor Delays COVID Inquiry Report

,

Labor is still running a COVID cover-up. Australians deserve a Royal Commission and true accountability for the wrongs committed over COVID, not this delayed whitewash review.

Transcript

Chris Smith:  Labor has delayed the public release of its Covid 19 review. What is the government afraid of to show, do you think? 

Senator ROBERTS: Review? You’d hardly call it a review, Chris. I think you’re being very, very kind. Look, the panelists were biased – they were lock-down supporters. They’re not allowed to look at the state responses. They’ve got no investigating powers – investigative powers. They’ve got no power to compel evidence, compel documents, compel witnesses. This is just a sham. It is to get at Morrison and Morrison should be got at. He deserves to be really hammered on this, but he’s no more guilty than, well he’s just as guilty rather as the state premiers who were mostly Labor. This is a protection racket for the Labor premiers and the Labor bureaucrats. We need a royal commission now! 

Chris Smith: You see, I would have thought the Royal Commission needs to look at two things that that so-called review is not even touching. The states, as you mentioned and their role when it came to lock-downs and all kinds of freebies that were handed out to the public. But also on top of that, the deals that were done with big Pharma over those damn vaccines that have proved to be a con themselves. 

Senator ROBERTS: I agree with you entirely. There are, in fact, there are many, many areas that need to be looked at Chris. I moved a motion to get one of the committees, in the Senate, to investigate and developa draft terms of reference for a possible royal commission, and that was passed through the Senate, that the committee did it. And I want to commend former barrister Julian Gillespie. He pulled an enormous team together and developed a phenomenal submission, 180 pages I think it was, 46,000 signatures. It was the people’s submission. And it covered – it turned it into a de facto inquiry into Covid and it covers everything. And the royal, the chair – Paul Scarr, I must say and the committee did a phenomenal job, along with the Secretariat, of pulling that into something that’s very, very workable. There is a draft terms of reference ready to go. And they’re completely comprehensive, cover every topic imaginable.  

/by

Ethnic Disparities in COVID-19 Mortality Rates in Australia! 💉📉

,

In a recent senate estimate session, I highlighted the alarming ethnic disparities in COVID-19 mortality rates. Australians from the Middle East died at three times the average death rate, those from Southern Europe twice as high, while sub-Saharan Africans had lower mortality rates. 

What’s driving these disparities? The health experts suggest that low vaccine coverage and socioeconomic factors played roles in these differences. As vaccination efforts improved, mortality rates began to align more closely with the general population. 

These are just theories, not explanations, and it comes across as a lazy response. There’s no justification for not making an effort to understand the reasons behind such a serious medical issue.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Professor Kelly, you previously brought someone forward to talk about the differences in incidence and severity with a low-socioeconomic profile.  

Prof. Kelly: Mr Gould, yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: Australian residents from the Middle East died at three times the population mean, those from Southern Europe were twice as likely to die and those from North Africa were almost three times as likely to die; however, sub-Saharan Africans were less likely to die. Why are we seeing ethnic differences in COVID mortality in Australia? I understand that ‘ethnic’ is to do with culture.  

Dr Gould: Yes. Just talking around the numbers involved, as you say, the ABS has reported, during various stages of the pandemic, mortality rates for people born in different countries and, as you’ve said, there are higher mortality rates for people born in places such as the Middle East. There are a number of potential reasons for that. One of the areas that I discussed in my previous answer, which I think is relevant, is that, for a lot of those communities, initially, vaccine coverage rates were low. So significant work was done during the course of the pandemic to work with those communities to increase the coverage rate, and we really saw quite a dramatic shift during the course of the pandemic in the variation in mortality rates between these communities in the general Australian population; to a large degree, they came into line with the general population experience, so that was a positive outcome. Certainly, there’s an indication that the vaccine rates would have had a role to play. We did talk as well about socioeconomic status. We do know that, for some language groups or groups born in different countries, those rates may correlate with different socioeconomic status as well, so there may be some relationships there.  

Senator ROBERTS: So there’s an overlap, potentially, in some areas? 

