Stay up to date...

QUESTION ON NOTICE

Question:

63. Is it possible that the extreme length of the poly-A tail is contributing to longevity. The Roltgen cell paper (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0092867422000769) shows mRNA at 60 days post injection still producing spike antigen. Won’t this lead to t-cell exhaustion, as well as risking p53-dependent carcinogenesis risk? Immune imprinting, breadth of variant recognition, and germinal center response in human SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccination (cell.com) 64. Doesn’t the pathway used by the mRNA vaccine to instruct the body cell’s to produce a toxic spike protein increase the risk of harm to the body? Isn’t the name of the game to kill the pathogen rather than reproduce it on an unknown time basis? 65. Does the vaccine induce an autoimmune response – either by T-cells attaching your own cells or white blood cells attacking protein (whatever its form) created by the vaccine and exported from the cell?

Answer:

Question Number: 171
PDR Number: SQ22-000540
Date Submitted: 21/11/2022
Department or Body: Department of Health

63: The poly A tail is required for mRNA stability and efficient translation. While there is some limited evidence that a longer poly A tail may increase mRNA half-life (available at: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31896558/), several other factors have also been shown to affect the expression and stability of mRNA vaccines including the 5′ cap, 5′-and 3′- untranslated regions and the coding region (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34567201/). See response to Question 16 (SQ22-000525) on vaccine mRNA breakdown. In the human study, available at: (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35148837/), cited by the Senator, in a small number of COVID-infected patients and vaccinated individuals, both the vaccine mRNA and expressed spike protein were detected in the germinal centre of local lymph nodes up to 37 days after vaccination, with very low levels on day 60. However, the study also found that germinal centres were poorly formed with disruption of follicular dendritic cell network (i.e. damaged architecture) in the lymph nodes from severely ill COVID-19 patient LNs when compared with those of vaccinees. mRNA vaccination was associated with follicular hyperplasia with fully developed germinal centre architecture (i.e. normal architecture) and robust induction of B cells and follicular dendritic cells, indicating a positive immune response. The humoral and cellular immune response following intramuscular (IM) administration of COVID-19 mRNA vaccines was investigated in nonclinical studies in animals and in human clinical trials. Data from repeat-dose toxicity studies in animals showed no findings indicative of T-cell depletion (i.e. exhaustion). All vaccines are designed to stimulate the host immune system to defend against infection. There is no evidence of immune system suppression from repeated vaccine doses. For example, there are no reports of immune system suppression from annual seasonal flu vaccination, which has been implemented worldwide for many years. COVID-19 vaccines rely on the spike protein to induce neutralising antibodies against the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Data showed no proliferative changes in tissues (i.e. indicative of hyperplastic or pre-neoplastic lesions) except for hypercellularity of lymphoid tissues, an expected immune response to the vaccine. The literature provides limited evidence of a potential interaction between the tumour suppressor protein (i.e. anti-proliferative), p53, and the spike protein. Preliminary results from an in silico study indicated that the S2 subunit of the spike protein interacts with p53, available at: (www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7324311/). An in vitro study showed that p53 gene expression was unaffected in human prostate cancer cell line in the presence of SARS-CoV-2 spike protein (available at: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35059896/). Therefore, the limited scientific information available does not indicate that p53 levels are affected by SARS-CoV-2 spike protein.

64: During viral infection, the spike protein in SARS-CoV-2 interacts with the human ACE2 receptor, allowing for viral-host membrane fusion which is followed by the release of viral RNA into the host cell cytoplasm. It is incorrect to assert that the spike protein is a pathogen and, because it is a protein it does not carry viral genetic material. The spike protein serves as an antigen to induce immune responses. Results of biodistribution studies indicated that regardless of the COVID-19 vaccine administered, the spike protein is expected to be mainly expressed at the local injection site, lymph nodes, spleen and liver. As shown in nonclinical studies, the spike protein expressed at distant sites in other organs are relatively short lived (hours to several days). Additionally, animal toxicology studies of the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines at doses 200-times higher than the human dose on a dose/body weight basis have not raised any safety concerns. The findings in toxicology studies were consistent with inflammation responses (including inflammation at the injection site) and immune stimulation. 65: There is no evidence of an autoimmune response from vaccination with COVID-19 vaccines. In nonclinical studies where three to four doses of the COVID-19 vaccines were administered to animals (where each dose was 200 times on a μg mRNA/kg body weight basis), there was no evidence of any complications as a result of nonspecific activity of the expressed spike protein or autoimmune reactions. No humoral or cell-mediated immune responses against antigenic determinants of the host itself were observed in any of the protection or toxicity studies. Toxicity studies included detailed microscopic evaluation of tissues of the immune system. See also response to Question 233 (SQ22-000604).

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