Dissenting report from Senator Rennick

Dissenting report from Senator Rennick

1.1Thank you for the committee’s report on the PGPA Amendment (Vaccine Indemnity) Bill 2023. On behalf of my Covid-19 vaccine injured constituents who made submissions to the Senate Inquiry, I was pleased to read that the committee acknowledged the inequities in the current federal Government vaccine injury claim scheme and will consider a National no-fault vaccine injury compensation scheme as per the following.

1.2“Recommendation 1

2.108 The committee recommends that the Australian government review the COVID-19 Vaccine Claims Scheme and consider the merits of a National no-fault vaccine injury compensation scheme as part of the National Immunisation Strategy.”

1.3However, I was not so pleased about Recommendation 2

2.109 The committee recommends that the Senate not pass the bill.”

and I would like to make the following comments for your consideration.

1.4Disappointingly, the report in its entirety failed to mention the novelty of the Covid-19 mRNA (messenger or modified ribonucleic acid) -Lipid Nanoparticle (LNP) technology utilised in the Pfizer’s COMIRNATYTM product. The Department of Health (DoH), Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) and other taxpayer funded bureaucracies bandy the term ‘vaccine’ deliberately to blindside the Committee when knowing full well the mRNA-LNP technology is NOT the same as the traditional, tried and tested vaccines. This is important information and the basis of the majority of the submissions who supported the amendment.

1.5Under the heading, ‘Policy rationale and history of indemnities granted to vaccine manufacturers 1.34’ the DoH argue their case for Vaccine Indemnity “The limited instances in which indemnities have been granted to vaccine manufacturers have been in relation to Covid-19, monkeypox, smallpox and pandemic influenza H1N1 (Swine flu) and H5N1 (Bird Flu) strains”.

1.6In this statement, the DoH have failed to distinguish between the novel Covid-19 mRNA-LNP delivery systems and the other four traditional types of vaccines mentioned. The traditional vaccines consist of attenuated (weakened) live or killed viruses and have been around for centuries. These traditional tried and tested type of vaccines are antigens triggering an antibody response whereas the mRNA-LNP along with the AstraZeneca Viral vector products contain the mRNA genetic code to tell the human body to manufacture the spike protein (antigen) intracellularly to trigger an immune response.

1.7Although, the mRNA gene technology has been around for decades, it has failed to enter the market because of the lack of safety clinical data. It was the response to the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic that the mRNA-LNP technology first entered the global market. The consequences of approving and mandating the rollout of novel technologies have been heard by the Committee from the Covid-19 vaccine injured submissions.

1.8Furthermore, many Australians and global constituents have questioned the rollout of the novel mRNA-LNP technology rather than the isolation of the SARS-CoV-2 virus and developing a traditional, tried and tested type of vaccine. If this had been the case, the policy rationale 1.34 put forward by the DoH may have been a valid argument against the amendment. However, they have failed to reveal this fact to the Committee who may have made recommendations for the amendment.

1.9In conclusion, I urge that the committee report include the differences between the tried and tested traditional vaccines and the novelty of the mRNA-LNP vaccines. The Committee could then reconsider recommending that the Senate pass the bill.

1.10Under the heading, ‘Effects of indemnification on access to compensation for vaccine related injuries through the COVID-19 Vaccine Claims Scheme’, point 2.63:

“This perception was challenged by the department of Health and Aged Care who submitted that, unlike in other jurisdictions which have legislated no-fault-compensation schemes such as the United Sates of America and New Zealand, Commonwealth indemnification does not preclude vaccine injured citizens from taking direct legal action against vaccine manufacturers”.

1.11Unbelievably, the underlined statement is the height of arrogance and lacks empathy from the Department of Health towards the Covid-19 vaccine injured constituents of Australia. Any Australian citizen would surmise that the remit of the federal Department of Health is to protect us from harmful pharmaceutical products. Why the Department of Health was so hell bent on signing off confidential indemnity agreements rather than protecting the health of its citizens contravenes its jurisdiction and brushing off the vaccine injured citizens telling them they can take direct legal action against Covid-19 manufacturers is just mean and unsupportive. Does the Department of Health not understand that the many vaccine-injured Australian citizens are financially bereft and the possibility of them taking the wealthy, powerful and indemnified Covid-19 manufacturers to court is a fanciful notion? How has the federal Department of Health allowed itself to be gagged and not release the contract details of the Covid-19 manufacturers’ vaccine indemnity to the point that it refuses to support the citizens that it serves?

1.12Regarding the comments in paragraph 2.10 there is never any justification for not performing safety and efficacy testing. The claims made by the TGA and health experts that adequate testing was performed on the Covid vaccine is false. The claims made by the TGA on page 31 of the Product Assessment Report that the safety concerns are considered acceptable is false. It is straight out negligence by the TGA to waive away these concerns, when there is no liability placed on the pharmaceutical company.

Table: Summary of safety concerns

1.13Furthermore, the argument that there was a public health emergency is overblown. Covid-19 was of little risk to healthy people of working age population. There was no justification to roll out a novel vaccine that had next to no testing, especially longitudinal on people that had very little risk from Covid.