Dr Gould: Potentially, yes. It’s not broadly always the case. We find that a lot of recent, skilled migrants live in high socioeconomic areas, so it’s difficult to make a broad generalisation there. 

/3 Comments/by

A Chat with Emeritus Professor Reuben Rose | Sons of Issachar

As a Scientist and former vet school Dean, Professor Rose became concerned that critical information about SARs-CoV2 virus and COVID-19 vaccines was not being reported by mainstream media.

We discussed how the world and particularly Australia changed with the arrival of COVID and how the population seems to have forgotten the drastic restrictions that were put on our freedoms. We also discussed what, if any, lessons were learned.

Reuben received a notice from YouTube that he had “breached community guidelines” and the link to his channel can no longer be accessed.

You can search for more of Reuben’s work here: https://reubenrose.substack.com/ | Sons of Issachar Newsletter | www.inancientpaths.com

/2 Comments/by

Investigating the mRNA Mutant Crime Scene

,

I called on the Senate to support the inquiry into the federal COVID-19 Vaccine Injury Claims Scheme and restated my demand for the people of Australia to have their Royal Commission in COVID.

Australians are dying at a far higher rate than normal. Surely even the pharma industry lobby in the Senate can see that there’s a high probability that the cause, the one thing that has changed in the last 4 years coinciding with the increased mortality, is the jabs that everyday Australians were coerced and bullied into taking.

Why is the Labor Government so afraid of uncovering the truth? If they’re confident it’s not the cause, then shouldn’t they be prepared to have an inquiry into it?

This is an issue of life or death for the Australian people and it needs to be above suspicion. We need honest debate and proper scrutiny to understand why over 30,000 people more than normal have died so far.

In this speech, I go further into messenger RNA “vaccines”, the technology used to protect them and the actual mechanism by which these jabs could be causing the harm we are seeing.

I also talk about the “bait and switch” that was used during clinical trials, which saw trials conducted using the long-established method of using albumin to grow the vaccine. After testing, this was switched out for a new and untested method using a derivative of E. coli bacteria, which multiples much faster but contaminates the vaccine in the process.

During an interview on the ABC, Greg Hunt, the Health Minister at the time, admitted that “The world is engaged in the largest clinical trial, the largest global vaccination trial ever, and we will have enormous amounts of data”.

Where is that data now and what does it really say about our COVID response? The answer will only come from an inquiry. Clearly the Albanese Government and the Opposition do not want you to know.

Transcript

There have been more than 25,000 deaths. That’s more than 25,000 homicides. At Senate estimates hearings last November I produced an independent analysis of Australian Bureau of Statistics data. It showed the unexplained increase in deaths for the period 2022-23—population adjusted, excluding COVID and respiratory deaths—was 13 per cent. The Australian Bureau of Statistics provided data using a different methodology, which agreed closely with my figure. An increase of 13 per cent above baseline on 195,000 deaths in 2022-23 means 25,000 more Australians died than expected. 

Did the novel COVID injections cause all of these deaths? While highly likely, it’s possible they did not. Were enough of these deaths caused by the injections to be of serious concern and to support an inquiry? Definitely yes. A common argument against having an inquiry is the issue that increases in mortality are due to many different causes—cancer, dementia, cardiac conditions and diabetes—so there can’t possibly be a single cause. An inquiry would need to explain this. In the absence of an inquiry, I’ll advance a theory from many credible medical authorities. I’ll do that in a minute. 

The COVID products are not vaccines because they don’t stop people getting COVID. They don’t stop people passing it on to someone else. I call them injections or jabs. The jabs include a segment of messenger RNA, which has the purpose of splicing a new segment into our DNA, which produces a protein to create an antibody to COVID-19. This raises the possibility that disease can be prevented, using mRNA techniques to get our bodies producing antibodies to stop cancer and disease in their tracks. This opportunity to play God has proven so intoxicating that many in our health industry have fallen for it; mRNA jabs are being defended with religious fervour. As with any religious zealotry, those who ask difficult questions like, ‘Why are so many people suddenly dying?’ are being treated in a way that is an afront to parliamentary process and civil government. This issue is life or death. It needs to be above honest debate and scrutiny. 

