Posts

Bringing Choice Back to Family Assistance

,

One Nation fully supports the bill introduced by Senators Babet and Antic – A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Amendment (No Jab No Pay Repeal) Bill 2025 – which seeks to restore the conscientious-objection clause to federal family assistance laws.

This bill enables parents with unvaccinated children to access the childcare subsidy and Family Tax Benefit Part A without facing financial penalties, applicable up to age seven after which the child is deemed to meet the schedule irrespective of vaccination status. Under this amendment, parents would be able to file a written declaration of conscientious objection, alongside a consultation with an immunisation provider regarding risks and benefits, to legally satisfy childhood immunisation requirements.

Australian childhood vaccination rates are at a 12-year low, dropping below the federal government’s 95% target. This drop in vaccination rates is no coincidence and can be attributed to public distrust following government actions and mandates during COVID-19.

Medical coercion violates patient autonomy and the ethical guidelines of the Australian Immunisation Handbook, which mandates voluntary informed consent.

There are disparities in state-level “no jab, no play” childcare bans so vaccination status should have no bearing on child care, relevant subsidies and the ability to claim Family Tax Benefit A. Besides, we let in millions of people into Australia without knowing their vaccination status. India and China have vaccination rates higher that we do, however Pakistan is down to 80% and Yemen is at 50%.

Further, safety testing of childhood vaccines against inert placebos have NEVER been tested, a requirement of the ICH Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6, which the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) ratified. High levels of adverse events such as autism that parents associate with the vaccines, are brushed off by the authorities, with no examination, and no interest in exploring truth. A One Nation government believe this is a matter in the public interest and will require this safety testing to be funded given the significance of the exercise.

Transcript

Senator Roberts: Thank you to Senators Babet and Antic for this bill, A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Amendment (No Jab No Pay Repeal) Bill 2025, which One Nation wholeheartedly supports. The bill simply provides for the conscientious-objection clause to be restored to the A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Act 1999, which will allow children who are not fully immunised to access social security. 

Specifically, this will allow families whose children may not be vaccinated to access the childcare subsidy and the family tax benefit part A supplement without facing financial penalties. Under this amendment, if a parent files a written declaration of a conscientious objection and an immunisation provider certifies they have discussed the risks and benefits, the child is legally deemed to have met the immunisation requirements. This provision only applies to age seven, after which the child is deemed to meet the schedule irrespective of vaccination status. 

This bill is sensible. It’s fair. It restores the fundamental principle that parents make decisions for their children—not governments. Childhood vaccination rates in Australia are currently at a 12-year low, dropping below the federal government’s target of 95 per cent. Vaccination rates at 12 months are 90.5 per cent, down 4.3 per cent over the last five years. At 24 months, the rate is 88.4 per cent, and, at 60 months, the rate is 92.5 per cent. According to the latest data from the National Centre for Immunisation Research and Surveillance, approximately 80,000 children under the age of five are not fully up to date with their standard childhood immunisations. 

The timing of this fall is no coincidence. Immunisation was a major casualty of Australia’s criminal response to the COVID scandal. It turns out that, when you force vaccination on people and destroy the careers, businesses and, in some cases, marriages of those who refuse, many people do not react with acquiescence. They react with understandable suspicion, distrust, resentment and anger. They saw the harm people were experiencing from the COVID injections, they look at the harm some childhood vaccines are causing, and they ask, ‘What else have our authorities lied to us about?’ 

The reduction in support for vaccination takes two forms. Firstly, parents are increasingly choosing not to give some or all of the schedule to their child. Secondly, parents are delaying the shots until their baby is older. For instance, in 2025, two in five children received their first measles, mumps and rubella, or MMR, dose later than recommended. That’s 40 per cent. 

When looking at vaccination rates across Australia, national averages can be highly misleading. The national average sits at around 91 per cent, although this does not mean every area is vaccinated to that level. There are growing regional differences. The drop in vaccination rates is not happening evenly across the country. 

