Stay up to date...

QUESTION ON NOTICE

Question:

174. Will the Health department run a study to determine if Covid antibodies are higher in the vaccinated or unvaccinated? If not, why not – isn’t this critical to determine the long term of effects of multiple Covid vaccines on the immune system to find out if repeated vaccine shots lower the body’s immune defences? 201. Has the TGA or the sponsor tested the modifications to the mRNA in the vaccine spike protein to ensure that it is capable of being broken down by the body’s immune system? If so, can studies please be provided and the number of days taken to break down the spike protein be stated? 269. How much confidence is there that the proline insertions keep the spike protein in its prefusion shape? What studies have been completed that demonstrate this? Does the TGA accept that if the spike is not replicated in its prefusion shape then the immune system will recognise it as a different pathogen to the virus spike protein?

Answer:

Question Number: 205
PDR Number: SQ22-000575
Date Submitted: 21/11/2022
Department or Body: Department of Health

Question 174 The Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) does not conduct clinical trials or serological surveys on any medicine or vaccines, however the TGA is aware that studies to assess immunity derived from both vaccination and natural infection (or a hybrid of both) are ongoing. We refer the Senator to serosurveillance studies conducted by the National Centre for Immunisation Research and Surveillance in Sydney (available at: www.ncirs.org.au/covid-19/serosurveillance-sars-cov-2) which address antibody levels in different cohorts. The TGA is not aware any reputable evidence to support the view that vaccination against COVID-19 lowers the body’s immune response to the virus. On the contrary, there is a large amount of evidence to support the fact that protection against COVID-19 increases with recommended additional doses. In addition, there are a number of published studies which demonstrate that protection against serious infection is greatest in those who have had both a SARS-Cov2 infection and several doses of mRNA vaccines.

Question 201 The degradation of protein in the human body is well understood. Proteins are broken down reasonably rapidly to small peptides and amino acids through proteolysis by proteases. Natural or synthetic proteins (such as therapeutic proteins and vaccine antigens) are metabolised by the same pathways. It is internationally agreed that studies on the degradation of therapeutic proteins such as monocloncal antibodies (e.g. trastuzumab) and vaccine antigens (e.g. flu vaccines) are not required for the registration of therapeutic proteins or vaccine antigens (ICH guideline S6 (R1) – preclinical safety evaluation of biotechnology-derived pharmaceuticals (available at: https://database.ich.org/sites/default/files/S6_R1_Guideline_0.pdf as used by all major medicines regulators). Therefore, no specific studies on the degradation of spike protein synthesised from spike protein mRNA, were required or provided.

Question 269 Numerous published studies and submitted data have shown that the two proline substitutions stabilise the spike protein in its pre-fusion form (for example, Corbett, K.S., et al. (2020). Nature 586: 567). COVID-19 vaccines were designed to induce antibodies targeting the prefusion form of the spike protein to block the virus from attaching to and entering into human cells. Irrespective of whether the spike protein is expressed in the prefusion conformation or post-fusion form, it is only a very small fragment of the virus and it is not a pathogen. The prefusion or post-fusion form of the spike protein remains a protein derived from the coronavirus, not from a different virus.

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