Stay up to date...

QUESTION ON NOTICE

Question:

66. Studies carried out on the lipid in rat trials showed it entered most body organs. Given that lipid concentrations were still increasing in most body organs, most notably the ovaries where it doubled from day 1 to day 2, why did the TGA not request more testing from Pfizer to determine just how long the lipids stay in the body before approving their vaccine? 67. How can the TGA guarantee that lipids that have entered body organs won’t damage those organs without longitudinal testing? 68. Why were biodistribution studies stopped after 9 days when it has been shown that mRNA, Lipids and spike proteins had been found in the body up to 60 days after the second vaccination? How can the TGA say with any confidence what the lifespan of the spike protein if they never tested it? Why didn’t the sponsor continue the trials given concentrations were increasing? 69. Why were no biodistribution studies performed with the spike protein? 70. Has the TGA now got comprehensive and exhaustive data that determines how long the lipids stay in the body. If not, then why are they allowing the rollout of the vaccine to continue? 75. Why is the lipid travelling around the body in increasing concentrations when many Health professionals said it would stay at the injection site?

Answer:

Question Number: 173
PDR Number: SQ22-000542
Date Submitted: 21/11/2022
Department or Body: Department of Health

66. The biodistribution and fate of lipid nanoparticles (LNP) were studied in animals and in vitro. The distribution of lipid nanoparticles encapsulating mRNA encoding luciferase was investigated by monitoring a radiolabelled lipid-marker in rats. The major uptake of this lipid-marker was noted at the injection site and in the liver, with lower levels distributed to the spleen, adrenal glands and ovaries. The LNP dose in the distribution study was considerably higher than the human dose on a µg/kg body weight basis. Therefore, much less LNPs would be found in the tissues in humans after vaccination. In addition, radioactivity (lipid-marker), not the actual lipid in the vaccine, was measured in the rat study. The detected radioactivity could represent smaller pieces of the lipid in the vaccine. It is a common practice to measure radioactivity in radio-labelled tissue distribution studies for pharmaceuticals because of the high sensitivity of radioactivity measurements and the difficulty of detecting pharmaceuticals per se in tissues. The lipid-marker was detected in ovaries in the rat study. Importantly, fertility was unaffected in nonclinical studies in animals receiving vaccine doses up to 200 times the human dose in reproductive and developmental toxicity studies. Microscopic examination showed no changes in organs including the ovaries from repeat dose toxicity studies in animals after they received repeated, high doses of the vaccines.

67. In addition to the pharmacokinetic and biodistribution studies to determine where the mRNA vaccine lipids may be distributed in the body, repeat dose nonclinical studies were conducted to investigate potential toxicity of the vaccine and LNPs. The test material in the animal studies was identical to the final clinical vaccine formulation as administered to patients. The findings from the animal toxicology studies were consistent with expected immune responses (including inflammation at the injection site and hypercellularity of lymphoid tissues). There were no effects on ovaries or other organs except the lymphoid tissues (desired immune responses) and mild vacuolation in liver cells (most likely related to lipid uptake). Vacuolation of liver cells was completely reversible three weeks after the last vaccine dose.

68. The biodistribution of the mRNA and expressed antigen encoded by the mRNA component of the vaccine was expected to be dependent on the LNP distribution. To visualise the tissue distribution of the mRNA-LNP formulation, mRNA encoding luciferase was formulated in an LNP formulation identical to the Pfizer BNT162b2 vaccine. Following an intramuscular (IM) injection of the luciferase mRNA formulation in mice, luciferase was detected by whole body imaging mainly at the injection site, which declined to the background level after 9 days. Luciferase was also seen in the liver, which disappeared in 48 hours. Very low levels of mRNA or spike protein may be detectable for a longer period. However, animal toxicity studies at very high vaccine doses raised no safety concerns.

69. Distribution studies are not typically conducted for an antigen (spike protein) or biological medicines, e.g. trastuzumab. See response to Question to 94 (SQ22-000555).

70. Animal studies showed that ALC-0159 (PEG-lipid, one component of the LNP) was completely eliminated in 14 days, while ALC-0315 (another lipid component) was detectable in the liver 14 days after the intravenous dose, but the level was significantly lower within 24 hours of dosing, indicating gradual elimination from the body. Repeat dose toxicity studies in rats with the Pfizer vaccine formulation with LNP doses approximately 100 times the human clinical dose showed no systemic toxicity. See also responses to Questions 66 and 67. 76. See response to Question 66.

Share:

Facebook
Twitter
Pinterest
LinkedIn

LATEST QUESTIONS ON NOTICE

Senator RENNICK: Okay-last question. I had a conversation with Gavin Morris a couple of years ago about the way the ABC reports the increase in temperature from 1910. The ABC, like many other media organisations, reports the homogenised data without actually explaining the difference between the homogenised data and the raw data. Gavin Morris stressed that they reported the raw data. That is incorrect; the ABC reports the homogenised data. So I’ll ask this question again: why won’t the ABC distinguish between the raw data and the homogenised data, which is a different dataset to the actual observations recorded by the bureau? Mr Anderson: I don’t know the answer to that. I will need to take that on notice and provide a response to you. Senator RENNICK: Okay. I would like to point out that Gavin Morris did say last time that they reported the raw data and that they distinguished between raw and homogenised. I’ll stress this again, the ABC doesn’t, but I think in terms of full transparency they should.

