Stay up to date...

QUESTION ON NOTICE

Question:

47. Will the TGA ask for the all the data from the Pfizer trial including the data the Pfizer is trying to prevent from releasing to the public for a period of up to 55 years? 48. Has the TGA ask Pfizer for an explanation of why the company does not want to release data for up to 55 years? 49. If the data that Pfizer does not want to release is shown to be materially different in terms of safety and efficacy will the TGA sue Pfizer for damages or does the Pfizer indemnity extend to fraud and or non-disclosure? 50. On what basis does John Skerritt say that the data relating to the vaccine trials is thorough when not all data has been released, individual data wasn’t looked at and several areas including carcinogenic risks, immunocompromised patients, pregnant women, breast feeding women, reactions to other drugs and longitudinal studies weren’t completed? 51. How can the TGA say the Pfizer trial was relevant to the vulnerable population when only 4% of the trial group was over 75 when over 75% of people over 75 were hospitalised or died from Covid? 52. Could the TGA provide measurements of clinical outcomes in the initial Pfizer trial such as hospitalisations and deaths and subclinical outcomes such as inflammation and clotting?

Answer:

Question Number: 102
PDR Number: SQ22-000114
Date Submitted: 24/02/2022
Department or Body: Department of Health

47. Pfizer submitted all relevant available data from the COVID-19 clinical trials to the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) with its application for provisional registration. 48. As noted in response to Q47, Pfizer submitted all relevant available data from the COVID-19 clinical trials to the TGA with its application for provisional registration. 49. As noted in response to Q47, Pfizer submitted all relevant available data from the COVID-19 clinical trials to the TGA with its application for provisional registration. Due to the commercial in confidence nature of the agreements the Commonwealth has with COVID-19 vaccine manufacturers, the details of the indemnity provisions under the advance purchase agreements are confidential. 50. The TGA has comprehensively evaluated each of the provisionally registered COVID-19 vaccines to ensure that they meet Australia’s high standards of safety, quality, and efficacy based on the information available at the time of application. The TGA’s technical and clinical experts are undertake a formal evaluation of the application, which includes assessing clinical studies, non-clinical toxicology studies (including carcinogenic risks), chemistry, risk management, and manufacturing information. The TGA does not generally request that all raw individual participant data (IPD) be submitted with applications to register a medicine. Some regulators such as the United States Food and Drug Administration (US FDA) do this. The TGA has met regularly with the US FDA throughout the COVID-19 pandemic and several of the meetings have included discussion of the data FDA have reviewed. However, the TGA does receive and review some raw individual participant data, such as information about serious adverse events. These are the same requirements as other comparable international regulators. Even though the decision to provisionally approve these vaccines was made on the basis of short-term efficacy and safety data, the data submitted to support the quality, safety and efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccines showed a positive benefit-risk ratio. Waiting for data to establish the duration of protection would not have allowed these vaccines to have been available. The short-term efficacy of these vaccines has been proven, with the six-month protection period preventing many hospitalisations and death. For example, carcinogenicity studies take six to 24 months to be completed. The available evidence submitted to the TGA was considered adequate to indicate that the vaccines were unlikely to be carcinogenic. Identical decisions were made by other overseas regulators such as the US FDA and the European Medicines Agency. Carcinogenic risks This question has been answered in the response to Q98 in SQ22-000144 – Initial Pfizer trials. Data for immunocompromised patients, pregnant women, breast feeding women, reactions to other drugs and longitudinal studies Response has been previously provided in: • SQ21-001264 – Testing on pregnant women and the safety of vaccines (answer date: 28 January 2022, Q125), and • SQ21-001176 – COVID vaccine approval process (answer date: 31 January 2022, Q119). 51. When Pfizer submitted its initial application for provisional registration of Comirnaty, individuals aged 75 years and over comprised approximately four per cent of participants (804/18,242 participants in the vaccinated group: 812/18,379 participants in the placebo group). The initial trial results demonstrated that the vaccine was safe and effective at preventing COVID-19 infection in this age group – only one participant in this age group from the vaccinated group developed symptoms of COVID-19 seven days post dose two, compared to 26 participants in the placebo group. It is incorrect to equate “the vulnerable population” with those over 75. There are many younger people with significant comorbidities who are highly vulnerable to infection with SARS-CoV-2. Real-world evidence from post-approval use of this vaccine in elderly and vulnerable people has demonstrated the great benefits of the vaccination for elderly and vulnerable people around the globe. 52. This question has been addressed in the response provided in SQ22-000150 – Efficacy of Pfizer vaccine in the initial trials.

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