The TGA lies are easily exposed.
“Someone from the Health Department emailed someone else in the Health Department “Foreign DNA can integrate with Chromosomal DNA in the absence of integrase, an enzyme in mammal cells.””
••••••••••••••••••••••••••
The lies and deflections by the TGA are numerous in this line of questioning.
The mRNA vaccine may have been researched for decades but it was the first drug to have ever used a lipid to carry the active ingredient- mRNA – across the cell membrane.
To claim that the impacts of the drug were well understood and tested is just plain false, especially in regard to cancer.
After playing down the cancer risks of the mRNA vaccine acknowledged by one of their own staff, they then try to gaslight the fact that the makers of the mRNA vaccine, Moderna, even acknowledge there are cancer risks to the vaccine.
Finally they don’t answer my question as to why they didn’t do any carcinogenic testing on the vaccine.
Testing for the presence of DNA is not the same as testing for cancer. To claim that they tested that DNA was below the “acceptable standards” means nothing.
Just because I’m driving below 60kms an hour doesn’t guarantee I can’t have an accident or am driving safely.
The TGA are guilty of negligence in the rollout of the vaccine – plain and simple. They are continuing their negligence by denying the risks of the vaccine and the health impacts it is having on people.
Community Affairs Legislation Committee
26/02/2025
Estimates
HEALTH AND AGED CARE PORTFOLIO
Department of Health and Aged Care
Senator RENNICK: My next question is regarding FOI 25058 that came out last year.
Prof. Lawler : If you could provide us with a bit more information on that, we can provide the right person at the table to respond to the questions you might have.
Senator RENNICK: Sure. It was regarding correspondence, I guess. I’ve only got page 178. Let me just read out what page 178 of the FOI said. This was an email that was sent from someone, presumably, to an health.gov.au address, and it was from someone with a health.gov.au address. So someone within the health department emailed someone else in the health department. They said:
… with regard to the integration issue, foreign DNA can integrate into chromosomal DNA in the absence of an integrase—
an enzyme—
in mammalian cells. This comes from the DNA damage/repair literature where breaks in DNA are repaired through processes called non-homologous end joining or homologous recombination. Exogenous DNA can potentially be incorporated using these processes.
Prof. Lawler : Thank you for clarifying that. We’re familiar with that account of an internal discussion between scientists. I think Dr Kerr is in a position to comment.
Dr Kerr : I’ll just build on what Professor Lawler said. We have robust internal discussions around issues that are brought up with us. Indeed, we recognise that there is the possibility, but what is left out of the social media focus around that particular FOI is that there is also a comment in that document that says that, for integration of the DNA to occur, then there would need to be a series of highly improbable events. Now that we’ve had 50 years of experience with biotechnology products and over 13 billion doses of the mRNA products, there is not a single report that that has actually ever happened in real life.
Prof. Lawler : To underpin that, one of the claims frequently levelled against the TGA is that there’s a groupthink ideology or that we go along blindly. I think one of the strengths of the TGA that I’ve witnessed since I started midway through 2023 is that there is robust scientific debate and that views are not censored or quashed. In fact, I think the Australian public would expect us to be having those conversations. And it is challenging, I think, to respond to a single view from a single correspondent taking it out of context when it was actually in the context of a much broader conversation as well.
Dr Kerr : Can I just add that the final consensus view appeared in our media statement on 18 October. That is the final view after all of the internal scientists had their discussion.
Senator RENNICK: I’ll then go to the patent that Moderna used and issued. The number is US20190240317, but I’ll read it out to you because I know you haven’t got it in front of you. It says:
The direct injection of genetically engineered DNA (e.g., naked plasmid DNA) into a living host results in a small number of its cells directly producing an antigen, resulting in a protective immunological response. With this technique, however, comes potential problems, including the possibility of insertional mutagenesis, which could lead to the activation of oncogenes or the inhibition of tumor suppressor genes.