One potential explanation for increased mortality rates across a wide range of conditions is a scandal known as ‘plasmidgate’. This is technical, so I’ll use plain language and apologise to any specialist vaccinologists listening. Messenger RNA is too fragile to use in a vaccine. To protect the RNA sequence from damage, these COVID jabs use a new technique, wrapping each one in a protective coating called a lipid nanoparticle. This keeps the RNA intact on its journey from your arm to the nucleus of every cell in your body, where the coating helps the RNA enter the cell and bind with your existing DNA. Remember, there are billions of mRNA particles in every jab. 

The manufacturing process is not clean. Fragments of DNA are being picked up in the manufacturing process and getting coated in that protective layer as well, a coating that stops your body expelling the fragment. These fragments are coming from the E. coli bacteria, a derivative being used to grow on the mRNA. Yes, they’re using modified E. coli bacteria as the growing medium for the mRNA in these jabs. 

The clinical trials for this product were conducted using the previous growing method, albumen from eggs. That’s the clinical trials. Yet that was far too slow for Pfizer, claiming the so-called speed of science. So, after the clinical trials were tested, with a conventionally propagated product, Pfizer switched it out for one grown using the much faster E. coli bacteria method. Has E. coli ever been used before as a medium to grow on a vaccine? No, it hasn’t. No, it has not. Was any safety testing done? Well, that would be every person that has had done the jab. That’s where the testing was done, if you’ve had the jab. Now people are dying, and the mRNA vaccine zealots are ignoring the outcome. The crime of the century is that the Australian public have been injected with DNA from E. coli bacteria that was wrapped up in a protective coating and delivered into the nucleus of every cell in your body. 

It gets worse. The latest peer reviewed published data on this shows that, in a third of cases, the cell will not produce the antibody intended against COVID and instead will produce some other antibody—in a third of cases. It’s a process called frame shifting, which means the mRNA does not present itself to your DNA strand correctly and accordingly combines with your DNA in an unintended way before producing an unintended protein antibody. This is going on in people’s bodies right now. What does that mutant protein do to your system? Nobody knows. Here’s the final crime. These mutant proteins are not created in one-third of people; they’re created in one-third of cells, meaning that everyone who was injected with a COVID product has a third of their cells now producing mutant proteins. We don’t know what harm that will cause. The harm varies from person to person. 

Are these proteins now resting in our brain? Are they? We know it can cross the blood-brain barrier into our brains. Are these proteins resting in our hearts, in our livers, in female ovaries, in male testes? Is it turning off our body’s natural cancer defence, resulting in turbo cancers? Highly likely. These are questions, not statements. When some of the most highly qualified medical professionals on this topic are asking questions, there is no excuse not to be investigating when those questions are being asked. It’s time to treat the zealots of the religion of mRNA as the maniacs they are. They played God and they harmed people. They killed tens of thousands of people. They committed homicide—homicidal maniacs. 

As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I support this motion from Senator Rennick, which will find out how bad the damage is, and, once again, I call on the Senate to demand a royal commission into the crime of the century. 

The PRESIDENT: The question is that the motion moved by Senator Rennick be agreed to. 

The Senate divided. [12:18]  

(The President—Senator Lines)  

/13 Comments/by

The TGA are Administrators not Regulators

,

Until a few years ago, new vaccines and drugs were required to have local safety testing and went through a process that took years. This ensured a high degree of safety. During the COVID period, the Therapeutics Goods Administration (TGA) waved approvals through for new technologies (e.g. mRNA injections) and new drugs in a matter of months. Included in this new streamlined approval process were Molnupiravir and Remdesivir.

Remdesivir was refused approval for 20 years owing to serious side effects in trials, including death. Molnupiravir also has a long history of failure. There are multiple studies out recently that show it is simply not effective against COVID, and yet this is the #1 drug on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. Australia spends $650m a year on Molnupiravir.

I asked why we approved a drug with so much evidence showing negative efficacy and fatal outcomes, including cancer, to replace the Ivermectin + Zinc combo, which costs a fraction of the price and has been proven safe and effective across many years.

I also raised the question of who supervises the supervisor — the TGA. “Nobody” was the response. That answer highlighted the overly cosy relationship between the international pharmaceutical movement and Australian pharmaceutical companies. The TGA requires further inquiry.