1.14It should also be noted that both the mRNA encoding spike protein and the novel lipids used in the vaccine were never tested in animals before the rollout to humans. The manufacturing process was also changed after human trials that introduced plasmid DNA’s into the manufacturing process. Plasmids can be toxic to the human body, yet this risk was completely ignored. (Refer Pfizer non-clinical report).

1.15Furthermore, there were no studies performed on the impact to the immune system of repeated booster shots. Immune imprinting is a well know phenomenon that has been completely ignored by the medical authorities.

1.16Regarding the comments in paragraph 2.21, the Covid-19 vaccine provided no herd immunity, so the claim that the vaccine achieved population immunity is wrong.

1.17Regarding the comments in paragraph 2.27, the Covid-19 vaccine bypassed numerous tests (see table above) and was rolled out before adequate testing was completed. The claim that the vaccine meet high safety and efficacy standards are wrong. It is well known that the vaccine was rolled out quickly in haste and that the claims of 95% efficacy made early in the rollout were proven to be completely false.

1.18Regarding the comments in paragraph 2.29, the “expert groups” gave incorrect advice, changed advice regularly, exaggerated claims, ignored risks and failed to disclose conflicts of interests with pharmaceutical companies. Just one example is that the fact that Professor Skerrit, the head of the TGA claimed in Senate estimates that the lipids used in the vaccine were the same as the lipids in the steak or sausages you eat for breakfast. This statement was either deliberately or negligently misleading as two of the lipids were completely novel to the human body, and one had a positive charge attracting it to the negatively charged phosphate groups in the phospholipid layer of the cell membrane.

1.19Regarding the comments in paragraph 2.31, the TGA’s own Product Assessment Report stated on page 7 and I quote:

“Comirnaty (BNT162b2 (mRNA)) COVID-19 vaccine has provisional approval for the indication below: Active immunisation to prevent coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by SARS-CoV-2, in individuals 16 years of age and older.”

1.20The TGA’s claim that the vaccine was not never intended to prevent transmission is a blatant lie. By preventing Covid, the virus cannot be passed on. This is just one of the many lies told by TGA executives to cover for Pfizer and demonstrates why the agency needs to be overhauled. In particular, the role of testing the safety and efficacy of the vaccine must be separated from the role of reviewing vaccine injuries.

1.21Regarding the comments in paragraph 2.33, it’s not a question of whether there are a small number of adverse reactions, it’s a question of risk reward. There were only a small number of healthy people that got seriously ill from Covid. The downside risk of being injured by the vaccine for people who had strong immune systems was much worse than Covid.

1.22Regarding the comments in paragraph 2.35, the Ausvax safety data revealed that after day 3, 44.1% of over 6 million respondents reported at least 1 adverse event from the Covid-19 vaccines, and 0.9% went to their GP or Emergency. This is an incredibly high rate of injury for a virus not much worse than influenza. People don’t go to see their GP or Emergency for minor and short-lived symptoms. The gaslighting by Health Authorities as to the seriousness of the side effects of the Covid-19 is another example of gaslighting to cover their negligence.

1.23Regarding the comments in paragraph 2.40, of the thousands of people that have contacted my office, not one of them was ever told how to lodge a vaccine injury report with the TGA by the heath professional who administered the vaccine. The claim that the TGA encourages reporting of vaccine injuries is another blatant lie that is not backed up in practice.

1.24As per paragraph 2.61 the low number of claims processed and paid out by Services Australia is disgraceful and more evidence of the Federal government gaslighting vaccine injuries in order to hide their lies and negligence.

1.25As per paragraph 2.86, where there is risk there must by choice. This was never granted to people who were forced to choose between their jobs and getting the vaccine.

1.26As per paragraph 2.93, the claims that indemnification or expeditated time frames did not reduce the safety of the vaccines are clearly wrong. The identification of myocarditis as a side effect of the vaccine after the rollout is just one example of how vaccine testing was clearly rushed.

1.27In conclusion, I urge the Committee to request the individual indemnity agreements between the Department of Health and the Covid-19 vaccine manufacturers are obtained, so that the Committee can determine where the accountability for the Covid-19 vaccine injuries lie behind the veil of vaccine indemnity. If the Committee had full access to this information, they may find amongst other things, that the novelty of the Covid-19 vaccines is bereft of safety data, that the sale of Covid-19 vaccines and additional pipeline products is manipulative and coercive and subject to the condition of vaccine indemnity. With full access to this information the Committee could then reconsider recommending that the Senate pass the bill.

Recommendation 1

1.28The role of testing the safety and efficacy of the vaccine must be separated from the role of reviewing vaccine injuries. Both roles should not sit within the TGA.

Recommendation 2

1.29That the TGA is funded out of General Revenue and fees paid by Drug and Medical Equipment sponsors be paid directly to Treasury.

Senator Gerard Rennick

Liberal National Party

Senator for Queensland