So, in other words, they’re saying that the use of naked plasmid DNA can potentially lead to cancer. So that particular email is not a one-off view. The makers of Moderna, the producers of them, actually admit that there is a risk that cancer can occur from this. So what do you have to say to that?
Dr Kerr : What I would like to say to that is that we have answered that question at least 18 times before. I’ll just read out all of the previous answers. We’ve answered that in SQ23-001075, SQ23-001111, SQ23-002047, SQ23-002048, SQ23-002050, SQ23-002051, SQ23-002089—
Senator RENNICK: You don’t have to—I just would like to know what you have to say to that. You can just verbally state it here.
Dr Kerr : Moderna and global regulators recognise that naked DNA in high concentrations does present a potential risk, a theoretical risk. These conversations have been held with regulators since at least the 1990s. There is a very solid framework for regulators and pharmaceutical companies around minimising that risk. That includes digesting the plasmids so there isn’t full plasmids in any product, and after the plasmids are digested or broken up they are then filtered out. I’ll also add that the Moderna product doesn’t have any oncogenes in it and that their product has well within the global regulatory limit of residual DNA. I’ll just reiterate that there have been 50 years of experience of residual DNA in biotechnology products and 13 billion doses, which means 13 billion opportunities for this to happen in real life, and there isn’t a single report.
Senator RENNICK: I’ll then go to the next thing. So, despite that obviously there are acknowledged potential risks here, both from Moderna, the maker of—
Dr Kerr : They’re theoretical and they’re very small.
Senator RENNICK: I’ve heard you out, please. There’s an email here that indicates there’s also a risk. Given these risks were known at the time, why wasn’t carcinogenic testing actually performed before the rollout of the vaccines?
Prof. Lawler : To clarify, Senator, when you say there’s an email that indicates that there’s risk, is that an email—
Senator RENNICK: That’s the one I read out to you before.
Prof. Lawler : I think that we actually addressed that that was a process of internal conversation. That was not the declaration or confirmation of a validated risk.
Senator RENNICK: Well, it seems to suggest it.
Dr Kerr : Residual DNA is evaluated before the products are approved. That is actually part of the evaluation process.
Senator RENNICK: But you say this technology has been around for 50 years. This is the first time that the DNA was put inside lipids to go inside a cell. That’s never happened before. There was lots of testing, I acknowledge, but it had not actually been rolled out in real life.
Dr Kerr : There are well-characterised systems within the cell to break down exogenous DNA. They’re well categorised and well known.
Senator RENNICK: Back to the question, given the potential risks that were identified by Moderna, this conversation seems to suggest that exogenous DNA can potentially be incorporated using these processes, or you can have homologous recombinations—that is, the DNA inserted into the body’s cells via the vaccine can recombine with existing DNA. This is what’s acknowledged here as a risk. Why wasn’t carcinogenic testing done, given the potential risks involved with the vaccine?
Prof. Lawler : Just before Dr Kerr comments on that, I think I need to be really clear around this, Senator. You are drawing a line of evidence that is taking you to a conclusion, I think, that you’re asking to us refute or confirm. You are, for that purpose, relying on a single email within a long chain of conversation, which was a conversation between scientists, which is clarified within the broader context of that email that this requires a series of significantly improbable steps, and the result of that conversation was a consensus that this is not something that’s happened.
We have a long series of processes which leads to our determination of the safety of these vaccines. One includes, as Dr Kerr has highlighted, the fact that you keep talking about the incorporation of naked DNA. We’re talking about the introduction of lipid based mRNA. We have processes of manufacture that cleave and remove that DNA. We go through a process of testing against globally recognised and accepted standards, and the batches have met that. And we go through a process of intensive pharmacovigilance. As I’ve mentioned previously and I suspect will mention a number of times again tonight, the COVID vaccines have been the most scrutinised medicines rolled out in Australian history. And, as Dr Kerr has mentioned, regardless of the delivery mechanism, over 50 years of biotechnology using these technologies, we have not seen integration into human DNA. On that basis, I’ll ask you to add to the response.
Dr Kerr : I think I can’t add to that response. That covered it.
