Australian Senators vs Pfizer

IN C19 Prey
  • Updated:6 months ago
  • Reading Time:31Minutes
  • Post Words:8056Words
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Here are my chosen clips from the Senate Hearing vs. Pfizer held on Aug 3rd, 2023.

Held on the 3rd of August, 2023, here are the clips I thought people most needed to know (that don’t sit through hours of political chess like I do), but you can watch the Full Session in it’s original format on ParlView:

Pfizer Australia Representatives

  1. Dr Krishan Thiru, Country Medical Director, Pfizer Australia (03)
  2. Dr Brian Hewitt, Head of Regulatory Sciences, Pfizer Australia
Pfizer admits Pfizer staff didn't get the same batch as the public

Pfizer officials admitted at a Senate hearing in Australia that their employees were given a special batch of vaccine, not the one that was rolled out to the public.

Pfizer admits Pfizer didn’t get the same batch as the public

Rumble-clip | Full Malcolm Roberts vs Pfizer session “Senator Roberts grills Pfizer on mandates”

We introduced a colleague vaccination program in the interest of protecting the health and safety of our colleagues and the communities in which we operate.

Senator Roberts: We’ve read that your vaccine mandate was using your own batch of vaccine, especially imported for Pfizer, which was not tested by the TGA. Is that correct?

Senator, so Pfizer undertook to import a batch of vaccines specifically for the employee vaccination program, and that was so that no vaccine will be taken from government stocks that was being delivered to clinics as needed. (05) (06)

Why does Pfizer have “special batches” that “bypass” TGA’s batch testing because they are “reserved for their own employees’ vaccination program” in Australia? (07)

I’m glad I took screenshots and copied all the tables of batch numbers before TGA removed the evidence from their website back in January 2023:

Pfizer Employees Don’t Get The Same “Fake-Vaccine” As The Rest Of Australia

Pfizer's Opening Statement

Bit of a waffle/marketing spiel, but here are five clips from the Opening Statement:

  1. 15secs—Pfizer signed letter 6 days after Pandemic declaration to create vaccine “On March 17, 2020, just six days after the World Health Organization declared COVID-19 of pandemic, Pfizer signed a letter of intent with BioNTech to co-develop a potential COVID-19 vaccine.”
  2. 10secs—Pfizer says no safety signals prior to licensing “The independent data monitoring committee for our landmark trial did not report any serious safety concerns related to the vaccine prior to licensing.”
  3. 46secs—Pfizer says they closely monitor adverse events (I have a feeling this will be used against them as evidence in the future, or maybe that’s just wishful thinking!)
  4. 1min—Pfizer operations in Australia since 1956 (Clip on the background of Pfizer in Australia and it’s export operations.)
  5. 17secs—Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine requires 280 components — I’ll make a separate post at some stage explaining why this one is so important, but you can check out my big post in the meantime, or even browse the section What’s in the Vials? for why we might be concerned about the undisclosed “protected by IP” ingredients in the vaccines and what these 280 “components” might consist of. (08) (09)

Clip 1

Pfizer signed letter 6 days after Pandemic declaration to create vaccine

On March 17, 2020, just six days after the World Health Organization declared COVID-19 a pandemic, Pfizer signed a letter of intent with BioNTech to co-develop a potential COVID-19 vaccine. (10)

Clip 2

Pfizer says no safety signals prior to licensing

The independent data monitoring committee for our landmark trial did not report any serious safety concerns related to the vaccine prior to licensing. (11)

Clip 3

Pfizer says they closely monitor adverse events

These authorizations are based on robust and independent evaluation of the scientific data on quality, safety and efficacy, including a landmark phase 3 trial. Data from real-world studies complement the clinical trial data and provide additional evidence that the vaccine provides effective protection against severe disease. We take all adverse events that are potentially associated with our COVID-19 vaccine very seriously. We closely monitor all such events and collect relevant information to share with global regulatory authorities. Based on ongoing safety reviews performed by Pfizer, BioNTech and Health Authorities, the vaccine retains a positive benefit risk profile for the prevention of COVID-19 infections. (12)

Clip 4

Pfizer operations in Australia since 1956

With approximately 80,000 employees globally and one of the most sophisticated supply chain systems in the industry, Pfizer is one of the largest biopharmaceutical companies in the world. Pfizer is proud to have had operations in Australia since 1956. We have more than 1,000 employees in Australia and operate across two commercial sites in Sydney and Melbourne, and a manufacturing facility in Melbourne that exports to over 60 countries worldwide. Pfizer is a proven, reliable multinational vaccine producer, supplying vaccines that prevent a multitude of diseases and infections to 175 countries, even prior to the pandemic, when we manufactured more than 200 million doses of Pfizer vaccines annually. Additionally, Pfizer is one of the largest sterile injectable supplies in the world, producing more than 1 billion sterile units per year. Each year, more than one out of every six people worldwide are estimated to have used a Pfizer medicine or vaccine. (13)

Clip 5

Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine requires 280 components.