A Royal Commission is the only institution in Australia with the powers of inquiry to understand how the TGA has gone from regulator to administrator, seemingly with none of the customary vigilance.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: My questions are to the TGA, and these questions go to the approval for molnupiravir. This is a drug developed in 2014 to treat encephalitis. It was then repurposed for influenza but was discontinued after concerns it was mutagenic. Merck then bought the company and used their influence with regulators—such as the TGA, apparently—to have the product approved as a treatment for COVID. This was on the back of a single trial where the preliminary results supported the application but the final results showed that, if anything, it had negative efficacy. Given the weight of evidence, in study after study, that molnupiravir has zero to negative efficacy, why is it still approved?

Prof. Lawler: While one of our medical officers, Dr Kaye Robertson, comes to the table to respond, I would just highlight a couple of things. I take the comment that you made that the drug company used its influence on the TGA. There is a process that we follow, obviously, in the evaluation of all medications. Sponsors bring them for evaluation of safety, quality and efficacy, and that’s the process that is undertaken, rather than one of influence. I think it’s important to note that. In terms of the question you raised around why the medication is still approved for the indication that it has, I’ll ask Dr Kaye Robertson to respond to that.

Dr Robertson: The TGA considered the evidence to support the approval of molnupiravir from the dossier that was submitted by the sponsor, in accordance with our standard processes, and drew the conclusion that, at the time, the benefits outweighed the risks. In terms of the specifics of any subsequent information that has been provided to the TGA, I am actually not in a position to comment with certainty. This is not the area I work in particularly, and I think we would be best advised, if the senator pleases, to take this question on notice and provide you with further detail.

Senator ROBERTS: I appreciate your giving that offer and I will accept your offer for the question to be answered on notice. It does surprise me that approval was given on a single trial where the preliminary results supported the application but the final results showed that, if anything, it had negative efficacy. The weight of evidence, in study after study, shows zero to negative efficacy, so I’m amazed that it’s still approved. The approval required Merck to continue to provide ongoing safety data and testing around mutagenicity and interaction with the mRNA vaccines. Have they done that, and does the data justify retaining approval?

Dr Robertson: I have before me the AusPAR that was published in relation to the studies that assessed the risk of mutagenicity. We can provide that to you in our response. I am reading from that, and it says: ‘Molnupiravir and NHC were mutagenic in the bacterial assay (with and without metabolic activation). Molnupiravir and NHC were not genotoxic in in vitro and in vivo micronuclei tests, and in vivo mutation assay at the cII locus (in Big Blue Transgenic F344 Rats). Equivocal results were obtained in an in vivo Pig-a mutagenicity assay … Carcinogenicity studies are not generally required for drugs for short term clinical use. However, the sponsor has initiated a short-term carcinogenicity in … mice.’ This was put to the clinicians on the ACM and other invited experts regarding this matter. It was considered at the time that, on balance, the drug remained to have a positive benefit-risk balance.

Prof. Lawler: I thank Dr Robertson for that response. I’d also just add, Senator, that, because you’re asking for some quite specific currency and comprehensiveness of ongoing postmarket reporting, we’ll take that on notice and bring that information back to you.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. In 2023 molnupiravir was top of the pops, Australia’s No. 1 drug, costing taxpayers $654 million last year, at $1,125 a prescription. Molnupiravir is 26 times more expensive than the out-of-patent ivermectin-plus-zinc combo, which is about $40 per prescription. And that’s what molnupiravir replaced—proven, safe and effective. Why are you spending $654 million—on something that is highly questionable as to its efficacy and its safety—when $25 million would have done?

Prof. Lawler: I can’t speak to the specifics of the amount spent on molnupiravir, but I can certainly indicate that the second amount that you said—I didn’t catch the amount—

Senator ROBERTS: The ivermectin-plus-zinc combo is $40 per prescription, and the total for the year would have been $25 million.

Prof. Lawler: I think that the comparison is flawed, in that there is no credible, supportable evidence that ivermectin and zinc is an effective treatment. So I’m not convinced that you are—

Senator ROBERTS: There is no credible evidence? There are 100 papers.

