In the recent round of estimates I asked the head of the TGA, Mr Skerritt questions about the delivery of the vaccine and the how the body is meant to stop the production of the spike protein that is initiated by the vaccine.
Sadly he was unable to clearly enunciate clear and concise answers.
Please note the following points:
1. When asked about biodistribution studies Skerritt said the distribution of the Lipid Nanoparticles is below the internationally assessed level for genotoxicity. The biodistribution of the LNP’s was assessed in a small number of rats for 48 hours only, despite concentration levels showing higher levels on the second day. The TGA has no idea what the level of concentration of LNPs are in humans and given they did not contain the active ingredient (i.e. the mRNA producing spike protein) have no understanding what is a safe level.
2. Skerritt stated there was no evidence of ill effects from LNP’s. This is incorrect as there were anomalies in the rats tested. Otherwise there was no evidence of ill effects because there wasn’t any evidence at all. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence!
3. After stating there was no evidence of ill effects Skerritt states there is a risk of myocarditis and heart issues. One of his many contradictions.
4. Skerritt implies that the vaccines had to be rushed out because a couple of million of people would have been hospitalised or died from Covid. This is an outrageous statement. No other country in the world had a combined hospitalisation and death rate of 10% during the Covid pandemic.
5. When asked about genotoxicity studies, Skerritt implied he would have to consult as to what information he can provide as there were over 200,000 pages on the vaccines. This is another contradiction as previously the TGA has said there were no documents on the genotoxicity studies.
6. Skerritt then implies genotoxicity studies were done in vitro i.e. in the laboratory and went on to say this is the only way to assess the modifications to the spike protein. No its not. Regardless of what the studies in the laboratory show, tests must still be conducted in humans to ensure safety. It is also worth nothing that Skerritt dismissed in vitro studies on ivermectin that showed it had broad ranging anti-viral properties. Another one of his contradictions. How many are we up to now?
7. Skerritt stated there were no functional changes as a result of modifying the spike protein. This is incorrect. The spike protein produced by the vaccine was modified for the exact purpose of improving it’s functioning. Namely to avoid the innate immune system and increase reliability and stability. As a result, the modified vaccine produces MORE spike proteins than the virus!
8. Skerritt could not answer my question as to what is the off switch for producing spike proteins. He deflected on numerous occasions. You will note that he was more than happy to say how the spike protein was created but couldn’t really say when production of the spike protein would stop. Given the mRNA has been modified to last longer and be more stable it would last a lot longer than normal mRNA. Furthermore studies have shown that mRNA last up to 60 days, not the 48 hours stated by Skerritt. It is also worth nothing that even once the mRNA stops producing spike proteins, spike proteins still remain in the body for an unknown period of time.
9. Skerritt states it is only a tiny amount of mRNA being given in the vaccine and therefore can’t do much damage to organs. There are billions of molecules in a dose. This is an ingenious statement as the virus proteins are tiny as well, but have the potential to kill as we have been repeatedly told ad nauseum the last two years.
10. His final remark stating that there is no evidence that the spike protein does any damage is partially correct in the sense that the active ingredient i.e. mRNA producing the spike protein was never tested in live animals or humans.
Which is exactly why the TGA aren’t doing their job correctly, because they are not assessing all possible risks.
The 123,500 reported and suspected adverse events from the Covid vaccines should be enough evidence of a safety signal should they not?