As a Scientist and former vet school Dean, Professor Rose became concerned that critical information about SARs-CoV2 virus and COVID-19 vaccines was not being reported by mainstream media.
We discussed how the world and particularly Australia changed with the arrival of COVID and how the population seems to have forgotten the drastic restrictions that were put on our freedoms. We also discussed what, if any, lessons were learned.
Reuben received a notice from YouTube that he had “breached community guidelines” and the link to his channel can no longer be accessed.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/yxRWoySJHOY/hqdefault.jpg360480Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2024-04-11 14:32:552024-04-18 15:45:44A Chat with Emeritus Professor Reuben Rose | Sons of Issachar
I called on the Senate to support the inquiry into the federal COVID-19 Vaccine Injury Claims Scheme and restated my demand for the people of Australia to have their Royal Commission in COVID.
Australians are dying at a far higher rate than normal. Surely even the pharma industry lobby in the Senate can see that there’s a high probability that the cause, the one thing that has changed in the last 4 years coinciding with the increased mortality, is the jabs that everyday Australians were coerced and bullied into taking.
Why is the Labor Government so afraid of uncovering the truth? If they’re confident it’s not the cause, then shouldn’t they be prepared to have an inquiry into it?
This is an issue of life or death for the Australian people and it needs to be above suspicion. We need honest debate and proper scrutiny to understand why over 30,000 people more than normal have died so far.
In this speech, I go further into messenger RNA “vaccines”, the technology used to protect them and the actual mechanism by which these jabs could be causing the harm we are seeing.
I also talk about the “bait and switch” that was used during clinical trials, which saw trials conducted using the long-established method of using albumin to grow the vaccine. After testing, this was switched out for a new and untested method using a derivative of E. coli bacteria, which multiples much faster but contaminates the vaccine in the process.
During an interview on the ABC, Greg Hunt, the Health Minister at the time, admitted that “The world is engaged in the largest clinical trial, the largest global vaccination trial ever, and we will have enormous amounts of data”.
Where is that data now and what does it really say about our COVID response? The answer will only come from an inquiry. Clearly the Albanese Government and the Opposition do not want you to know.
Transcript
There have been more than 25,000 deaths. That’s more than 25,000 homicides. At Senate estimates hearings last November I produced an independent analysis of Australian Bureau of Statistics data. It showed the unexplained increase in deaths for the period 2022-23—population adjusted, excluding COVID and respiratory deaths—was 13 per cent. The Australian Bureau of Statistics provided data using a different methodology, which agreed closely with my figure. An increase of 13 per cent above baseline on 195,000 deaths in 2022-23 means 25,000 more Australians died than expected.
Did the novel COVID injections cause all of these deaths? While highly likely, it’s possible they did not. Were enough of these deaths caused by the injections to be of serious concern and to support an inquiry? Definitely yes. A common argument against having an inquiry is the issue that increases in mortality are due to many different causes—cancer, dementia, cardiac conditions and diabetes—so there can’t possibly be a single cause. An inquiry would need to explain this. In the absence of an inquiry, I’ll advance a theory from many credible medical authorities. I’ll do that in a minute.
The COVID products are not vaccines because they don’t stop people getting COVID. They don’t stop people passing it on to someone else. I call them injections or jabs. The jabs include a segment of messenger RNA, which has the purpose of splicing a new segment into our DNA, which produces a protein to create an antibody to COVID-19. This raises the possibility that disease can be prevented, using mRNA techniques to get our bodies producing antibodies to stop cancer and disease in their tracks. This opportunity to play God has proven so intoxicating that many in our health industry have fallen for it; mRNA jabs are being defended with religious fervour. As with any religious zealotry, those who ask difficult questions like, ‘Why are so many people suddenly dying?’ are being treated in a way that is an afront to parliamentary process and civil government. This issue is life or death. It needs to be above honest debate and scrutiny.
One potential explanation for increased mortality rates across a wide range of conditions is a scandal known as ‘plasmidgate’. This is technical, so I’ll use plain language and apologise to any specialist vaccinologists listening. Messenger RNA is too fragile to use in a vaccine. To protect the RNA sequence from damage, these COVID jabs use a new technique, wrapping each one in a protective coating called a lipid nanoparticle. This keeps the RNA intact on its journey from your arm to the nucleus of every cell in your body, where the coating helps the RNA enter the cell and bind with your existing DNA. Remember, there are billions of mRNA particles in every jab.
The manufacturing process is not clean. Fragments of DNA are being picked up in the manufacturing process and getting coated in that protective layer as well, a coating that stops your body expelling the fragment. These fragments are coming from the E. coli bacteria, a derivative being used to grow on the mRNA. Yes, they’re using modified E. coli bacteria as the growing medium for the mRNA in these jabs.
The clinical trials for this product were conducted using the previous growing method, albumen from eggs. That’s the clinical trials. Yet that was far too slow for Pfizer, claiming the so-called speed of science. So, after the clinical trials were tested, with a conventionally propagated product, Pfizer switched it out for one grown using the much faster E. coli bacteria method. Has E. coli ever been used before as a medium to grow on a vaccine? No, it hasn’t. No, it has not. Was any safety testing done? Well, that would be every person that has had done the jab. That’s where the testing was done, if you’ve had the jab. Now people are dying, and the mRNA vaccine zealots are ignoring the outcome. The crime of the century is that the Australian public have been injected with DNA from E. coli bacteria that was wrapped up in a protective coating and delivered into the nucleus of every cell in your body.
It gets worse. The latest peer reviewed published data on this shows that, in a third of cases, the cell will not produce the antibody intended against COVID and instead will produce some other antibody—in a third of cases. It’s a process called frame shifting, which means the mRNA does not present itself to your DNA strand correctly and accordingly combines with your DNA in an unintended way before producing an unintended protein antibody. This is going on in people’s bodies right now. What does that mutant protein do to your system? Nobody knows. Here’s the final crime. These mutant proteins are not created in one-third of people; they’re created in one-third of cells, meaning that everyone who was injected with a COVID product has a third of their cells now producing mutant proteins. We don’t know what harm that will cause. The harm varies from person to person.