Prof. Lawler: I’m not convinced that the comparison is sound.

Senator ROBERTS: You based the decision on molnupiravir on one paper, and you’re ignoring 100 papers proving ivermectin’s success. Does anyone question the process—

CHAIR: Sorry, Senator Roberts; I’m going to give Professor Lawler an opportunity to respond to that.

Prof. Lawler: I didn’t hear a question.

Senator ROBERTS: The question is this: does anyone question the TGA’s processes—

Prof. Lawler: Yes.

Senator ROBERTS: for approving drugs? How often do you evaluate them?

Prof. Lawler: Drugs are—

Senator ROBERTS: Who audits them? Is there an independent auditor?

Prof. Lawler: I’m not sure which question you would like me to answer.

Senator ROBERTS: All of them.

CHAIR: Professor Lawler, are you clear on the question placed? There is a mixture of questions and assertions moving around here, so let’s just step back and, Senator Roberts, please place a question.

Senator ROBERTS: The question is: how often do you scrutinise your process, and is there an external auditor who does that who is qualified to do it and to assess the process?

Prof. Lawler: The processes that we follow are continually informed by our international collaboration and also by significant interaction with stakeholders, particularly the advisory committees that we have in respect of the assessments and evaluations that we undertake for products. We also undertake, obviously, the premarket review and evaluation of medicines and other therapeutic goods, and we undertake significant postmarket surveillance of the goods as well. We have outlined in significant detail on previous occasions the postmarket surveillance that we undertake. I might ask Mr Henderson to add to that.

Mr Henderson: Senator, I think you asked about the number of submissions or medicines that we evaluate. Just for context, at the moment there are about 150 applications that the TGA is evaluating for both new medicines and changes to indications to current medicines.

Senator ROBERTS: What is the point of telling me that?

Mr Henderson: Sorry; I thought you asked that as part of your question.

Senator ROBERTS: No, I didn’t ask for the number. Who are your stakeholders? Do they include the sponsors?

Prof. Lawler: As a contemporary regulator, we have a broad stable of stakeholders. They do include industry. As with any regulator, we work to refine our processes to balance the appropriate observance of safety, quality and efficacy with appropriate access and streamlining processes to bring products to market with a minimum of inappropriate regulatory burden. We undertake annual stakeholder engagement surveys to understand the views of the TGA, and the three key stakeholder groups that we survey on an annual basis are industry; health professionals—and obviously it’s important we work with health professionals for a number of ways, in that they both inform us and are informed by our decisions—and the community. It is notable that the responses we get reflect that the TGA, among all groups, comes across as a recognised, understood and valued regulator in the Australian healthcare system.

We have other stakeholders with whom we interact. We obviously interact very closely with the state health jurisdictions, and this is for a number of reasons. Our decisions on a number of elements, such as scheduling, for example, which we’ve already discussed today, have a significant impact on the state and territory poisons legislation and how they’re implemented for the delivery of medicines. We also interact quite closely with expertise across the regulatory sector. We have a number of advisory committees, the membership of which incorporates consumer views and expertise and also those from the academic and research sectors.

It’s also important to note that we obviously have close relationships with our international collaborative regulators. We are part of the International Coalition of Medicines Regulatory Authorities and the International Medical Device Regulators Forum, and we also work closely with individual regulators such as the MHRA and the UK, European Medicines Agency and the FDA.

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, I will shortly rotate the call to Senator Rennick and then can come back to you. Is this a sensible place to pause?

Senator ROBERTS: I’ll make it a short one, and then you’ll come back to me. Spike proteins can enter the body in two ways in the context of COVID: from the virus itself and from the vaccines. What work has the TGA done on the health outcomes of the long-term retention of spike proteins by the body after the mRNA vaccines that you recommended? It’s been four years now, so some good old-fashioned science by the TGA must be available. Is there any assessment?

Prof. Lawler: As has been indicated previously, as with all regulators around the world, we undertake a significant program of post-market surveillance and pharmacovigilance. This includes having a clear and well-communicated preference for adverse events post the vaccine to be reported. Those are reported and entered into our database of adverse event notifications, and, along with examination of that and also in collaboration with partner international regulators, we are very much aware and alive to emerging safety signals and act accordingly.

