Health experts ignored FDA data and didn’t read the vaccine nonclinical report

Australia’s top health experts and bureaucrats have been caught out…they haven’t read critical reports.

Chamber: Senate on 21/11/2022
Item: ADJOURNMENT – COVID-19: Vaccination
Speaker: Rennick, Sen Gerard

Senator RENNICK (Queensland) (20:05): I rise tonight to give a bit of a synopsis of last week’s estimates, where I got to speak to a number of health professionals but mainly Professor Murphy. I had more time with Professor Murphy this time than I did with Professor Skerritt, who was off in Ireland on some conference instead of being here at estimates, which I was a little bit disappointed in.

I have to say that one of the most startling aspects of my questioning was the fact that Professor Murphy admitted that he hadn’t read the TGA nonclinical report about the Pfizer vaccine. I would have thought that when you were the actual Chief Health Officer and you were about to administer a vaccine to what turned out to be over 20 million people—nearly all of your countrymen—you would have taken the time to actually read the nonclinical report, which outlines all of the research that was done and all of the animal testing and everything like that that was done on the vaccine. I certainly know, from my former career, that you would never sign off on a set of financial statements if you hadn’t actually scrutinised them in intricate detail.

It’s interesting and relevant because Professor Murphy told me that on Thursday, but on the Tuesday night before I’d asked the National Blood Bank Authority whether or not the spike protein stayed in the blood for longer than three days, at which time you can donate blood. Professor Murphy insisted that there is absolutely no evidence that the spike protein was in the blood. He’s correct to a certain extent, but had he actually read the TGA nonclinical report he would have known that there was no distribution and degradation data on the S-antigen encoding mRNA protein. That, in itself, I find shocking—the fact that you wouldn’t actually test the spike protein in the vaccine before you administer it to humans. The spike protein is the active ingredient. The idea of the vaccine was to deliver a lipid inside your body that goes into your cells, and then the cell’s ribosome would produce the actual spike protein.

What they actually did was test luciferase, a benign enzyme, in actual animals; they didn’t even test the spike protein in animals. For anyone to make any absolute comments or speak in a position of authority about what the spike protein is capable of doing in the blood would be completely wrong. I will be looking at ways of holding both Professor Murphy and Professor Skerritt accountable for those statements, because it’s completely wrong for him to be saying things if he hasn’t actually done the time.

I want to touch on a couple of other things in this TGA nonclinical report that I think are really important. In the summary it says:

Almost similar microscopic lung inflammation was observed in both challenged control and immunised animals after the peak of infection (Days 7/8).

That seems to suggest that there was actually no difference whatsoever in the inflammation of unvaccinated rats or animals after day seven or eight compared to the vaccinated rats or animals. So there was no evidence that it reduced inflammation in the lungs at all. For some reason that got completely overlooked as well.

I’m going to run out of time, so I want to jump on a couple of other things that got overlooked. In a former set of estimates, Professor Skerritt said that the lipid in the protein is the same lipid that’s in your sausage or steak that you might eat for breakfast. It turns out that he contradicted himself in last week’s set of estimates, where he said that there are four different set of lipids in the vaccine. That’s not what he said in the prior set of estimates, so that’s another example of our so-called health experts flip-flopping as to what they said six months ago compared with what they’re saying now. Clearly, the question has to be asked if Professor Skerritt actually read the TGA non-clinical report. I get the impression that he hadn’t.

Then of course the last thing that we need to touch on tonight is the fact that the FDA said as far back February 2021:

At this time, data are not available to determine how long the vaccine will provide protection, nor is there evidence that the vaccine prevents transmission of SARS-CoV-2 from person to person.

Despite that statement from the FDA, for the next two years we had health professionals running around until the last month claiming that the vaccines stopped transmission. Professor Kelly couldn’t actually name any studies that showed an increase in IGA, immunoglobulin A, in the mucosal system, for the simple reason that there weren’t any studies.








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

Taxation, Finance & Economy


Education & Family






Health, Aged Care & Seniors


Primary Industries


Immigration & Foreign Affairs


Infrastructure, Manufacturing, Transport & Tourism




Federation Reform


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,