Senator RENNICK: Do we have any costings for storage? How much will it cost, in terms of storage, to get to our 2030 target? Mr Duggan: A lot of this is, of course, private provisions. In fact, you’d hope that the vast majority of it was. Government has policies that would assist thatSenator RENNICK: That is fine, but we’re told every day that renewables are cheaper. I want that quote substantiated by proper costings, whether it’s funded publicly or privately, because it’s going to end up either out of the taxpayer’s pocket or on their energy bill. So I’m looking for costings just on storage. I want it on other issues as well, such as transmission, but I’m asking: do you have costings on that storage? Ms Brunoro: We’ll take that on notice. The difficulty with answering that question with any kind of precision is that, in terms of deep storage, it will relate to a number of technologies-it’s the same for deep and shallow. It will ultimately depend on the precise mix of those, but we can do things at a high level with respect to the nature of the type of storage that fits within that and provide some estimates to you. Senator RENNICK: So you don’t have definite figures at the moment? Mr Duggan: What we can do for you-and we’ll have to take this on notice-is look at the existing pipeline of projects that are underway and what the private proponents have told us about the cost of those things. We can add to that: through Rewiring the Nation or other policies that are helping to assist that, we can break down the government contribution to that. But we just don’t have all that detail in front of us. Senator RENNICK: I want government and private, because, ultimately, it going to cost the consumer through taxes or energy bills. But is that fair to say that that’s not completed yet? Mr Duggan: We will take that on notice and we’ll endeavour to do our best to come back to you.

Senator RENNICK: Thanks very much. Yet again, in terms of the overall modelling, have you got a breakout of how many turbines you need, how many solar panels you need to get to 82 per cent renewables? Ms Brunoro: Again, the Integrated System Plan does provide an indication of the type of the level of renewable energy, so just bear with us a second. Mr Peisley: Sorry, I don’t think we do have that figure in front of us. We’re happy to take it on notice and get it to you. Ms Brunoro: But if it gives you a sense of it, it’s nine times the amount of the existing variable renewable energy that currently is-well, as of when the last Integrated System Plan came out, it was operating in the NEM at that point. So that gives you the quantum ofSenator RENNICK: So nine times what? Ms Brunoro: Nine times. Senator RENNICK: Yes, but what? Ms Brunoro: The variable renewable energy that is currently in the National Electricity Market. Senator RENNICK: So what’s the cost of that? Ms Brunoro: Again, Senator, it depends on the mix of technologies that you’re going to deploy. There are some figures that we can pull out for you around what they roughly think around different-solar versus wind for instance. We can actually seek to provideSenator RENNICK: So can you give me some definite costings on that? Not now, but on notice?

1. According to the December 2020 update, Australia emitted 499 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent to a 5 per cent decrease on 2019. Australia’s grasslands are estimated to be 440 million hectares and native forest 147 million hectares, a total of approximately 587 hectares. It is estimated forest and grasslands absorb between 0.5 and 2 tonnes of carbon per hectare. Assuming an average of 1 tonne of CO2 absorbed by these landscapes then isn’t Australia already at net zero? 2. Can the CSIRO provide a comprehensive roadmap of the work required for Australia to meet a 43% reduction in CO2 by 2030? This roadmap should set out the length of transmission lines, the number of transmission towers, the number of solar panels (for a given wattage), the number of wind turbines (for a given wattage), the number of batteries (for a given storage), the amount of lithium, copper, cobalt, nickel, concrete, and steel etc. needed to build the aforesaid generators and storage. It will need to include the amount of land needed for solar, wind, transmission, and storage products and the biodiversity offsets. Could the amount of CO2 required to build, recycle, or dispose of the aforementioned items also be included. Likewise, could the cost of building, recycling, and disposing of the aforementioned items also be clearly outlined. Biodiversity impacts such as increased tyre wear due to heavier batteries in cars, increased breaking distance on roadkill, impact on bats and birds from transmission lines and wind turbines, and removal of native flora and fauna due to land use should also be clearly outlined. 3. If the CSIRO cannot provide, can it state which department is responsible for maintaining and tracking the roadmap and refer the question onto them? 4. Could the change in Earth’s temperature as a result of Australia undertaking the 43% reduction in CO2 measures please be stated in order to ensure appropriate benchmarking and accountability if targets are not met? 5. Could the CSIRO confirm if every country uses the same methods to calculate CO2 emission and reductions? If not, why not? What guarantees are there under the Net Zero that Australia won’t be disadvantaged as a result of signing up to the Net Zero pledge?

1. Can the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water provide a comprehensive roadmap of the work required for Australia to meet a 43% reduction in CO2 by 2030. This roadmap should set out the length of transmission lines, the number of transmission towers, the number of solar panels (for a give wattage), the number of wind turbines (for a given wattage), the number of batteries (for a given storage), the amount of lithium, copper, cobalt, nickel, concrete, and steel etc. needed to build the aforesaid generators and storage. It will need to include the amount of land needed for solar, wind, transmission and storage products, and the biodiversity offsets. Could the amount of CO2 required to build, recycle, or dispose of the aforementioned items also be included? Likewise, could the cost of building, recycling, and disposing of the aforementioned items also be clearly outlined? Biodiversity impacts such as increased tyre wear due to heavier batteries in cars, increased breaking distance on roadkill, impact on bats and birds from transmission lines and wind turbines, and removal of native flora and fauna due to land use should also be clearly outlined. 2. If the Department cannot provide, can it state which department is responsible for maintaining and tracking the roadmap and refer the question onto them?

THE ISSUES

Click on an interest area to read articles and learn more about the work I am doing in Parliament.

Taxation, Finance & Economy

READ MORE

Education & Family

READ MORE

Energy

READ MORE

Environment

READ MORE

Health, Aged Care & Seniors

READ MORE

Primary Industries

READ MORE

Immigration & Foreign Affairs

READ MORE

Infrastructure, Manufacturing, Transport & Tourism

READ MORE

Defence

READ MORE

Federation Reform

READ MORE

I may get kicked off social media soon for speaking too much truth so please join my mailing list so we can always stay in touch...

Thank you,

Gerard