Stay up to date...

QUESTION ON NOTICE

Question:

71. Has the TGA now got comprehensive and exhaustive data that determines how long the body produces the Spike protein. If not, then why are they allowing the rollout of the vaccine to continue? 72. Has the TGA now got comprehensive and exhaustive data that determines how long the spike protein or any other related prions, mutations stay in the body and by body organ type. If not, then why are they allowing the rollout of the vaccine to continue? 73. Do expressed spike proteins stay in the cell membrane or are they secreted via exosomes? 74. The ribosomes on the endoplasmic reticulum produce protein for export while ribosome in the cytoplasm produce proteins for use inside the cell. Given the TGA non-clinical report says the spike protein is produced via the endoplasmic reticulum then isn’t evidence that spike proteins will be exported from the cell and potentially re-enter the circulatory system? 76. Which part of the mRNA code tells the mRNA to attach to the Endoplasmic Reticulum? 77. What evidence does the TGA have that the spike protein doesn’t go into the nucleus – the delivery of the spike protein was never tested. There were no studies carried out so how would the TGA know with 100% certainty the mRNA or the spike protein doesn’t enter the nucleus? 78. Is there any evidence that the spike protein does not inhibit the P53 gene? Were studies carried out to prove this? 79. “Another study revealed that extracellular vesicles decorated with S-proteins persist up to 4 months after vaccination… This raises the possibility that LNP–mRNA remain in circulation for extended periods of time, retaining their ability to induce S-protein expression….”. Does the TGA refute this study? www.mdpi.com/2227- 9059/10/7/1538/htm 87. Have studies been conducted by the TGA to determine if the spike protein interferes with oocytes?

Answer:

Question Number: 179
PDR Number: SQ22-000549
Date Submitted: 21/11/2022
Department or Body: Department of Health

Question 71 At present, there is no evidence suggestive of long-term accumulation of the provisionally approved COVID-19 vaccines or their associated proteins or effects in the body. The mRNA and spike protein are quickly degraded and removed via normal cellular processing mechanisms as occurs for endogenous mRNA and proteins (from SQ22-000146, tabled Thursday, 7 July 2022). There is an expanding body of publicly available research on this subject. The rollout of vaccines and the need for subsequent boosters is based on the waning of antibodies after a few months, leading to decreased protection against symptomatic disease caused by COVID-19, and reported resurgence of infections. This is especially apparent in certain groups of people, such as older adults and immunocompromised individuals. The rollout and need for boosters is supported by data on good immune and protective clinical protection in response to the booster dosing approach. Decisions on the national vaccine rollout program are made by the Minister based on recommendations provided by the Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation (ATAGI). ATAGI continues to review all current and emerging evidence on the use of COVID-19 vaccines and evolving epidemiology in Australia and provides updated recommendations on the medical administration of vaccines available in Australia, including those on the National Immunisation Program, to the Minister for Health and Aged Care as required. The development of ATAGI’s advice is based on a thorough review of all the current and emerging evidence on COVID-19 vaccines, including data on effectiveness, waning of immunity, international program settings, national vaccination coverage and operational flexibility where appropriate. ATAGI draws on and considers information from a range of credible sources in relation to COVID-19 and vaccines. This includes information from the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA), monitoring of local and international epidemiological data, clinical studies and scientific journals. All ATAGI statements are extensively referenced, including links to the best available medical evidence.

Question 72 Please refer to the response to Question 71. The spike protein is not a prion.

Question 73 After the mRNA encapsulated in lipid nanoparticles is transported to the cytoplasm following vaccination, it is translated to the spike protein on ribosomes. The spike protein is transported into the lumen of the endoplasmic reticulum (ER) directed by a signal sequence (available at: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34400651/). Co-localisation of the spike protein with an ER marker was detected in an in vitro study, providing evidence that the spike protein is processed within the ER. The spike protein has a C-terminal membrane anchor region that keeps it attached to the ER membrane (available at: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32922605/ and https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34400651/). The spike protein is not secreted or released into the blood stream from cells in any significant quantities due to the absence of a signal sequence for secretion. The spike protein expressed on the cell surface is recognised by the immune cells as foreign and generates an immune response to defend against SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Question 74 See response to Question 73.

Question 76 The vaccine mRNA syntax starts with a cap (GA) followed by 5’ untranslated region (‘UTR’). 5’-UTR is the ribosome binding site. 5’ UTR is followed by the spike protein signal peptide, which is a codon optimized signal peptide. The signal peptide from amino acids one to 13 enables the S protein to be transported to the ER and then to cell membranes.

Question 77 COVID-19 vaccine mRNA is translated to the spike protein in the cytoplasm. A published in vitro study showed SARS-CoV-2 spike protein is localised in the cytoplasm and was not found in the nucleus (available at: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33203855/).

Question 78 The TGA is unaware of any evidence of interaction between the spike protein and the p53 gene. In the absence of any citation provided by the Senator we are unable to assess this assertion.

Question 79 The study referred to by the Senator (available at: www.mdpi.com/2227- 9059/10/7/1538/htm) is a very small study published in a free (not subscription based) low-ranking online publication. Websites of this type often attract publication of studies that have been rejected by long standing journals. Low levels of vaccine mRNA were detected in blood samples of 16 individuals vaccinated with the Pfizer vaccine for one day up to 15 days after the first or second vaccination injection. Only 2-4 samples were collected each day after vaccination, with only one sample on day 15 and one on day 27 (no detectable mRNA). The study authors acknowledged several limitations of the study including small study cohort and individual variations relating to the clearance rate of vaccine particles at the injection site. Importantly, it is reported that none of the participants reported significant adverse effects following vaccination. Further, nonclinical toxicity studies at very high doses showed no adverse effects except for immune response-related findings such as inflammation at the injection site and the expected immune responses.

Question 87 Combined reproductive and developmental studies showed no adverse effects of the Pfizer or Moderna COVID-19 vaccines on female fertility, embryofetal development and post-natal development (up to weaning) in rats. Oocytes from individuals vaccinated with the COVID-19 vaccines had fertility and pregnancy outcomes comparable with oocytes from unvaccinated women (available at: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8446863/). mRNA COVID-19 vaccines also did not affect In Vitro Fertility (IVF) treatment outcomes or ovarian reserves in subsequent IVF cycles after vaccination (available at: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35220640/ and https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33985514/). Several other studies have also shown no adverse effects on female fertility following COVID-19 vaccination (available at: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35964615/, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34095871/, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35051292/ and https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34601377/.

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