Are these proteins now resting in our brain? Are they? We know it can cross the blood-brain barrier into our brains. Are these proteins resting in our hearts, in our livers, in female ovaries, in male testes? Is it turning off our body’s natural cancer defence, resulting in turbo cancers? Highly likely. These are questions, not statements. When some of the most highly qualified medical professionals on this topic are asking questions, there is no excuse not to be investigating when those questions are being asked. It’s time to treat the zealots of the religion of mRNA as the maniacs they are. They played God and they harmed people. They killed tens of thousands of people. They committed homicide—homicidal maniacs.
As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I support this motion from Senator Rennick, which will find out how bad the damage is, and, once again, I call on the Senate to demand a royal commission into the crime of the century.
The PRESIDENT: The question is that the motion moved by Senator Rennick be agreed to.
Until a few years ago, new vaccines and drugs were required to have local safety testing and went through a process that took years. This ensured a high degree of safety. During the COVID period, the Therapeutics Goods Administration (TGA) waved approvals through for new technologies (e.g. mRNA injections) and new drugs in a matter of months. Included in this new streamlined approval process were Molnupiravir and Remdesivir.
Remdesivir was refused approval for 20 years owing to serious side effects in trials, including death. Molnupiravir also has a long history of failure. There are multiple studies out recently that show it is simply not effective against COVID, and yet this is the #1 drug on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. Australia spends $650m a year on Molnupiravir.
I asked why we approved a drug with so much evidence showing negative efficacy and fatal outcomes, including cancer, to replace the Ivermectin + Zinc combo, which costs a fraction of the price and has been proven safe and effective across many years.
I also raised the question of who supervises the supervisor — the TGA. “Nobody” was the response. That answer highlighted the overly cosy relationship between the international pharmaceutical movement and Australian pharmaceutical companies. The TGA requires further inquiry.
A Royal Commission is the only institution in Australia with the powers of inquiry to understand how the TGA has gone from regulator to administrator, seemingly with none of the customary vigilance.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: My questions are to the TGA, and these questions go to the approval for molnupiravir. This is a drug developed in 2014 to treat encephalitis. It was then repurposed for influenza but was discontinued after concerns it was mutagenic. Merck then bought the company and used their influence with regulators—such as the TGA, apparently—to have the product approved as a treatment for COVID. This was on the back of a single trial where the preliminary results supported the application but the final results showed that, if anything, it had negative efficacy. Given the weight of evidence, in study after study, that molnupiravir has zero to negative efficacy, why is it still approved?
Prof. Lawler:While one of our medical officers, Dr Kaye Robertson, comes to the table to respond, I would just highlight a couple of things. I take the comment that you made that the drug company used its influence on the TGA. There is a process that we follow, obviously, in the evaluation of all medications. Sponsors bring them for evaluation of safety, quality and efficacy, and that’s the process that is undertaken, rather than one of influence. I think it’s important to note that. In terms of the question you raised around why the medication is still approved for the indication that it has, I’ll ask Dr Kaye Robertson to respond to that.
Dr Robertson:The TGA considered the evidence to support the approval of molnupiravir from the dossier that was submitted by the sponsor, in accordance with our standard processes, and drew the conclusion that, at the time, the benefits outweighed the risks. In terms of the specifics of any subsequent information that has been provided to the TGA, I am actually not in a position to comment with certainty. This is not the area I work in particularly, and I think we would be best advised, if the senator pleases, to take this question on notice and provide you with further detail.
Senator ROBERTS: I appreciate your giving that offer and I will accept your offer for the question to be answered on notice. It does surprise me that approval was given on a single trial where the preliminary results supported the application but the final results showed that, if anything, it had negative efficacy. The weight of evidence, in study after study, shows zero to negative efficacy, so I’m amazed that it’s still approved. The approval required Merck to continue to provide ongoing safety data and testing around mutagenicity and interaction with the mRNA vaccines. Have they done that, and does the data justify retaining approval?
Dr Robertson:I have before me the AusPAR that was published in relation to the studies that assessed the risk of mutagenicity. We can provide that to you in our response. I am reading from that, and it says: ‘Molnupiravir and NHC were mutagenic in the bacterial assay (with and without metabolic activation). Molnupiravir and NHC were not genotoxic in in vitro and in vivo micronuclei tests, and in vivo mutation assay at the cII locus (in Big Blue Transgenic F344 Rats). Equivocal results were obtained in an in vivo Pig-a mutagenicity assay … Carcinogenicity studies are not generally required for drugs for short term clinical use. However, the sponsor has initiated a short-term carcinogenicity in … mice.’ This was put to the clinicians on the ACM and other invited experts regarding this matter. It was considered at the time that, on balance, the drug remained to have a positive benefit-risk balance.
Prof. Lawler: I thank Dr Robertson for that response. I’d also just add, Senator, that, because you’re asking for some quite specific currency and comprehensiveness of ongoing postmarket reporting, we’ll take that on notice and bring that information back to you.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. In 2023 molnupiravir was top of the pops, Australia’s No. 1 drug, costing taxpayers $654 million last year, at $1,125 a prescription. Molnupiravir is 26 times more expensive than the out-of-patent ivermectin-plus-zinc combo, which is about $40 per prescription. And that’s what molnupiravir replaced—proven, safe and effective. Why are you spending $654 million—on something that is highly questionable as to its efficacy and its safety—when $25 million would have done?
Prof. Lawler:I can’t speak to the specifics of the amount spent on molnupiravir, but I can certainly indicate that the second amount that you said—I didn’t catch the amount—
Senator ROBERTS: The ivermectin-plus-zinc combo is $40 per prescription, and the total for the year would have been $25 million.
Prof. Lawler:I think that the comparison is flawed, in that there is no credible, supportable evidence that ivermectin and zinc is an effective treatment. So I’m not convinced that you are—
Senator ROBERTS: There is no credible evidence? There are 100 papers.
Prof. Lawler: I’m not convinced that the comparison is sound.
Senator ROBERTS: You based the decision on molnupiravir on one paper, and you’re ignoring 100 papers proving ivermectin’s success. Does anyone question the process—
CHAIR: Sorry, Senator Roberts; I’m going to give Professor Lawler an opportunity to respond to that.
Prof. Lawler:I didn’t hear a question.
Senator ROBERTS: The question is this: does anyone question the TGA’s processes—
Prof. Lawler:Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: for approving drugs? How often do you evaluate them?
Prof. Lawler:Drugs are—
Senator ROBERTS: Who audits them? Is there an independent auditor?
