Posts

The $5M Vaccine Grant With Zero Accountability

,

I questioned the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) on why taxpayers are funding a new $5 million vaccine-adjuvant research centre when Australians still haven’t been given clear answers about the safety of existing adjuvants.

Their written response to my questions confirmed the project was funded simply because peer reviewers ranked it highly, saying that “there are only seven adjuvants used in license vaccines which limits the choice” and the NHMRC’s Centres of Research Excellence aims to “discover novel adjuvants to improve vaccine development.”

That’s not oversight – that’s the NHMRC waving through millions without addressing the real issues.

I asked directly whether concerns about aluminum-based adjuvants or neurological conditions played any role and they couldn’t give me an answer.

I also confirmed that any new vaccine technology developed with Australian taxpayer money WILL NOT be owned by Australians.

This is simply not good enough.

Taxpayers should not be funding research that lines the pockets of big pharmaceutical companies. Any intellectual property generated through these grants must belong to the taxpayers. Handing over valuable IP to entities to monetise at our expense provides zero return to the taxpayers.

This has to stop!

For a billion-dollar grant body, Australians deserve better than vague justifications and no clear outcomes.

Australians deserve accountability that matches the scale of the spending.

— February | Senate Estimates

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Could I turn to the National Health and Medical Research Council, please. In 2025, the National Health and Medical Research Council funded the Vaccine Adjuvant Discovery and Development Centre of Research Excellence—CRE—led by Professor Katherine Andrews at Griffith University, with $5 million as part of a $72 million CRE package. This grant focuses on discovering new adjuvants to enhance vaccine efficacy, safety and related purposes. First question: Why do we need new adjuvants? What’s wrong with the existing adjuvants?  

Prof. Wesselingh: We assess grants through a peer review process. Through that process, we utilise experts from around Australia to assess all of the grants that come to us—whether it’s for a centre of research excellence, an investigator grant or an ideas grant. The way that CRE would’ve been assessed would’ve been through that peer review process. Through that peer review process, they would’ve been elevated to the top of that scheme and would’ve been funded on the basis of their peers indicating that this was high-quality research that was likely to have a significant impact on health in Australia. We would take that on board; therefore, if they were ranked accordingly, we would fund them.  

Senator ROBERTS: So you don’t know the reasons why their peers elevated it to No. 1?  

Prof. Wesselingh: I would have to go back and look at all of the assessments by those peers. Obviously, I don’t have that directly in front of me at the moment.  

Senator ROBERTS: Could you do that on notice, please? We’d like to know why that research was approved, why we need new adjuvants, and what’s wrong with the existing adjuvants? 

Prof. Wesselingh: I’m very happy to look back at the peer review. But what I can guarantee you is that they would have been regarded as excellent research likely to produce significant impact.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’d like to know what they are.  

Prof. Wesselingh: Sure.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Adjuvants and vaccines are there to enhance the body’s immune response to the antigen. Common adjuvants include aluminium hydroxide, aluminium phosphate, amorphous aluminium hydroxyphosphate sulphate and potassium aluminium sulphate. These have been widely linked to neurological conditions spontaneously occurring after vaccination. Is this program an admission that there might be a level of truth to the link between aluminium in vaccines and autism? I guess you wouldn’t know, because you don’t know the—  

Prof. Wesselingh: So you’re asking us if the fact that we funded the CRE is an admission? We, again, funded the CRE on the basis of the scores that the CRE obtained. Those scores would indicate the quality of the science and the likelihood of obtaining high-quality evidence to improve the health of Australians.  

Senator ROBERTS: Right, and you’re going to find the reason anyway, so perhaps you could check if there is any aspect of truth to the link between aluminium in vaccines and autism as part of the reasons for developing a new adjuvant?  

Prof. Wesselingh: We can certainly look at the arguments that the CRE made and the peer review of that CRE.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. If research is successful and you find an effective adjuvant that is not neurotoxic, who will own the intellectual property the taxpayers just funded?  

Prof. Wesselingh: The way our granting system works is that the intellectual property developed by—the people who get the grants from us, which are normally medical research institutes or universities or members of those organisations, own the intellectual property. So the intellectual property would be assigned according to a university’s intellectual property rules or a medical research institute’s rules. I’m not sure, with that CRE, where they were.  

Senator ROBERTS: A $5 million synergy grant was awarded in 2024 to a multi-institutional team, including Monash University, to optimise vaccines for respiratory viruses, like influenza and RSV. This includes evaluating safety profiles to improve protection while minimising risks. If that develops new technology which achieves that objective, who will own that IP?  

