Stay up to date...

QUESTION ON NOTICE

Question:

89. In the TGA non-clinical report it states “the S protein is synthesised and processed within the ER for surface expression or secretion.” Why is the vaccine stimulating the human body to export the spike protein from the cell – shouldn’t it be sterilising the virus rather than reproducing it? 90. What impact does the secretion of spike proteins have on the endothelium and other sensitive body organs? 91. Has the TGA done any research on the secretion of proteins from the cell as a result of the vaccine? If not, why not? 92. What evidence does the TGA have to prove that proteins secreted from the cells don’t cause clots and damage to body organs? 93. How does the TGA know that the ribosome translates the mRNA code 100% accurately and no mutations occur if no mutagenic studies have been done? 94. Has the TGA done any distribution and degradation studies to determine the potential toxicity of the secreted spike protein. If not, why not?

Answer:

Question Number: 185
PDR Number: SQ22-000555
Date Submitted: 21/11/2022
Department or Body: Department of Health

Question 89 The expressed spike protein in vitro (in HEK293 cells) co-localised with an endoplasmic reticulum (ER) marker, suggesting the S protein is synthesised and processed within the ER for surface expression. This study did not show that the vaccine stimulates the human body to export the spike protein from the cell. The spike protein has a transmembrane anchor region that makes the protein attach to the cell membrane, and hence it is not secreted or released into the blood stream from the cells due to the absence of a signal sequence for secretion (available at: www.pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33117378 and www.pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34400651/). The spike protein in mRNA vaccines is stabilised to prevent the protein from splitting into smaller units and shedding. Put simply, the spike protein is assembled from mRNA and processed by machinery inside a cell. A specific region (transmembrane anchor region) of the spike protein gives a signal to the cells for the spike protein to be transported and attached to the cell membrane. 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 (available at: www.pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34211186). Most importantly, the spike protein is not a pathogen. The spike protein is only one component of the coronavirus. It serves as an antigen to induce immune responses with subsequent minor local inflammatory effects. Also, vaccines do not reproduce viruses.

Question 90 The spike protein synthesised from the vaccine mRNA is not secreted. Vaccines mostly remain near the site of injection, e.g. the arm muscle, and are also distributed to local lymph nodes, liver and spleen. There is no evidence of endothelium damage following vaccination. Nonclinical toxicity studies in animal species with high doses of the vaccine showed no damage to any organs except for inflammation at the injection site.

Question 91 See answer provided to question 90.

Question 92 Nonclinical toxicology studies were conducted with a single dose or repeated doses of the COVID-19 vaccine in its final clinical formulation as administered to patients. These studies, conducted in animals (rodents, ferrets, hamsters, non-human primates) have not shown any adverse effects, including changes in platelets and coagulation parameters (i.e. platelet count/volume/distribution width, prothrombin time, activated partial thromboplastin time or the development of blood clots, following immunisation with COVID-19 vaccines at doses up to 200-times the human dose (vaccine dose per kg body weight). The findings in the animal toxicology studies were consistent with known immune responses, including inflammation at the injection site.

Question 93 There is no evidence of mutation of vaccine mRNA. The presence of vaccine mRNA in the cell is transient, and the vaccine mRNA in the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines is non-replicating. The mRNA is quickly metabolised and eliminated via normal cellular processing mechanisms. The vaccine mRNA is expected to be degraded by multiple pathways (e.g. deadenylation, endonuclease-mediated decay), while the antigen protein undergoes proteolysis as for endogenous proteins. Unprotected mRNA (once released from the lipid nanoparticle carrier) is destroyed within minutes in biological fluids and does not persist in tissues. Therefore, no mutagenic studies were conducted by the vaccine manufacturers, nor did major regulators require these to be done based on this scientific background.

Question 94 There were no distribution or degradation data on the spike antigen-encoding mRNA or expressed spike protein. Following the administration of lipid nanoparticles (LNP) encapsulating mRNA vaccines to mice, the LNPs encapsulating mRNA were mainly located around the injection site with a small amount distributing to other tissues and organs. The mRNA is expected to go to muscle cells and other types of cells at the injection site, where spike protein is synthesised. A whole-body imaging study in mice with a surrogate luciferase expressing mRNA indicated that the mRNA and translated spike protein were mainly localised at the injection site and to a lesser extent in liver, and nearly completely degraded in nine days. Spike protein expression was detected in antigen presenting cells in draining lymph nodes and spleen in mice after injection of the Moderna mRNA vaccine. Thus, the spike protein is expected to be mainly expressed at the local injection site, liver, draining lymph nodes and spleen. The spike protein expressed at distant sites in other organs would be extremely low and short lived (hours to several days). The Infectious Disease Society of America estimated that the spike proteins that were generated by COVID-19 vaccines would last up to a few weeks, like other proteins made by the body (available at: www.idsociety.org/globalassets/idsa/public-health/covid-19/realtime-learning-network-vaccines-faq.pdf, p12). In a recent publication of a small human study, vanishingly low levels (in picograms/mL) of a fragment of the spike protein were detected in plasma of 11 out of 13 human subjects from one day to nine days after the first injection, and the full-length spike protein in three out of 13 subjects from days nine to 29. The disappearance of the fragment and spike proteins was associated with induction of anti-S1 fragment and anti-spike antibodies. After the second vaccine dose, no S1 fragment or full-length spike protein was detected (available at: https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/74/4/715/6279075). There is no scientific evidence indicating that the spike protein created in our bodies from the COVID-19 vaccines is toxic or damaging, and hence no further studies have been requested.

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