Prof. Lawler:I’m not sure which question you would like me to answer.
Senator ROBERTS: All of them.
CHAIR:Professor Lawler, are you clear on the question placed? There is a mixture of questions and assertions moving around here, so let’s just step back and, Senator Roberts, please place a question.
Senator ROBERTS: The question is: how often do you scrutinise your process, and is there an external auditor who does that who is qualified to do it and to assess the process?
Prof. Lawler:The processes that we follow are continually informed by our international collaboration and also by significant interaction with stakeholders, particularly the advisory committees that we have in respect of the assessments and evaluations that we undertake for products. We also undertake, obviously, the premarket review and evaluation of medicines and other therapeutic goods, and we undertake significant postmarket surveillance of the goods as well. We have outlined in significant detail on previous occasions the postmarket surveillance that we undertake. I might ask Mr Henderson to add to that.
Mr Henderson:Senator, I think you asked about the number of submissions or medicines that we evaluate. Just for context, at the moment there are about 150 applications that the TGA is evaluating for both new medicines and changes to indications to current medicines.
Senator ROBERTS: What is the point of telling me that?
Mr Henderson:Sorry; I thought you asked that as part of your question.
Senator ROBERTS: No, I didn’t ask for the number. Who are your stakeholders? Do they include the sponsors?
Prof. Lawler: As a contemporary regulator, we have a broad stable of stakeholders. They do include industry. As with any regulator, we work to refine our processes to balance the appropriate observance of safety, quality and efficacy with appropriate access and streamlining processes to bring products to market with a minimum of inappropriate regulatory burden. We undertake annual stakeholder engagement surveys to understand the views of the TGA, and the three key stakeholder groups that we survey on an annual basis are industry; health professionals—and obviously it’s important we work with health professionals for a number of ways, in that they both inform us and are informed by our decisions—and the community. It is notable that the responses we get reflect that the TGA, among all groups, comes across as a recognised, understood and valued regulator in the Australian healthcare system.
We have other stakeholders with whom we interact. We obviously interact very closely with the state health jurisdictions, and this is for a number of reasons. Our decisions on a number of elements, such as scheduling, for example, which we’ve already discussed today, have a significant impact on the state and territory poisons legislation and how they’re implemented for the delivery of medicines. We also interact quite closely with expertise across the regulatory sector. We have a number of advisory committees, the membership of which incorporates consumer views and expertise and also those from the academic and research sectors.
It’s also important to note that we obviously have close relationships with our international collaborative regulators. We are part of the International Coalition of Medicines Regulatory Authorities and the International Medical Device Regulators Forum, and we also work closely with individual regulators such as the MHRA and the UK, European Medicines Agency and the FDA.
CHAIR: Senator Roberts, I will shortly rotate the call to Senator Rennick and then can come back to you. Is this a sensible place to pause?
Senator ROBERTS: I’ll make it a short one, and then you’ll come back to me. Spike proteins can enter the body in two ways in the context of COVID: from the virus itself and from the vaccines. What work has the TGA done on the health outcomes of the long-term retention of spike proteins by the body after the mRNA vaccines that you recommended? It’s been four years now, so some good old-fashioned science by the TGA must be available. Is there any assessment?
Prof. Lawler:As has been indicated previously, as with all regulators around the world, we undertake a significant program of post-market surveillance and pharmacovigilance. This includes having a clear and well-communicated preference for adverse events post the vaccine to be reported. Those are reported and entered into our database of adverse event notifications, and, along with examination of that and also in collaboration with partner international regulators, we are very much aware and alive to emerging safety signals and act accordingly.
Senator ROBERTS: But you haven’t done any studies on the retention specifically of the spike proteins? The COVID injections dramatically increased the spike protein. You haven’t done any studies of that?
Prof. Lawler:I’m happy to have any additional response, but what I would highlight is that our role as a regulator is to assess evidence that is brought to us, and we undertake that assessment in the evaluation.
Senator ROBERTS: So you don’t go looking for it?
Prof. Lawler:We utilise that evidence in the assessment and evaluation of products, and we utilise the pharmacovigilance and post-market surveillance exercises that I’ve highlighted.
I asked Minister Gallagher how many vaccines are provided with an indemnity protection clause by the Australian government whereby those harmed cannot sue the company because the government has taken on the responsibility for harm done. Her answer was that indemnity was put in place due to the emergency nature of COVID response in the early stages. However 14 different COVID products have received indemnity protection from the Australian government, and one of them as recently as the 10th of October 2023.
In response, the minister fell back on confidentiality of agreements between the government and vaccine providers. This is the public’s money – the government is there to serve the people of Australia, not keep secrets from them and coerce them into risky products with mandates that even the Health Secretary, Prof Murphy, has said this year were not justifiable. The risk, from COVID, never justified the risk from the trial injections. After all that has been exposed globally, that the government is still promoting these products is shocking.
In saying that all necessary approvals to ensure its safety were followed through the TGA, Minister Gallagher is not being straight with us. The TGA did not test the Pfizer, AstraZeneca and Moderna COVID shots. It relied on the regulators overseas where these products were made. In the case of Pfizer, these were incomplete and aborted trials. The true magnitude of the harm is being released in the Pfizer papers ordered to be released by a judge in the USA.
Why is the government hiding behind confidentiality and exposing taxpayers to the risk of paying for costly damages for injection injuries as well as paying for products that are turning out to be unsafe and ineffective. Products that the public is no longer taking up and which the Minister appears to be pushing like a pharmaceutical sales rep on commission.
Big Pharma’s Stranglehold on Government Revealed
Senator Katy Gallagher claimed that the COVID product indemnity was put in place to secure product supply in a competitive market during the emergency of the COVID outbreak.
Senator Gallagher is the Minister for Finance overseeing contingent liabilities in the budget. With 14 more indemnities for COVID products and the most recent one last month, I think it’s pretty clear that this has nothing to do with a health emergency. It has everything to do with Labor’s deals with Moderna to get its production plants into Australia and pave the way for the World Health Organisation’s plans for 400 new mRNA vaccines for human and animal use. These are being designed to replace 400 regular vaccines with expiring patents.
Why is the government normalising indemnities? The process removes the incentive on the manufacturer to produce a safe, high quality product since any harm is paid for by the taxpayers. Follow the money and it leads to a patent cliff, not better health. It also explains the ongoing and seemingly frantic messaging of ‘safe and effective’ with every mention of these injections in government. It’s a shame the disinformation legislation does not cover messaging by the Government, so much misinformation originates there.