Prof. Wesselingh: Again, the IP would be organised according to the rules developed by the organisations as part of that synergy grant. Synergy grants tend to have a number of organisations from around Australia, so I imagine there are multiple universities and MRIs involved in that synergy grant, and they will have developed an IP policy and the IP will be owned according to that policy.  

Senator ROBERTS: But not by the Australian government?  

Prof. Wesselingh: Not by NHMRC or by the government.  

Senator ROBERTS: We’re very concerned about the level of spending in this government. Professor Bette Liu from the National Centre for Immunisation Research and Surveillance received a $2.79 million investigator grant in 2024 to study adult vaccination programs. This explicitly includes assessing vaccine safety, identifying risks in high-risk groups and informing safer program designs. What was the outcome of that grant?  

Prof. Wesselingh: Again, if I knew the outcomes of all of the grants that I fund—we fund a billion dollars worth of grants every year—I think I’d be pretty good. I can’t tell you the outcome of that grant, but we can take that on notice.  

Senator ROBERTS: But you still think you’re pretty good?  

Prof. Wesselingh: Do I think I’m personally pretty good or the NHMRC is very good?  

Senator ROBERTS: Both! Okay, thank you very much. 

/0 Comments/by

The TGA’s Rubber Stamp

,

I asked the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) about the way they test the vaccines they market as “safe and effective” and mandate for children. I already knew the answer – I was just trying to get a clear statement so the public could understand just how much of a farce the “testing” process truly is.

The representatives danced around the questions, trying to be as confusing as possible.

The TGA does not actually test vaccines. Instead, they rely on safety and efficacy data provided by the manufacturer. This data is based on the company’s own testing of its own product. If the manufacturer (drug company) says it’s safe, the TGA gives it a stamp of approval.

Furthermore, we know that drug companies are not using the correct process for testing new vaccines or drugs. The standard should be to test the new product against an inert saline placebo. Instead, they use an existing vaccine or drug as the control.

This means our vaccines have been tested against products already known to have side effects – and approved as long as the side effects of the new drug are no worse than those of the old one. This is criminal behaviour.

Peer-reviewed papers have shown that the testing on the COVID-19 vaccines was fraudulent. It’s not good enough for the TGA to claim they review documentation carefully; the Pfizer testing scandal proves they do nothing of the sort.

— Senate Estimates | February 2026

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you.  Question on notice 3215, I asked about a report from the American Food and Drug Administration’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, which stated perfectly clearly that there were 10 paediatric deaths were linked to the COVID jabs. I asked if you had supporting data in Australia. Your reply referenced reported paediatric deaths after COVID jabs and found:  

… causality has not been established for those in children.  

How hard did you look? Were there autopsies, an independent medical board reviewing the medical file for each, deciding that, no, the jab did not cause the death? What was the process you engaged?  

Prof. Lawler: Thanks for that question. I will ask Dr Dascombe to comment on the process that we’ve explained previously around our pharmacovigilance that is designed and delivers on our analysis of adverse events, including deaths that occurred temporally following vaccination. I would just highlight as well that, as previously stated regarding the identified paediatric deaths following vaccines, I mentioned that we’d not been provided with information regarding those deaths. I believe that still to be the case. The claim that there had been these deaths that had been causally linked to vaccination has not, to my knowledge, been substantiated. But, again, if that is not the case, I’d be very prepared to correct the record. Dr Dascombe can comment on the work that we undertake to respond to reported adverse events.  

Dr Dascombe: Every death that’s reported to the TGA following any vaccination is reviewed to determine whether a regulatory response is necessary based on the weight of available evidence. It’s important to note the TGA does not determine causes of death. This is determined by coroners and treating doctors, as we’ve explained before, and the TGA has no role in overruling causes of death that are included on a person’s death certificate. The causality assessment that’s done by the TGA is primarily concerned with the relationship between the vaccine and the adverse event, rather than the outcome itself, and it’s undertaken as a regulatory process with the intention of appraising risk-benefit balance at a population level for that specific vaccine under Australia’s regulatory framework.  

Senator ROBERTS: Do you do autopsies?  

Dr Dascombe: As I just said, the TGA has no role in the determination of cause of death for individuals.  