The National Centre for Immunisation Research and Surveillance map data from the Australian Immunisation Register onto a standard unit called an SA3, statistical area level 3. This is important when comparing vaccination rates in one area against those in another. Five years ago, more than half of all SA3, statistical area level 3, areas had reached or exceeded the 95 per cent target. Today, the number of SA3 areas meeting that target has plummeted to just 18 per cent—less than one in five. This shows that the fall in confidence in vaccination is happening right across the country. 

It can be argued that these SA3 areas with vaccination rates below 95 per cent no longer have herd immunity. Herd immunity has come under scrutiny following the failure of the COVID vaccines, the COVID injections, the COVID gene therapy treatments, to effect herd immunity, despite the level of coercion which went into achieving very high vaccination rates So far, this healthy scientific re-examination has shown measles, mumps, polio and rubella vaccines can achieve herd immunity because their outer shell is stable over time. 

Many countries, including the United States, have found the level of preservatives in the MMR vaccine is too high for safety and require those shots to be given separately and spaced out. One Nation supports that position. Viruses like COVID and influenza mutate rapidly and, as society proved with COVID, do not allow for herd immunity. This was conventional science before our COVID response tore up the rule book and threw out the science. Surprisingly, the areas of lowest vaccination are not in rural and regional areas. They are in growth corridors and inner-city areas. That’s interesting. Conservatives are frequently blamed for lower vaccination rates, yet where are the lowest rates? They’re in inner city left-leaning electorates. Vaccination rates in the bush, though, can be delayed, owing to distance and scheduling. 

Growth corridors are showing lower vaccination rates, and this is where the babies are and where mothers live with concern about government agencies’ actions dishonestly compromising their precious babies’ health. The bill does not address the issue of unvaccinated children attending child care. State governments control that policy. New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia and Western Australia all have laws preventing unvaccinated children attending child care. Queensland allows the centre to make the decision. The ACT, Tasmania and the Northern Territory have no regulations similar to no-jab no-play. Vaccination status is not relevant to child care. Canberra always makes rules for others that it does not impose on itself. Recall Commonwealth agencies inhuman, antihuman, immoral, dishonest COVID restrictions and lies contrary to the science. This is interesting. If vaccination status is critical to keeping children safe, we would see New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia and Western Australia having lower disease rates than the ACT, Northern Territory and Tasmania, who allow vaccinated and unvaccinated children to mix. Not surprisingly—to me anyway—there is no difference in disease rates between the states on average over time. Don’t you just love competitive federalism? I sure do! 

If you look at the raw infection numbers that the Australian Centre for Disease Control, the CDC, publishes, New South Wales regularly records the highest numbers of whooping cough and measles cases in the country. This may be because Australia does not screen new arrivals for vaccination status. For clarity, new arrivals are those visa types which are counted towards net overseas migration. Although the same no-jab no-play rule covers children of the net overseas migration and Australian children, when new arrivals apply for permanent visas, they come under the migration medical examination, which does check their vaccination status and requires makeups where required. 

What’s the take-home here? We go to all this trouble to achieve childhood vaccination, then we let in millions of new arrivals and don’t even ask their vaccination status. For the record, India and China have vaccination rates higher than ours. Pakistan is down at 80 per cent, and Somalia and Yemen are at 50 per cent. I’ve asked about this in Senate estimates hearings and always get nothing answers—crap—and that’s the problem. Unless we can talk honestly about these issues, confidence in health authorities will continue to plummet. Their hubris will be fatal to public health. We also know is that we have a 35-year high in whooping cough, pertussis, notifications and public measles alerts. Something is going wrong, and we have every right to ask about it. 