Transcript | Exactly Who is Calling the Shots in Australia?
Senator ROBERTS: My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care, Senator Gallagher. How many vaccines are subject to an indemnity from the Australian government?
Senator Gallagher: Thank you, Senator Roberts. I’ll just see if I can provide you with an accurate answer. I do know that there were indemnity arrangements put in place under the former government for the vaccines that were approved then, in the early stages of the pandemic, and those indemnity arrangements continue. I think we have traversed this a bit at estimates. I’m not sure if there is anything else I can provide. Indemnity arrangements were put in place for the vaccines that the government procured to enable the national vaccine rollout program to be undertaken during the pandemic emergency. That was an important part of ensuring that we could procure the vaccine in the amount that we needed and provide it to the Australian people. I would also say that, whilst the indemnity arrangements were in place, all of the required approvals to ensure the safety of the vaccines—prior to the vaccines being rolled out—were followed, through the TGA processes, which we have also traversed at length in estimates. We also have the COVID-19 Vaccine Claims Scheme, which was established to run alongside the national rollout of the vaccine program. And I would say that it was an important response to the pandemic to ensure that we could get as many people vaccinated as possible in a safe way to ensure that we minimised the impact of significant disease and also, at the very serious end, the deaths that occurred from contracting COVID-19.
Senator ROBERTS: Indemnities have been issued for 14 different COVID products. Each new COVID vaccine or shot has been given an indemnity, the most recent on 10 October 2023. With demand for the booster down to 5½ per cent for those under 65, and with multiple vendors, the argument that indemnities are needed to get stock is a patent nonsense. What is the real reason for these new indemnities, issued only six weeks ago?
Senator Gallagher: I can’t go into the confidential agreements that have been reached in procuring vaccines. These are agreements that are reached between the government and the vaccine provider, and we do so in a way that allows for the rollout of continued vaccination and booster shots to protect people from COVID-19. These are the arrangements that were entered into during the pandemic. Those arrangements are continuing. We think there’s a very important public health reason to ensure that we are procuring vaccines and making them available so people can take their booster. I would say that booster levels remain low—and we do want to see those increase—and that people should go and get their booster if they’re ready for one or if they’re six months past the last COVID-19 bout.
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, you won’t explain to the taxpayers why you’re using their money and putting it at risk, so I’ll ask a second supplementary. This government has offered Moderna an indemnity for every vaccine or shot manufactured in its new Australian factory, currently under construction, including regular non-pandemic vaccines. Why has your government not been honest in telling taxpayers they are paying for new vaccine harm during the COVID period and for all time?
Senator Gallagher: I’m not sure what Senator Roberts is referring to, and I reject the claim that we are somehow using taxpayers’ money and causing vaccine harm. That is not appropriate, and I absolutely categorically reject that. If there is anything further I can provide Senator Roberts around the arrangements with Moderna in particular, I am happy to arrange that. I don’t have that information before me, but I do accept that governments do negotiate agreements with companies around the supply and availability of medicines—and vaccines, in this instance—to ensure that we are able to provide the medicines Australia needs and also ensure that we have enough of the vaccines to provide the appropriate coverage, particularly for COVID-19 protection.
Transcript | Big Pharma’s Stranglehold on Government Revealed
I move:
That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Finance (Senator Gallagher) to questions without notice I asked today relating to vaccine indemnities.
Senator Gallagher is the Minister for Finance and is overseeing contingent liabilities in the budget. Although I prefer the words ‘fake-cine’ or ‘injectable’, what these products are not are vaccines. A vaccine prevents a person getting and transmitting an illness; these COVID ‘fake-cines’ do neither. Australia first provided indemnities in 2015 under the previous Liberal government for mpox and flu vaccines. Those indemnities are still in place.
Now we have 14 more indemnities for COVID products, and they’ll be permanent. Labor’s deal to get Moderna’s production plant into Australia was revealed last week. Any vaccine manufactured in Moderna’s Australian factory, which is now under construction, will receive an indemnity. The agreement sets out that these vaccines will be indemnified as part of a pandemic vaccine advance-purchase agreement and additionally as part of a routine, non-pandemic vaccine supply agreement. In other words, every vaccine made will be indemnified with no word about testing. The new Moderna indemnity extends to routine vaccine supply, and the minister is not able to claim securing supply in a crisis.
The World Health Organization has mentioned that there are 400 mRNA vaccines and products under development to replace conventional vaccines with expired patents. The attraction of mRNA is protecting profit from the patent cliff—not protecting better health. Those products will be for humans, livestock and pets. Our health authorities and politicians are promoting experimental mRNA products and, in so doing, risking everyday Australians’ health. I was hoping to hear why in the minister’s answer. Why is the government normalising indemnities, giving foreign multinational pharmaceutical companies blanket indemnities so they can avoid being accountable and encouraging companies to lie in their clinical trials, fudge efficacy data and cover up enduring death, as Pfizer was proven to have done in their COVID ‘fake-cine’ development? This question is not going away. We will relentlessly hound you down.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/vhTJiK9eFhw/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2023-12-06 10:37:542023-12-06 10:44:25Exactly Who is Calling the Shots in Australia?
The Labor government has done everything it can to avoid the scrutiny of a Royal Commission into COVID despite promising a Royal Commission on several occasions. Instead, PM Albanese has announced an inquiry that is guaranteed to be a whitewash to try an appease the Australian public who have been waiting for the Royal Commission.
I asked the minister why the government is afraid of a Royal Commission. Her answer was instead directed at the inhouse inquiry which is essentially three insiders investigating their mates. This is a travesty after the suffering, disruption and death that the COVID years brought to Australia.
This inquiry is a cover-up. Australians deserve a Royal Commission to bring the truth to light and prevent the same mistakes from happening again.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Minister, why do you fear a COVID royal commission, and is your support for the Chief Medical Officer and the TGA unequivocal?
Senator Gallagher: In relation to the second part, yes, absolutely. In relation to the first part, there is nothing to fear about the COVID inquiry.
Senator ROBERTS: There certainly isn’t.
Senator Gallagher: Hopefully genuine learnings will come out of it and we’ll all be better prepared for the next time we have a pandemic like that.