Senator ROBERTS: That was my understanding too. In 2026, the United States’ Department of Health and Human Services removed rotavirus, COVID-19, influenza, meningococcal disease, hepatitis A and hepatitis B from the schedule. Australia still requires rotavirus, hepatitis-B and meningococcal ACWY. Is the United States’ FDA wrong, or are you wrong on the risk-benefit of those vaccines?  

Dr Peatt: I can’t comment on the US, but, as outlined by my colleagues Professor Lawler and Associate Professor Katherine Gibney, the four vaccines to be made available on the National Immunisation Program requires a very high bar. It includes TGA assessment of the safety and efficacy of the vaccine but also undergoes ATAGI assessment for the clinical effectiveness. It then goes through Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee assessment and then needs to be approved by government for funding. There’s also ongoing monitoring by ATAGI and TGA, who constantly assess whether those vaccines are appropriate for the Australian community.  

Prof. Lawler: If I may very quickly add—I think it’s really important to note that one of the great strengths of Australia’s regulatory system and, indeed, of ATAGI is that we do make decisions based upon the nature of disease patterns in Australia. Every country will take its own approach to immunisation schedules. They rely on the evidence and rely on the demography and the epidemiology in their own areas. If we were simply to make decisions based upon what other regulators say, then I can almost guarantee that I’d be back at the next estimates answering questions around why we weren’t making our own sovereign decisions. So I think it’s important to note that the vaccination schedule is appropriate to the Australian context because of the evidence upon which it relies.  

/2 Comments/by

Are Aluminium Adjuvants in Vaccines Linked to Autism?

,

Aluminium adjuvants (preservatives) in vaccines are commonly blamed, at least in part, for the increase in autism. Recent work has been done that confirms this theory, so I asked the TGA about the subject. Research on aluminium was conducted on aluminium salts, but the jabs use a quite different type of aluminium which has not been safety tested. This is my exact question:

“A study published in September took biopsies from the brains of older children diagnosed with autism and found their brains contained significantly elevated levels of aluminium, especially aluminium hydroxide and aluminium phosphate, which are present in the hexa jabs. Has the health testing on aluminium build-up in our children’s bodies been done using water-soluble aluminium salts, which are not used in vaccine products, or has this research been done using the actual aluminium used in vaccine products, aluminium hydroxide and aluminium phosphate?”

This question was straightforward and simply put: have you tested the right type of aluminium for safety? The TGA feigned not understanding the question to avoid answering it. When pressed, they took the question on notice and then refused to provide further information, with Minister Gallagher covering for her bureaucrats. This is unbecoming for a senior bureaucrat and for the Minister.

Australians want an answer to this, and I will keep at the subject until I get one. The fact they are hiding from the question suggests the answer is as recent science is showing – aluminium preservatives in vaccines are causing autism in some children.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: My third and final set of questions is about aluminium adjuvants. Again, constituents are raising this. A study published in September took biopsies from the brains of older children diagnosed with
autism and found their brains contained significantly elevated levels of aluminium, especially aluminium hydroxide and aluminium phosphate, which are present in the hexa jabs. Has the health testing on aluminium
build-up in our children’s bodies been done using water-soluble aluminium salts, which are not used in vaccine products, or has this research been done using the actual aluminium used in vaccine products, aluminium
hydroxide and aluminium phosphate?

Prof. Lawler: Sorry; did you reference research? There was a question there about whether research has been done?

Senator ROBERTS: Has the research been done on babies’ brains using the aluminium found in vaccine products, aluminium hydroxide and aluminium phosphate, or has it been done using water-soluble aluminium
salts?

Prof. Lawler: Sorry; I’m just trying to be clear. Is the research that you’re asking me about the research that you cited?

Senator ROBERTS: No, I haven’t cited anything. To your knowledge, has the health testing on aluminium build-up in our children’s bodies been done using water-soluble aluminium salts, which are not used in vaccine
products, or has the research been done using the actual aluminium found in vaccine products, aluminium hydroxide and aluminium phosphate Prof. Lawler: I’m sorry; I don’t know the research that you’re specifically referring to.

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. I’ll send you some papers. Is the type of aluminium in vaccine products bioresistant? Does it ever leave the bodies of our children?

Prof. Lawler: Again, there are a number of very specific and very technical questions that you’re asking us. For the purposes of answering them, as I’ve previously indicated, we’re very happy to take these questions—

Senator ROBERTS: That’s fine. I’ve got nothing against taking them on notice.