Senator ROBERTS: But you haven’t done any studies on the retention specifically of the spike proteins? The COVID injections dramatically increased the spike protein. You haven’t done any studies of that?

Prof. Lawler: I’m happy to have any additional response, but what I would highlight is that our role as a regulator is to assess evidence that is brought to us, and we undertake that assessment in the evaluation.

Senator ROBERTS: So you don’t go looking for it?

Prof. Lawler: We utilise that evidence in the assessment and evaluation of products, and we utilise the pharmacovigilance and post-market surveillance exercises that I’ve highlighted.

/by

Exactly Who is Calling the Shots in Australia?

I asked Minister Gallagher how many vaccines are provided with an indemnity protection clause by the Australian government whereby those harmed cannot sue the company because the government has taken on the responsibility for harm done. Her answer was that indemnity was put in place due to the emergency nature of COVID response in the early stages. However 14 different COVID products have received indemnity protection from the Australian government, and one of them as recently as the 10th of October 2023.

In response, the minister fell back on confidentiality of agreements between the government and vaccine providers. This is the public’s money – the government is there to serve the people of Australia, not keep secrets from them and coerce them into risky products with mandates that even the Health Secretary, Prof Murphy, has said this year were not justifiable. The risk, from COVID, never justified the risk from the trial injections. After all that has been exposed globally, that the government is still promoting these products is shocking.

In saying that all necessary approvals to ensure its safety were followed through the TGA, Minister Gallagher is not being straight with us. The TGA did not test the Pfizer, AstraZeneca and Moderna COVID shots. It relied on the regulators overseas where these products were made. In the case of Pfizer, these were incomplete and aborted trials. The true magnitude of the harm is being released in the Pfizer papers ordered to be released by a judge in the USA.

Why is the government hiding behind confidentiality and exposing taxpayers to the risk of paying for costly damages for injection injuries as well as paying for products that are turning out to be unsafe and ineffective. Products that the public is no longer taking up and which the Minister appears to be pushing like a pharmaceutical sales rep on commission.

Big Pharma’s Stranglehold on Government Revealed

Senator Katy Gallagher claimed that the COVID product indemnity was put in place to secure product supply in a competitive market during the emergency of the COVID outbreak.

Senator Gallagher is the Minister for Finance overseeing contingent liabilities in the budget. With 14 more indemnities for COVID products and the most recent one last month, I think it’s pretty clear that this has nothing to do with a health emergency. It has everything to do with Labor’s deals with Moderna to get its production plants into Australia and pave the way for the World Health Organisation’s plans for 400 new mRNA vaccines for human and animal use. These are being designed to replace 400 regular vaccines with expiring patents.

Why is the government normalising indemnities? The process removes the incentive on the manufacturer to produce a safe, high quality product since any harm is paid for by the taxpayers. Follow the money and it leads to a patent cliff, not better health. It also explains the ongoing and seemingly frantic messaging of ‘safe and effective’ with every mention of these injections in government. It’s a shame the disinformation legislation does not cover messaging by the Government, so much misinformation originates there.

Transcript | Exactly Who is Calling the Shots in Australia?

Senator ROBERTS: My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care, Senator Gallagher. How many vaccines are subject to an indemnity from the Australian government?

Senator Gallagher: Thank you, Senator Roberts. I’ll just see if I can provide you with an accurate answer. I do know that there were indemnity arrangements put in place under the former government for the vaccines that were approved then, in the early stages of the pandemic, and those indemnity arrangements continue. I think we have traversed this a bit at estimates. I’m not sure if there is anything else I can provide. Indemnity arrangements were put in place for the vaccines that the government procured to enable the national vaccine rollout program to be undertaken during the pandemic emergency. That was an important part of ensuring that we could procure the vaccine in the amount that we needed and provide it to the Australian people. I would also say that, whilst the indemnity arrangements were in place, all of the required approvals to ensure the safety of the vaccines—prior to the vaccines being rolled out—were followed, through the TGA processes, which we have also traversed at length in estimates. We also have the COVID-19 Vaccine Claims Scheme, which was established to run alongside the national rollout of the vaccine program. And I would say that it was an important response to the pandemic to ensure that we could get as many people vaccinated as possible in a safe way to ensure that we minimised the impact of significant disease and also, at the very serious end, the deaths that occurred from contracting COVID-19.