Australia’s premier vaccine sales advocate, the National Centre for Immunisation Research and Surveillance (NCIRS) is in charge of recommending if the federal government should add more vaccines to the schedule. Yet it’s the same organisation monitoring for adverse events from the vaccines it promotes. I asked the Minister if that sounds like a suitable arrangement to her. I also asked why the Chair of NCIRS is also the chair of the government’s advisory committee on vaccines. Should the person who promotes new vaccines be a different person to the one looking for harms caused by the vaccine?
I understand that grant funding received by the Chair of the NCIRS is substantial and raises conflict of interest issues.
There is an obvious reluctance to confront the possibility of conflicts of interest by the government and its drug regulatory authority. We only need to look at the situation with Dr Fauci, with his vast research grants and his position as both the advisor, the safety officer and the marketeer of the products to understand the potential for conflicts of interest leading to harm.
Transcript
CHAIR: Senator Roberts, we are coming towards the end of your block.
Senator ROBERTS: This is a scoping question to find out why the federal government funded National Centre for Immunisation Research and Surveillance is not present at estimates. They bill themselves as Australia’s leading immunisation organisation that provides expert evidence on vaccine preventable diseases and all aspects of immunisation to inform policy and planning in Australia and our region. Why aren’t they here at estimates?
Prof. Kelly: Senator, they are not an agency of the Commonwealth. They are a research institute, in fact. They do some work for us in relation to surveillance and research into immunisation, as their name suggests. We do have the chair of ATAGI online. He does not work at NCIRS. NCIRS is a very strong supporter of the ATAGI work. If there is a question specifically in relation to that—
Senator ROBERTS: Well, I understand the chair of NCIRS is also the chair of your advisory committee on vaccines, which recommends vaccines to the government. Is that correct?
Prof. Kelly: That’s a matter for the TGA. She is on that committee.
Prof. Lawler: I understand that’s correct.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. A program within the NCIRS is AusVaxSafety, which monitors safety signals, meaning adverse events from vaccinations through the body. There is the Adverse Events Following Immunisation Clinical Assessment Network, or AEFI-CAN. How do you come up with all these acronyms? Here we have an organisation which, according to their About Us website page, is Australia’s premier vaccine sales advocate. The NCIRS is in charge of recommending if the federal government should add more vaccines to the schedule. That same organisation also monitors for adverse events from the vaccines it promotes. Minister, does that sound like a suitable arrangement to you?
Senator Gallagher: Sorry, Senator Roberts, you will have to repeat that.
Senator ROBERTS: We have an organisation—
Senator Gallagher: Is this ATAGI?
Senator ROBERTS: No, NCIRS. It is in charge of recommending if the federal government should add more vaccines to the schedule. That same organisation also monitors for adverse events from the vaccines it promotes. So it advocates for vaccines and it supposedly monitors for the events.
Senator Gallagher: That is not part of the regulatory framework of government.
Prof. Kelly: The TGA is the main provider of information about adverse events from vaccination. The NCIRS does run something. It’s actually on behalf of NSW Health, as I understand it, but we can place that on notice.
Senator Gallagher: The TGA provides reports regularly online.
Prof. Lawler: So in addition to what both the minister and Professor Kelly have said, the TGA undertakes both approval and post-approval monitoring of adverse events associated with approved goods. We do produce and publish the database of adverse event notifications. I don’t know whether Elspeth Kay, our assistant secretary from the pharmacovigilance branch, would have anything to add.
Senator ROBERTS: Let’s move on. My interest here is possible conflicts of interest. Minister, you had the same person, Professor McCartney, as chair of all these bodies—the ones I went through before that question. Should the person who promotes new vaccines be a different person to the one looking for harms caused by the vaccine? You seem to set up Professor McCartney as some sort of vaccine queen. Is it correct that Professor McCartney has received $65 million in research grants over the last five or so years? If so, what were those research grants for? What body of work did those grants produce, if anything? Could I have that on notice?
Senator Gallagher: I think Professor Kelly might be able to answer some of that.
Prof. Kelly: I can answer that.
Senator Gallagher: Can I just say as a general rule that I do think it’s unfortunate that individuals are named in this way with no right of reply in the context that you are raising this. I will put that on the record.
Prof. Kelly: Professor McCartney is the head of the NCIRS. She is a world-recognised expert in immunology and infectious diseases. She is a paediatrician who works at Westmead Hospital. She has multiple hats. She is part of an advisory group for the minister.
Senator ROBERTS: Excuse me, Professor Kelly. I’m not interested in her qualifications. I want to know her research grants.
Senator Gallagher: I think it’s deeply relevant to the aspersions that you seem to having about her.
Senator ROBERTS: I want to know her research grants—
Senator Gallagher: And her role.
Senator ROBERTS: I want to know her research grants and how much money she has received.
Prof. Kelly: I will finish, Senator. She is, as you’ve said, the chair of an advisory committee to the TGA. It does not make decisions. She is a member of ATAGI, which is an advisory group for the minister and does not make decisions. In terms of research grants, we have the NHMRC, but they might need to take that on notice. She probably has other sources of funds. I can’t talk to the $65 million.
Senator ROBERTS: Can I get the answers on notice, please?
Prof. Kelly: We can take that on notice, yes.
Senator ROBERTS: I want a list of the $65 million in research grants over the last five years.
Senator Gallagher: I think that information would be publicly available. You seem to be able to do a fair bit of research on her. I’m sure you can do the same. If there are NHMRC grants, they will all be available publicly.
Prof. Lawler: I will add to Professor Kelly’s comments. I’m taking the imputation that the funding somehow does lead to a conflict. The two elements that you wrote—
Senator ROBERTS: No. It’s not only the funding.
CHAIR: Senator Roberts, you do need to let the witnesses finish their sentences.
Prof. Lawler: You raise two elements. One is that Professor McCartney decides which vaccines are added. As Professor Kelly has indicated, her role is as the chair of an advisory committee with the NHMRC that advises the delegate to make those determinations. Her role is to identify the harms that derive from these vaccines. That is the role of the pharmacovigilance function within the TGA.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/IeWZ1BxfbsM/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2023-11-03 17:04:532023-11-03 17:06:54Does Australia have a Vaccine Queen Calling the Shots?
