Gerard Rennick (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Tonight I want to talk again about the lack of safety testing that was carried out with the vaccines. I also want to discuss the biochemistry once again because there are a lot more elements that I need to discuss that I didn't get to last time. If you want to look at my last clip you can still see it on my website, but I will recap the finer points of it.

Effectively, this vaccine produces a spike protein. It's unlike a normal vaccine, which produces 28 proteins, and the virus, which has 29 proteins in it. This vaccine only takes one of those proteins. Because of that, it is a much smaller molecule and it can cross via the endothelium into the capillaries and go throughout the bloodstream.

We know this because in the TGA non-clinical report on page 45 is a distribution table of the rats that shows the distribution of the spike protein—sorry, not the spike protein, the lipid nanoparticle—throughout all the organs in the actual rat. I did say 'spike protein', but that's not true, because they never actually tested the spike protein at all. That's like testing a bomb without the actual explosives inside of it. What is the point of testing the vaccine if you didn't put the spike protein in it? No, what they did was use a benign enzyme called luciferase, and they tested that in the rats. Anyway, long story short, it went throughout the whole body, despite the fact that we were told initially that it was only going to stay close to the injection site.

The second point we need to know about—and I'm going to come back to this in a minute—is the fact that they use this process called transfection. What that means is it makes the lipid cationic, and that means it bypasses the ACE receptor and the transmembrane serine protein that is required for the virus to actually enter the cell. Therefore, it is a lot more infectious.

The other thing is that the spike protein that they did deliver is not the same as the spike protein in the virus. The vaccine spike protein replaced uridine with a synthetic molecule that's not found naturally in the human body called methylpseudouridine. Studies showed they used that because they wanted to evade the immune system when the actual lipid nanoparticle was delivered to the cell membrane—step one. It was also shown to have greater self-amplifying properties—in other words, it made more of the protein.

It also had another 70 adenine nucleotides stuck to its polytail, which meant it lasted a lot longer in the body, and it also had two proline insertions—proline is an amino acid—in positions 986 and 987, to give it greater strength and stability. In other words, it's going to take longer to break down in your body than the normal virus.

The other thing we need to touch on is that the studies actually showed that your body delivered an IGG response, which is the antibody that you see that—basically, it's the prime antibody in your blood. The problem with that is that it's a respiratory airborne virus, so it comes down through your mucosal system, and your dominant antibody in your mucosal system is immunoglobulin A. So it's all very well getting an immunoglobulin G response or a T cell response, but that's only one half of the equation.

The other half of the equation is that you need to see that it's actually going to sterilise the antigen. It's like a football team. My son's football team runs off the field and I say, 'How did you go, son?' and he says, 'We scored 10 points.' That's great, but what we need to know is that he actually beat the other side. If the other side got 30 points, it doesn't mean that you won. So you can produce an antibody, but you've got to demonstrate that it actually sterilised the antigen. I touched on that before, and I'll leave it at that.

What I also want to touch on is that some of the press cracked it the last time I spoke about this because I made the mistake of comparing the lipids to sausages and they thought I oversimplified that issue. I should just clarify that wasn't actually my terminology; that was the terminology used by the head of the TGA, Professor Skerritt, to me in estimates. I will quote what he said to me. I asked a question about the lipids. He said:

The dose of the lipids in the vaccine is below the threshold that internationally is assessed for genotoxicity and carcinogenicity.

In other words, and I have said this before, they didn't test it for genotoxicity and, basically, cancer. Now these lipids—this is where Professor Skerritt, head of the TGA, has misled me—are commonly used in a range of other human therapeutics, and even at a higher level there isn't evidence of anything. Let me say this: an absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. You need to demonstrate that there are no ill-effects.

He then goes on to say:

… the lipids are hydrolyzed, destroyed by the body fairly rapidly, as are dietary lipids.

He also said:

And they are distributed through a range of parts of the body, as are lipids that you have if you had a sausage or a steak for breakfast.

Okay? So before you start having a crack at me, Ray Hadley and Alice Workman, just make sure you go and read what was initially said in estimates.

Now the reason why I say Professor Skerritt has misled me on that is that, right here, I have documents from Pfizer that are on their website. These documents talk about how they developed their own raw materials to ensure a steady supply for the COVID vaccine. It goes on to say:

… Melissa French—

who worked for Pfizer—

got the message: Pfizer needed large quantities of something called a cationic lipid that was critical to the COVID-19 vaccine. "This isn't an everyday lipid that's readily available …

Well, well, well, well, well. So we have Pfizer actually admitting on their own website that the lipid that's being used isn't an everyday lipid. So when Professor Skerritt said that it's something that's in your sausage or steak and it has been used in higher levels previously, that is not correct. This article goes on to say how the Pfizer team had to work overtime to actually get this lipid into production and get it manufactured. I find it very concerning that Professor Skerritt would mislead a senator on that in estimates.

We need to talk a little bit further about these cationic charged lipids. They can be toxic; they can disrupt the mitochondrial and cellular respiration that's responsible for consuming oxygen for producing energy. If this activity is disrupted, then the oxygen is not reduced all the way to water, but instead to some intermediaries that are called reactive oxygen species. Okay? Wow. Big term, right? Now, reactive oxygen species are intrinsic to cellular functioning, and are present at low and stationary levels in normal cells. However these can cause irreversible damage to DNA as they oxidise and modify some cellular components and prevent them from performing their original functions. This suggests they have a dual role, and they can be harmful or protective—depending on the balance between their production and disposal at the right time and place.

You have got to ask the question: why wasn't this tested in humans before it was rolled out? There isn't anything new to this. If we go and look at TGA disclosure log 2389, there's a risk management plan that these guys came up with in January 2021. I want to go to table 3. This is from the TGA website, so Facebook fact checkers don't get upset at me for actually quoting Pfizer's own source documents and the TGA's own source documents.

Table 3 is entitled 'A summary of safety concerns in the EU RMP'. The first row says, 'Important identified risks: anaphylaxis.' The second row says, 'Important potential risks: Vaccine-associated enhanced disease.' Right? Lovely, charming. So they actually knew about this. Even though they knew this was a risk, their response to all of this was to say it could lead to adverse responses and it needed to be carefully evaluated once the COVID vaccine rollout commenced. I don't know about you, but if there was a risk of having a vaccine enhanced disease, wouldn't you test it before the rollout commenced?

I will give another brief description:

Vaccine-associated enhanced disease (VAED) occurs when an individual who has received a vaccine, develops a more severe presentation of that disease when subsequently exposed to that virus …

This is a well-known phenomenon with dengue fever. There are four different strands of dengue fever. If you get one strain of dengue fever then your body will basically produce antibodies to that. If you get another strain of dengue fever later on, those initial antibodies will kick in but, because it's a different strain, your immune system won't react the way it should as quickly as it should. That's because the different strain will have a different spike protein. With all of these different mutations going around at the moment, if you keep boosting in, you are basically running the risk of pathogen priming, which is effectively where the viruses that mutate have a greater chance of surviving because your body only has the antibodies to the initial spike protein and not the nucleocapsid. So you should always have antibodies not just to the S protein but to the N protein. If you look at people who have had antibody testing after they had COVID, they have antibodies to both the S protein and the N protein. That is very important.

I will leave it at that because I'm just about to run out of time. It looks like I'll have to come back next week.