Prof. Lawler: Okay. I would like to provide you with as fulsome a response as possible.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Are repeated doses of low concentrations of aluminium adjuvant in a vaccine product more harmful than a single large dose? A related question: how many vaccine products
containing aluminium hydroxide and aluminium phosphate has the TGA authorised for administration to children? You’ll have to take that on notice.

Prof. Lawler: I certainly will have to take that on notice.

Senator ROBERTS: I only had a concern about the one I objected to. I have no concern about the rest at all. I appreciate that it’s a better answer. Individual vaccine products have been safety tested. Has any safety testing been done on multiple, concurrent administration of vaccine products to babies under six months, with special attention to multiple administration of low dose aluminium adjuvants?

Prof. Lawler: Professor Langham can add to this response. There has been not only significant research undertaken with respect to the administration of vaccines but there is significant real-world evidence over decades on the safety of the administration of the vaccines that we approve.

Prof. Langham: I have nothing further to add on that. As you’re aware, we have a number of avenues whereby safety signals from all registered products in Australia are overseen from a pharmacovigilance
perspective, as Dr Larter has already mentioned. We work closely with other global regulators and also with other research that’s published. As Professor Lawler has said, with the vast body of information that exists about these vaccines and their use in children, there have been no signals.

Senator ROBERTS: So you can’t answer the question as to whether or not—

Prof. Langham: I think I did answer the question.

Senator Gallagher: Yes. I think that’s definitely an answer.

Senator ROBERTS: I’ll ask it again. Has any safety testing been done on multiple concurrent administration of vaccine products to babies under six months, with special attention to multiple administration of low-dose
aluminium adjuvants? Can you tell me if multiple injections have a different effect from one or two injections?

Prof. Langham: The evidence that exists from a safety perspective is not only the clinical trial data that we receive upon registration but also the ongoing evidence from a real-world perspective of the use of these vaccines in those multiple dose formulations in many millions of children around the world.

Prof. Lawler: For many years.

Senator ROBERTS: I have a last question. Are aluminium adjuvants causing the spectrum of neurological conditions that are commonly called autism?

Prof. Lawler: I’m not aware of any accepted evidence that that is the case.

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, you may sigh—

Senator Gallagher: Do you know why I sigh, Senator Roberts? It’s because I have a child with autism, and I have vaccinated children, and I find it offensive.

Senator ROBERTS: Well, I find it offensive to not respond to a constituent, and I’m responding to constituents. That’s my job. They pay me.

Senator Gallagher: Well, I’ve had enough.

Senator ROBERTS: Professor Lawler, have you heard of these papers? I think this will be my last question, Chair.

CHAIR: Yes, it will be.

Senator ROBERTS: I’ve mentioned one by Dr Karla Lehmann from 2024 titled ‘Suspected Causes of the Specific Intolerance Profile of Spike-Based Covid-19 Vaccines’ in the European Society of Medicine. There’s one
from 2022 by El-Arif G et al called ‘Angiotensin II Type I Receptor (AT1R): The Gate towards COVID-19 – Associated Diseases’ published in Molecules. In 2023 Fajloun and Sabatier published ‘The Unsuspected Role of the Renin-Angiotensin System (RAS): Could its Dysregulation be at the Root of All Non-Genetic Human Diseases?’ in Bentham Science. In 2023 Parry, P et al wrote, ‘”Spikeopathy”: COVID-19 Spike Protein Is
Pathogenic, from Both Virus and Vaccine mRNA’ in Biomedicines (Journal). The last one is from Pelumbo, Avila and Naftolin in 2016 called ‘The Ovarian Renin-Angiotensin System (OVRAS): A Major Factor in Ovarian Function and Disease’ in PubMed by the National Institute of Health, the National Library of Medicine USA.

Prof. Lawler: I’d be very happy to receive those studies—I’ll speak on behalf of Professor Langham if she doesn’t mind. I would say that there is a very well established understanding of the importance of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system in a number of various elements of regulation of human function. I think it is well recognised that they are impacted by the COVID disease itself.

Senator ROBERTS: What part of the COVID disease?

Prof. Lawler: It will be very useful for us to review those articles so that we can be sure that they are reflective of the impact of COVID not, as suggested, an impact of the vaccine.

Senator ROBERTS: Good. Thank you very much. Would you like the references sent as paper copies, as attachments or by links?

Prof. Lawler: At your pleasure.

Senator Gallagher: Carrier pigeon.

Senator ROBERTS: Chair, I’ll be putting forward a number of questions on notice on the spike protein.

/17 Comments/by