I tabled a graph based on data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics which shows a significant spike in excess deaths. This significant increase in 2021 and a further spike in 2022 are unexplained. The graph excludes respiratory diseases and COVID, which takes out the ‘COVID confusion’ and allows us to look at other factors, such as heart disease, strokes and organ failure. The Chief Medical Officer has a primary responsibility to keep Australians healthy (and alive). He must be called on to explain why 10,000 Australians more than average have died from causes that were not COVID related.
The spike in deaths correlates to the rollout of the COVID jabs. CMO Kelly testified the jabs were not the cause, but offered no explanation of what the alternative cause could be.
They don’t have any answers for us and that is simply not acceptable. I promised to hound down those responsible for our COVID catastrophe and I will keep that promise.
The principle of Occam’s Razor, whereby the most obvious explanation is the most likely, is being deliberately ignored by agencies and advisors to the government who are reliant on the flow of funding from the companies that made these jabs. Is it any wonder there is a flat out refusal to confront the truth of what is becoming a scandal of the century?
It’s time Dr Baffled was referred to a Royal Commission.
Senator ROBERTS: I need to get through all my TGA questions.
CHAIR: I will endeavour to move to five-minute blocks to assist the committee progress. We will go as quickly as we can.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for being here. My questions are to the TGA. I would like to table these graphs.
CHAIR: We’ll consider them, Senator Roberts. We’ll distribute them. I am happy for this to be circulated to officials, but the decision on tabling will have to wait, Senator Roberts, until we have a source for the document. I don’t want to—
Senator ROBERTS: The Australian Bureau of Statistics.
CHAIR: I just need a link so we can verify the information. We’ve had issues today already with the content tabled. It can be circulated for officials to consider as part of your conversation, but it won’t go on the website until we’ve had time to consider it.
Senator ROBERTS: Sure. This is a graph of all causes of mortality in Australia over the last 10 years, with respiratory and COVID removed to focus on all other causes of death graphed as a percentage of the population. The source is the recently released ABS, or Australian Bureau of Statistics, Causes of death report, which added 2022 data. You’ll also note that the COVID measures themselves in 2020 did not have a noticeable impact on deaths, meaning there was something else in play here. You can see that the deaths bounced around the FRP, which is typical, of natural variation around 0.59 per cent deaths each year. In 2022, it shot up. That is clearly significant. What is more, the provisional deaths are still not included in the 2022 deaths. According to the Bureau of Statistics in Senate estimates last time, I think, they said that those deaths are 15 per cent below where they will end up once the coroner’s investigations are completed. That peak that you see there is clearly significant. It is going to be higher. That’s 10,000 deaths per annum unexplained and another 5,000 to 10,000 once the provisional deaths are changed with the autopsy included. This is about half to two-thirds of all casualties in World War II. If this is not cause—
Senator URQUHART: We traversed this morning. I think Senator Rennick asked similar questions this morning when you weren’t in here. I’m not sure whether they are the same and we’re going over the same ground.
Senator ROBERTS: No. I also have papers here that are available online by statistician Wilson Sy. There is a statistical evaluation of COVID-19 injections for safety and effectiveness in the New South Wales epidemic. There is also an evaluation entitled ‘Australian COVID-19 pandemic: A Bradford Hill analysis of iatrogenic excess mortality’. He provides many graphs that clearly show correlation up and down with the injections. If this excess death in 2022 is not caused by the COVID injections, what the hell is the cause?
CHAIR: Senator Roberts, please try to keep your language parliamentary.
Senator ROBERTS: At the moment, it is 10,000. It will be 15,000 to 20,000 once the coroner’s report has come in. I will not leave this estimates session without an answer as to why so many people are dying all of a sudden.
Prof. Kelly: I might start, Senator. Thank you for your question. I would point out that we have provided multiple answers to these similar questions over the last few months in questions on notice. It was actually, in fact, very closely related to questions that came from Senator Rennick this morning. Your question really goes to excess deaths and the reason we are having excess deaths in Australia in the past couple of years. I will pass to my colleague Dr Phillip Gould for an explanation briefly.
Dr Gould: Senator Roberts, the statistic that you refer to around a 15 per cent underreporting of deaths in the ABS statistics is incorrect. The ABS has advised that since 2022 they’ve actually updated the way they report on deaths. That 15 per cent that was quoted to you—I understand it was quoted to you—was based on deaths which the coroner would not have included in the ABS statistics. In the data you are referring to, that has been amended.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for that. I didn’t know about that. I was going on what the ABS told me. That’s still a huge spike. It’s clearly significant.
Dr Gould: On that point of fact, that 15 per cent is not correct.
Senator ROBERTS: That is a huge spike. No-one has told us what is causing it.
Prof. Kelly: We did talk about it this morning. The perception you’re trying to put forward is that because there was vaccination at that time and there is excess death, that is not—
Senator ROBERTS: I’m not putting forward a perception. All I’m saying is that is statistically significant. It is a huge increase in deaths. I’d like to know the cause.
Prof. Kelly: And we don’t dispute that, Senator. I take the point that you are trying to make that there is some relationship between that graph you’ve got there and the temporal association with vaccines. We do not accept that as a premise. What we did talk about earlier today is a peer reviewed paper that has now been published that I mentioned at the last estimates. It clearly demonstrates there’s no link between the vaccines and all-cause mortality and that there is an extremely strong link between protection from COVID related mortality from vaccination. That is going back to the issue earlier of it being effective. It clearly is effective. It is not associated with this increase in mortality. There has been an increase in mortality; we don’t dispute that. You’ve removed respiratory mortality from this. It is an even more spectacular rise when you include that. In 2022 in particular, there was an increase in excess mortality respiratory related.
Senator ROBERTS: Respiratory diseases have been removed because of COVID. We know that all of the respiratory diseases have been removed. This is something other than COVID.
Prof. Kelly: Well, it may actually still be related to COVID, but it is not a respiratory disease. If we take into account that it goes to 2022. In this year, the testing for COVID has decreased, so there will be undiagnosed COVID out there in the community, which may be associated with longer term issues, in which case—
Senator ROBERTS: Which tells me that you don’t see it as a threat. Otherwise you would still be testing.
Prof. Kelly: It’s still a serious disease. We know that there are some long-term effects. Many other countries in the world have seen cardiovascular death, for example, related to COVID. We haven’t seen that as much here in Australia. There are many of those other causes that Dr Gould went into earlier that have been potentially associated with long-term effects of COVID.
