Stay up to date...

QUESTION ON NOTICE

Question:

80. In the prior set of estimates Prof Skerrit said that the lipids used in the vaccine are like the lipids you have in a steak for breakfast. This is not the case – as per Pfizers own website they are special ionised lipids designed to cross the cell membrane. Will Prof Skerritt withdraw his prior remark? 81. Lipids are hydrophobic not hydrophilic – by cationising them you have completely changed their characteristics from inactive to active -why did Prof Skerritt mislead the senate when he said the lipids were like the lipids you find in sausages/steak for breakfast? 82. Given these lipids are ionised and therefore an active ingredient what studies have been undertaken to ensure they were not harmful to the human body? 83. What studies were undertaken to ensure that the cationic lipids don’t create reactive oxygen species which can cause irreversible damage to DNA? 84. If the ionic lipids can enter any cells via electroporation or transfection then aren’t they more infectious than the virus which can only enter cells that contain ACE and TMPRRS enzymes that facilitate the virus entering the cell? 85. Can the lipids enter both white and red blood cells? I note that lipids entered both the spleen and bone marrow in the rat studies? 86. Given the lipids are taken up by the ovaries what guarantees can the TGA give that eggs are not being damaged. Obstetricians are reporting that they are seeing clusters of low Anti-Mullerian Hormone (AMH) levels in young women 95. The bone marrow, spleen, and lymph nodes are responsible for producing white blood cells and regulating the while blood cells in the blood and the lymphatic system. Given that lipids can enter these organs and induce an autoimmune response against the cells in these body organs isn’t there a serious risk that the vaccine can induce autoimmune diseases?

Answer:

Question Number: 180
PDR Number: SQ22-000550
Date Submitted: 21/11/2022
Department or Body: Department of Health

Question 80 Lipid nanoparticles (LNPs) in the COVID-19 vaccines consist of four lipids and all four are structurally similar to natural lipids. ALC-0315 and SM-102 are similar in structure and help encapsulate mRNA. ALC-0159 and PEG200-DMG are lipids attached to a polyethylene glycol (PEG) molecule. PEG is commonly used in biological medicines (e.g. pegfilgrastim, a drug stimulating the production of white blood cells). These lipids are similar to natural lipids in our body system or food. Nonclinical and clinical studies demonstrated that the LNPs in the vaccines are safe.

Question 81 See response to Question 80.

Question 82 The Senator’s assertion is incorrect. The lipids in the mRNA vaccines are not active ingredients because they do not have any therapeutic effects. They have not been found to be harmful to the human body in the studies reviewed by the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA). Repeat dose toxicity studies in rats with doses of lipid nanoparticles (LNPs) in the Pfizer vaccine approximately 100 times the human clinical dose, showed no systemic toxicity except for local reactions at the injection site and immune response-related findings. Fertility was unaffected in nonclinical studies in animals receiving Pfizer vaccine doses 100 times the human dose in a reproductive and developmental toxicity study. Similarly, repeat dose toxicity and reproductive toxicity studies in rats with vaccine formulations containing LNP used in the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine or other vaccines containing the same LNPs at LNP doses up to 50 times the human clinical dose showed no systemic toxicity.

Question 83 The DNA of every cell is naturally and continuously damaged by endogenous sources, such as metabolic by-products (e.g. reactive oxygen species). Natural, lesion-specific DNA damage repair mechanisms exist in human bodies to restore DNA integrity. Potential reversible or irreversible DNA damage by exogenous factors like lipids in mRNA COVID vaccines could be assessed from genotoxicity studies. In vitro and in vivo genotoxicity tests of the cationic lipid SM-102 in the Moderna vaccine were negative. Genotoxicity of the cationic lipid, AC-0315 in the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine was not studied. However, the human dose of this lipid from the vaccine is below the internationally-agreed threshold of toxicological concern for substances with less than 10 doses per year. Thus, the chance of genotoxicity or carcinogenicity of this substance is below the natural background level.

Question 84 There is no scientific basis to justify a description of lipids as being “infectious”. The lipids in the LNPs enable the faster delivery of the mRNA into host cells to direct transient expression of S antigen (spike protein) and elicitation of immune responses. The safety of the LNPs was assessed in nonclinical toxicity studies in animals dosed with the LNP formulated mRNA vaccines, which did not indicate any safety concern for the lipid excipients. See also responses to Questions 80 and 82.

Question 85 Nonclinical studies showed that LNP-mRNA constructs are mostly distributed to the site of injection (muscle) and in the draining lymph nodes and spleen, and to a lesser extent, other tissues. This is following an intramuscular injection of the LNP-encapsulated mRNA vaccine, resulting in the transient expression of S-protein. However repeat dose toxicity studies in rats with doses of LNPs in the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines up to 100 times the human clinical dose, showed no systemic toxicity except for local reactions at the injection site and immune response-related findings. There were no adverse effects on red blood cells or white blood cells or on the bone marrow reported in these studies. Increased white blood cell counts in the animal studies reflect the desired immune response to the vaccine.

Question 86 In a biodistribution study in rats with LNP (containing a radiolabelled lipid-marker) encapsulating luciferase mRNA, the lipid-marker was mainly detected in the injection site and liver with low distribution in spleen, adrenal glands and ovaries. It is unclear whether the radioactivity determined in ovaries and other tissues distant to the injection site was the LNP, the lipid maker only or a breakdown product of the LNP. Importantly, the mRNA and LNP dose in the distribution study was considerably higher than the human dose on a µg/kg body weight basis. Therefore, much less LNPs, if any, would be found in ovaries in clinical scenarios. Reproductive toxicity studies in rats with the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine at very high doses showed no effects on fertility or pregnancy. See also response to Question 82. The TGA is not aware of any national or international clinical studies either by sponsors or in reputable scientific journals that suggests mRNA vaccines affect human female ovaries. Question 95 The lipids and vaccine do not induce an autoimmune response. In nonclinical studies where three to doses of the COVID-19 LNP-mRNA vaccines were administered to animals (where each dose was up to 200 times the human dose), there were no findings of autoimmune reactions. See also the response to Question 86. There is no published or sponsor clinical data we know of that confirms a causal link between the development of new autoimmune diseases and mRNA vaccination. Large amounts of post-market surveillance and real-world data continue to confirm that the benefits of COVID-19 vaccination continue to outweigh the known risks.

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