Senator ROBERTS: Indemnities have been issued for 14 different COVID products. Each new COVID vaccine or shot has been given an indemnity, the most recent on 10 October 2023. With demand for the booster down to 5½ per cent for those under 65, and with multiple vendors, the argument that indemnities are needed to get stock is a patent nonsense. What is the real reason for these new indemnities, issued only six weeks ago?

Senator Gallagher: I can’t go into the confidential agreements that have been reached in procuring vaccines. These are agreements that are reached between the government and the vaccine provider, and we do so in a way that allows for the rollout of continued vaccination and booster shots to protect people from COVID-19. These are the arrangements that were entered into during the pandemic. Those arrangements are continuing. We think there’s a very important public health reason to ensure that we are procuring vaccines and making them available so people can take their booster. I would say that booster levels remain low—and we do want to see those increase—and that people should go and get their booster if they’re ready for one or if they’re six months past the last COVID-19 bout.

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, you won’t explain to the taxpayers why you’re using their money and putting it at risk, so I’ll ask a second supplementary. This government has offered Moderna an indemnity for every vaccine or shot manufactured in its new Australian factory, currently under construction, including regular non-pandemic vaccines. Why has your government not been honest in telling taxpayers they are paying for new vaccine harm during the COVID period and for all time?

Senator Gallagher: I’m not sure what Senator Roberts is referring to, and I reject the claim that we are somehow using taxpayers’ money and causing vaccine harm. That is not appropriate, and I absolutely categorically reject that. If there is anything further I can provide Senator Roberts around the arrangements with Moderna in particular, I am happy to arrange that. I don’t have that information before me, but I do accept that governments do negotiate agreements with companies around the supply and availability of medicines—and vaccines, in this instance—to ensure that we are able to provide the medicines Australia needs and also ensure that we have enough of the vaccines to provide the appropriate coverage, particularly for COVID-19 protection.

Transcript | Big Pharma’s Stranglehold on Government Revealed

I move: 

That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Finance (Senator Gallagher) to questions without notice I asked today relating to vaccine indemnities. 

Senator Gallagher is the Minister for Finance and is overseeing contingent liabilities in the budget. Although I prefer the words ‘fake-cine’ or ‘injectable’, what these products are not are vaccines. A vaccine prevents a person getting and transmitting an illness; these COVID ‘fake-cines’ do neither. Australia first provided indemnities in 2015 under the previous Liberal government for mpox and flu vaccines. Those indemnities are still in place. 

Now we have 14 more indemnities for COVID products, and they’ll be permanent. Labor’s deal to get Moderna’s production plant into Australia was revealed last week. Any vaccine manufactured in Moderna’s Australian factory, which is now under construction, will receive an indemnity. The agreement sets out that these vaccines will be indemnified as part of a pandemic vaccine advance-purchase agreement and additionally as part of a routine, non-pandemic vaccine supply agreement. In other words, every vaccine made will be indemnified with no word about testing. The new Moderna indemnity extends to routine vaccine supply, and the minister is not able to claim securing supply in a crisis. 

The World Health Organization has mentioned that there are 400 mRNA vaccines and products under development to replace conventional vaccines with expired patents. The attraction of mRNA is protecting profit from the patent cliff—not protecting better health. Those products will be for humans, livestock and pets. Our health authorities and politicians are promoting experimental mRNA products and, in so doing, risking everyday Australians’ health. I was hoping to hear why in the minister’s answer. Why is the government normalising indemnities, giving foreign multinational pharmaceutical companies blanket indemnities so they can avoid being accountable and encouraging companies to lie in their clinical trials, fudge efficacy data and cover up enduring death, as Pfizer was proven to have done in their COVID ‘fake-cine’ development? This question is not going away. We will relentlessly hound you down. 

/11 Comments/by