Senator ROBERTS: I will move on. Wilson Sy’s paper, by the way, shows clear up and down close correlation. I’m happy to give you the references to them later, if you want.
Minister Gallagher seemed to misunderstand the last question on both opportunities to answer it. She did not answer what happens with other medicines. She and others present around her made faces and lipreading Minister Wong would be interesting.
Minister Gallagher’s unguarded expressions give viewers the impression that she felt the question was inappropriate. She only wanted to talk about COVID emergency and repeat the tired pharma marketing messages.
Who does the batch testing? Not the safety testing which is part of vaccine approval.
Who is responsible for testing batches of medicines for quality when they are imported into Australia?
These are questions the Australian public are entitled to know the answers to because our lives depend on it. They are not impositions on ministers. They are part of the job of serving the best interests of the people.
Transcript
Senator Roberts: My question is to the Minister representing the minister for health, Senator Gallagher. Minister, the COVID batch release assessment for each COVID vaccine batch is produced after testing each batch. Who performed the test?
Senator Gallagher: This would have been work led by the TGA, but I will see if I can find further information about whether or not they were assisted by other laboratories. I imagine they were, as part of that work, but I will check and see if there’s anything further I can provide to Senator Roberts.
The President: Senator Roberts, a first supplementary?
Senator Roberts: If an Australian laboratory acting on behalf of the Australian government has not tested the COVID vaccines, we could be buying adulterated product, mislabelled product or saline. How do the people and how does the Senate know what’s in the vaccines?
Senator Gallagher: It’s because it will go through the TGA’s established processes—that’s why. There would be significant checking of those arrangements with laboratories doing that work. This isn’t something that would be just left to a laboratory saying, ‘I’ve done it,’ and it being ticked off. The quality and safety measures that would be put in place by the TGA in getting those approvals are thorough. As we have seen through the rollout of the vaccine, the vaccine is safe and effective. We’ve seen that over the last three years after it was rolled out and millions and millions of vaccines have been provided through the vaccine rollout program, including the fact that we are now seeing significantly less severe disease or loss of life from— (Time expired)
The President: Senator Roberts, a second supplementary?
Senator Roberts: How many other vaccines or schedule 4 drugs are being imported into Australia in a situation where the safety testing was on the honour system, allowing the drug company or manufacturer to provide their own safety testing?
Senator Gallagher: For a start, I don’t accept that it was done on an honour system. I do accept that in relation to the COVID vaccine process it was a shortened process because of the urgency and the crisis that the world was in, as the pandemic rolled through. It required the vaccine being created, and then—
The President: Senator Roberts, a point of order?
Senator Roberts: Thank you, President. My question was about other vaccines or schedule 4 drugs, not the COVID vaccines.
The President: I think the minister went to that, but I will remind her of that part of your question.
Senator Gallagher: I guess the point I’m making, Senator Roberts, is it was a highly unusual situation to be in. I think everyone’s acknowledged that the process around the approvals for the COVID vaccine were different and had been shortened, when compared to the approvals for other drugs. That is reflective of the fact that we were in a global pandemic and millions of people were dying from the effects of COVID and that we needed a vaccine in place to protect the community, and that’s actually what happened through the TGA’s approval processes.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/ZpFxx0z8jIA/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Sheenagh Langdonhttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSheenagh Langdon2023-08-08 10:52:292023-08-08 16:35:34How bad is my batch just morphed into how bad is my Minister for Health!
I have many constituents email me their concerns about mRNA vaccines for cattle.
In the recent Senate Estimates I shared their concerns with Meat and Livestock Australia, who are project managing the development of mRNA vaccines for cattle in Australia.
I asked them about the project and MLA responded saying that mRNA vaccines for cattle are in the early stages of development in Canada, but not Australia.
They do not know if they will work and if they can be used without altering the health or the genetics of the animal. These are the things the MLA are watching out for.
If an mRNA vaccine is developed, then the Australian Pesticide and Veterinary Medicine Authority will have to put the vaccine through its own safety testing before approval.
I can also add that the stories on the internet about death of cattle after mRNA vaccines are wrong. The video being used is from other incidents, including the use of poison feed.
mRNA vaccines are not in use in cattle in Australia, and as far as I am aware, anywhere in the western world.
Although we don’t need to worry immediately about these gene shots in our cattle, we will keep an eye on how this unfolds overseas.
Transcript
Senator Roberts: Thank you for appearing tonight. I refer to questions on notice dated 28 February 2023. Question SQ23-0002000 is going to be distributed. It is from February estimates regarding the development of mRNA vaccines. A copy will be coming. Do you agree with this answer as it was written at the time?
Mr Strong: This is a question to us and an answer we provided?
Senator Roberts: I’m not sure if you were in the room at the time. Maybe Mr Metcalfe took it.
Mr Metcalfe: Sorry, Senator. I wasn’t paying attention.
Senator Roberts: That’s alright. You undertook to take this question on notice for people who weren’t in the room. I think you did it for two or three groups last time.
Mr Strong: The highlighted piece that you are asking about on this first one?
Senator Roberts: Yes. Do you agree with this answer as it was written at the time? Has anything changed since then?
Chair: Which one are we on, Senator Roberts?
Senator Roberts: It is SQ23-000200.
Mr Metcalfe: I think MLA is being asked whether there is any update to the reference to 200, Jason. I think we are being asked about 128. Senator, I will undertake to see whether there is any update to 128. I don’t have the relevant staff here because they’ve all gone home. I am not sure whether MLA can assist you in relation to the question.
Mr Strong: Yes is the short answer, Senator. We would still agree with the answer that has been provided here. It is a research project that is still going through the research process now.
Senator Roberts: You are involved?
Mr Strong: Correct.
Senator Roberts: In supporting the development of mRNA vaccines for cattle? It’s under development at the moment, but it hasn’t been approved?
Mr Strong: So involved. I’m absolutely not trying to be cute. We are involved in the research to look at the potential use and development of mRNA vaccines. There is not the commercial use of an mRNA vaccine for a veterinary purpose at this stage.
Senator Roberts: That’s right.
Mr Strong: This research project is looking at that. Can it be done? Can it be done in a safe way? Can it be done in a way that produces a vaccine that provides a level of efficacy we need? Can it be done in a commercial way?
