Stay up to date...

QUESTION ON NOTICE

Question:

19. I have previously asked why does the TGA override doctors who have lodged adverse event claims of death and the TGA replied – “The premise of the statement by the Senator is wrong. Reporting of an adverse event to the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) does not mean that the reporting doctor considers that it was caused by a vaccine.” This reply is unsatisfactory. If they have ticked the box “suspected” it means they do consider the vaccine contributed to the death – SQ22-000105. To quote one doctor “Doctors and nurses only report suspected drug reactions to the DAEN. We do not have the time to waste reporting a broken leg as an adverse drug reaction. The DAEN report takes about 20-30 minutes and we are very aware, having to put our name to the reports, that the report could be used against us if we were to be found making vexatious, superficial or spurious reports. 20. All drug reactions reported by doctors and nurses are therefore suspected to be linked to the drug, by definition. That is what the DAEN is for. It says it on the front page of the reporting section (see screenshot).’ Why is the TGA downplaying reported deaths from vaccines and in doing so is acting negligently? 37. Studies are now showing negative efficacy with vaccination in regards to hospitalisation and death from 6-20 weeks after the vaccine. What does the TGA have to say about the long term safety and cost benefit analysis of the vaccine? 38. How long does it take to investigate an adverse event report? 39. I note the TGA have around 60 staff looking at adverse events – was this enough given the large number of reported injuries. This would have given staff approximately 30 minutes on average to investigate every injury – how was this enough time to investigate thoroughly?

Answer:

Question Number: 158
PDR Number: SQ22-000527
Date Submitted: 21/11/2022
Department or Body: Department of Health

Question 19 Response addressed in SQ22-000569 and previously in SQ22-000105. The Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) actively encourages health professionals (and others) to report suspected adverse event reports, even if they are unsure. For example, the TGA advises reporters that they ‘do not need to be certain, just suspicious.’ Reporting by a health professional indicates that they consider it is possible that there is a relationship between a vaccine and adverse events but does not always indicate they think it is likely. When the TGA receives an adverse event report with a fatal outcome following a COVID-19 vaccine, almost all are recorded as ‘causality possible’. This includes cases that do not have sufficient information to be eligible for further causality assessment or when a Coroner has determined that a death was not related to vaccination. The TGA uses adverse event reports to look for emerging safety issues with a vaccine. This may include using globally accepted methods to discuss groups of cases, for example, applying a causality assessment and/or case definitions. The purpose of this assessment is to consider whether any regulatory action is required for the vaccine product in question. It is wrong and frankly offensive to suggest that doctors who submit adverse event reports could “used against” them.

Question 20 Response addressed in SQ22-000569 and SQ22-000529. The TGA is not “downplaying reported deaths” and is not “acting negligently”.

Question 37 It is not clear what data the Senator is referring to. We do not believe the vaccines show “negative efficacy” against death and serious illness 6-20 weeks after vaccination and this finding is comprehensively refuted in the results of dozens of studies from public health authorities and in top-tier medical journals. The TGA’s position on the safety profile of each COVID-19 vaccine can be found in the relevant Product Information document on the TGA website. The TGA is not involved in cost-benefit analysis of vaccines or any other medical products. Recent data published by the US CDC also does not support this statement, with vaccinated individuals remaining at greatly reduced risk of hospitalisation and death due to COVID-19 over time: https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#vaccine-effectiveness-breakthrough.

Question 38 The time required to process each adverse event report varies depending on the nature of the report. Information on what the TGA does with adverse event reports is publicly available at: www.tga.gov.au/resources/resource/guidance/adverse-event-reporting. The process been previously explained in SQ22-000116, SQ22-000109, SQ22-000099, SQ22-000104, SQ22-000152.

Question 39 As outlined in SQ22-000116, the TGA does not re-investigate individual person’s injury or clinical diagnosis for the majority of adverse event reports.

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