One Nation has concerns around no-jab no-play laws. In medical ethics the relationship between coercion and vaccination is a complex topic, with two competing ethical duties—respect for individual autonomy and the duty to protect public health. In Australian clinical practice, coercion is against ethical guidelines. Under the Australian Immunisation Handbook for a patient to give legally valid medical consent that consent quote ‘must be given voluntarily in the absence of undue pressure, coercion or manipulation’. A doctor cannot ethically use physical force, direct threats or deception to compel a patient to take a vaccine. Doing so violates the foundational bioethical principle of autonomy, and that’s the right of an individual to make decisions about their own body. It is this autonomy Senator Antic’s bill seeks to strengthen, with the re-inclusion of a conscientious objection. As such, the bill fits perfectly within the existing legal and ethical vaccination framework. Here I must make the point that during COVID this fundamental protection against coercion was torn up and ripped to shreds with apparent glee from our health authorities, who revelled in operating in an environment without ethics. The very people who should have displayed ethics instead chose hysteria with an added layer of financial gain. The fundamental rule here is that, if you ignore the rule on informed consent, the risk—in this case, COVID—has to be proportionate to the measures taken. The vaccine has to be proven safe and effective. The measures taken must be the least necessary to be the least infringement on the code, and, finally, the measures have to be necessary. The COVID immunisation agenda met none of these four tests—not one. The COVID shots were not tested. The skimpy so-called testing was done on a different version of the vaccine to the one actually sold in Australia. The term ‘safe and effective’ was two lies. They were not safe; they were not effective. And we know the health agencies and departments knew that at the time. I’ll say it again: we know the health agencies and departments knew at the time that they were not safe and effective. They were not necessary. Vaccinating for influenza has never worked and did not work in the case of COVID, and, lastly, they were not the least infringement on the code. Ivermectin and similar accessible, affordable, safe drugs were proven safe and effective yet were banned by our health authorities. 

The Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency, Ahpra, should have acted to defend the rights of patients and stood in defence of informed consent, which is supposedly an Ahpra objective. Instead, they chose to police medical practitioners to ensure none dared to follow the Australian Immunisation Handbook guidelines. Ahpra tried heavily and determinedly to ensure health practitioners did not comply with the Hippocratic oath. These dishonest travesties Ahpra continue today. 

Secondly, childhood vaccines have never been tested for safety against an inert placebo—never—which is what is required by the ICH Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6, which Australia’s Therapeutic Goods Administration, the TGA, has ratified. Australian vaccines have not been tested against this standard. Instead, the TGA, in Senate estimates hearings, relies on the lack of reported serious adverse events to assume vaccines are safe. Despite there being high levels of adverse events such as autism that parents associate with the vaccines, the authorities, with no examination, brush off that the cause is vaccines. It’s this, more than anything else, that’s causing a loss of confidence in vaccination. A One Nation government will require this safety testing to be done and, given the significance of the exercise, fund the trials, in the public interest. 

Finally, under America’s health and human services secretary, Robert F Kennedy Jr, the US Department of Health and Human Services and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the CDC in America, announced an unprecedented revision of the routine childhood immunisation guidelines, shrinking approved vaccines from 17 to 11. Australia has 14. This move is currently blocked in American courts after the pharmaceutical industry fought back. I hope the measure is approved, as it will provide a very immediate answer to the question of a potential link between childhood vaccines and adverse events that agencies with connections to big pharma currently and blindly do not accept as being vaccine related. 

Greg Beattie’s excellent book, Fooling Ourselves, provides a proper statistical evaluation showing that the incidence of childhood diseases and their effects plummeted before the vaccines were released. That means that vaccines were not the cause of the near eradication of the diseases. Rather, it seems that improved hygiene, improved sanitation and improved nutrition were the causes of falling disease incidence. It means that there will be no harm in not forcing childhood vaccines—no harm. 

In summary, parents have every right to be wary of the harm these products may be doing to their children. They have every right to exercise their religious or conscientious objections to forced vaccination. They should not be treated differently for not having vaccinated their children in whole or in part. And childcare centres should be free to make the decision to accept or not accept vaccinated or unvaccinated children. One Nation will proudly support this bill

/0 Comments/by

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. 

/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