Senator Roberts: I think the third criteria you had was that it doesn’t contaminate the food.
Mr Strong: Of course. And it has to be commercial.
Senator Roberts: I want to unpick the whole third paragraph. Firstly, this answer indicates that a lumpy skin vaccine will undergo testing in Canada. Is it still being tested in Canada and not Australia?
Mr Strong: The research is being conducted in Canada to develop the mRNA type vaccine. For any vaccine to be approved here, it would have to go through an approval and testing process here. But the research is being done in Canada. We probably could have been clearer in the way that was written.
Senator Roberts: The TGA, which did not do live patient testing in this country, relied on the FDA. The FDA in turn did not do any testing; it relied on Pfizer. Unlike them, you will do thorough testing?
Mr Strong: We’re very confident of the standards in place and the requirements we have to comply with for veterinary medicines in Australia. We will absolutely comply with them. I think we all have a level of concern and confusion in this space from what we have seen and heard in the last few years. Luckily, in Australia, we have a very sound and detailed approval process. Absolutely we will make sure any research we do in this space is connected to that process.
Senator Roberts: I would like to get into that. The TGA admitted, in answering my questions at the last Senate estimates, that they did not do testing with live patients. They relied upon data from the FDA in America. The FDA also admitted that they didn’t do live testing. They relied upon data from Pfizer, the producers. Do our testing requirements require proper testing in this country?
Mr Strong: Yes, they do. I think there are some big differences between what we all experienced over that two or three-year period and what we are doing here. The main one is that we have more time and human lives aren’t at risk. If we don’t get positive results out of the tests with the research that is being done on these mRNA vaccines, we can stop. If there are different paths we have to take, we can do that. If we need to take more time, we can do that. I think the two examples are sufficiently different that we can have confidence that we will be able to stick to a very disciplined research and development and then testing, pre-approval and approval process for any potential new vaccine.
Senator Roberts: It is good to know that the mRNA technology is still new. It hasn’t been tested properly in humans at all. What makes you confident that your test will pick up any problems in cattle?
Mr Strong: Nothing is the short answer to start with. The follow-on from that is that it is exactly what you just said; it is new technology. A very important part of this research is to learn about that. If it has the utility that we think it should have and the ability to manufacture the type of vaccine which is actually safer for animals and easier to use and more effective, it provides a fantastic potential opportunity and we absolutely should explore that. But we absolutely have to do that in a way that protects the safety of the animals and the food chain and, obviously, the consumers.
Senator Roberts: Because the reputation of mRNA now has been tarnished well and truly. People will be wary about eating something that has mRNA in it and eating that meat.
Mr Strong: We will be very conscious of those consumer and community views in the space.
Senator Roberts: Will the meat be labelled?
Mr Strong: I don’t know the labelling requirements for what would happen with an animal that has been vaccinated. Like I said, that hasn’t existed previously. Labelling requirements is something that absolutely would be part of the approval process. Of course we would rely on the Australian authorities to make those rulings.
Mr Beckett: It is a bit early in the consideration. Those things will all be dressed.
Senator Roberts: What is that, Mr Beckett?
Mr Beckett: I said it is early in the consideration of the whole research. Those things will certainly be considered in the process.
Senator Roberts: Overseas experts with regard to the COVID injections for humans say this new technology should have had 15 years of testing, not 15 months or nine months, and not rely just on Pfizer itself. Now we are finding out that the efficacy is negative for these injections. It doesn’t stop transmission. The authorities have acknowledged that. It needs to be very well tested over an extended period with cattle to make sure there is efficacy and to make sure it is safe and it is safe for humans. The mRNA vaccine for foot and mouth is also being tested in Australia, though, isn’t it?
Mr Strong: No. Not yet.
Senator Roberts: No, sorry. It will be tested in Australia. The testing will be in Australia at the Elizabeth Macarthur Agricultural Institute located in the middle of a large dairy production area in Menangle. Is that right?
Mr Strong: No. Not necessarily. Before anything can come into Australia, it has to go through a very controlled and specific quarantine process. Nothing would actually be brought in and tested or released without appropriate controls.
Mr Metcalfe: Our department has to approve the import of such a virus. We would give extremely careful consideration to any application such as that for obvious reasons.
Senator Roberts: You would have to bring foot and mouth virus in?
Mr Metcalfe: Absolutely. We would probably need the chief veterinary officer and others to provide evidence to you about the management of that issue.
Senator Roberts: They are up next, I think.
Mr Metcalfe: No. I am only here because I am supporting the minister. The department is formally no longer here.
Senator Roberts: Will you be involved in that test, MLA?
Mr Strong: It’s too early to say. The research that we’re investing in is whether it is possible to produce vaccines using mRNA technology that would allow the treatment of diseases such as lumpy skin disease and foot-and-mouth disease. That is the research.
Senator Roberts: So it’s very early days?
Mr Strong: Very early days, absolutely, yes.
Senator Roberts: Are you aware that the testing on mRNA vaccines for lumpy skin disease and foot-and-mouth disease includes ensuring that the vaccine does not alter the DNA of the animal, thereby destroying generations of genetics? Australian farmers, whether dairy or beef, should be very proud of the genetics they’ve developed over the years. We don’t want the genes altered.
Mr Strong: Absolutely we don’t. Again, it’s too early in the process. I am sure those things will be part of the consideration if there’s any potential risk from that.
Senator Roberts: The answer to question SQ23-000128 precludes the precautionary use of an mRNA vaccine for foot-and-mouth disease or lumpy skin disease as it would remove our status as being disease free. Can you reassure the committee that this is still the position of Meat and Livestock Australia?
Mr Strong: I don’t think that was our position in that question. Wasn’t that a department question? Isn’t that what you were saying?
Mr Metcalfe: That was actually advice from the department to you, Senator. I have indicated that we’re happy to update. If there are any changes, we’re happy to update it. It was only provided a couple of months ago. I would be surprised if there is anything to update.
Senator Roberts: If you could just let us know.
Mr Metcalfe: We’ve taken that on notice already.
Senator Roberts: Let us know if it remains constant or if it has changed.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/q2gP9au7gpo/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Sheenagh Langdonhttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSheenagh Langdon2023-06-13 14:45:192023-06-13 14:45:24Is there an mRNA Vaccine for Australian Cattle?