Vaccine manufacturing is a biological production that is extraordinarily complex under any circumstances. Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine requires 280 components and relies upon 86 supplies located in 19 different countries. (14)

6 More Clips of Senators Grilling Pfizer Australia for Answers

  1. 7min—Aussie Pfizer officials deny gene-therapy claim
  2. 8min—Senator Canavan grills Aussie Pfizer Officials
  3. 10min—Senator Hanson grills Pfizer Officials
  4. 2min—Senator O’Sullivan can’t believe Pfizer’s response
  5. 10min—Senator Rennick grills Pfizer Australia on Myocarditis
  6. 30secs—Senator Antic asks Pfizer whether they played a part in social media censorship

Clip 1 Antic

Aussie Pfizer officials deny gene-therapy claim

I want to refer you to a recent study published late last year. The cut and thrust of it was, that the study shows that the risks of these vaccines are greater than previously reported, and it shows that using your own publicly available data, there was one serious adverse event for every 800 vaccinations, which translates to about 12,250 serious events for every million vaccine recipients. (15) (16) (17) (18)

Interview with one of the authors:

Now, when you look at that in comparison to the rate for conventional vaccines, it’s about 1 every one or two per million, and in fact, the 1976 swine flu vaccine was withdrawn after it was associated with Guillain–Barré Syndrome of about one in 100,000. But this is particularly difficult when you factor into account that those who are at the lowest risk for hospitalisation were probably at the highest risk for serious vaccine reactions. Was Pfizer aware of these matters before it was approved in Australia, and did you alert the regulator, the TGA to these risks?

Senator, I’m sorry, I’m not aware of the report that you’re reading or indeed the article from which you are quoting. Could you just repeat your question again? It was very complex, and I’m not sure if I understood it.

Well, the question was, were you aware of the one in 800 rate of return on serious adverse events and the fact that the profile of those events damaged or affected those who are the least likely to be hospitalised most, prior to the drug being submitted for approval? And did you make the TGA aware of those risks?

So, Senator, again, I can’t speak to that. I don’t have that report in front of me. I think one thing I would note overall are that global regulators are continually assessing the vaccine safety data in their regions, and the international coalition of medicines regulatory authorities, which is the coalition of 38 medicines regulatory authorities from every region in the world, recently released a statement, and that statement was endorsed by the European Medicines Agency (EMA), confirming the safety profile of COVID-19 vaccines. And the regulators stated that the evidence from more than 13 billion doses of COVID vaccines administered worldwide, showed that the vaccines have a very good safety profile in all age groups.

Our therapeutic goods association derives something in the order of 96% of its budget from industry fees. What amount of funding does Pfizer provide to the therapeutic goods association per annum?

Senator, yes. So, it’s user fee funded. So, there are a couple of different ways in which TGA is funded.

The question was the dollar figure.

I don’t have that figure.

You don’t know that? If you can take it on notice…

Another recent journal article here in the Journal of European Journal of Heart Failure stipulates that the incidence of mechanisms of myocardial injury following COVID-MRNA booster vaccination was found to be more common than first thought and warranted further studies. (19) (20)

Is Pfizer aware of this? And if so, when is Pfizer going to remove this product from the market?

I don’t have a copy of the research paper that you’re referring to. It’s not data that we have, so I can’t comment on that specifically. What I can do is reiterate that we are aware of these very rare reports of myocarditis, where aware that the therapeutic goods administration has provided advice to vaccine administrators on how to manage that risk. We’re aware that it is all the information that is available is in the approved product label. It is fully transparently disclosed, and that’s the decision for individual vaccine providers to make.

Right, okay. Well, I accept that you’ve been sent here to go the Roper Dope like Ali Fraser, the Thriller in Manila, so we’re not going to get proper answers out of this, but I want you to answer this question. Did at any time your legal compliance teams look to the possibility that the lipid nanoparticle (LNPs) mRNA complexes satisfied the definitions for being properly deemed genetically modified organisms under the Australian legislation? And the question is, did you examine that possibility?

Senator, mRNA technology is not gene therapy. (Liar). It does not alter a human DNA. (21)

So, that’s not an answer to the question. Was it examined-considered?

Examined or considered, I’m not sure the nature of your question can you be more specific?

Well, I can’t really be more specific. It was very specific. Did you at any time did your legal compliance teams look to the possibility or examine the possibility that these vaccinations satisfied the definitions for being properly deemed GMOs for the purposes of Australian legislation?

So, again mrna technology is not a genetically modified organism.

So you didn’t? Your team did not consider that?

So Pfizer consulted with the Office of Gene Therapy Technology Regulator (OGTR) and sought confirmation that in fact that our vaccine did not fall under the Gene Technology Act 2000. (22) (23)

Rennick: I have a document here from Pfizer themselves and I’m happy to table this, and they actually state that manufacturing gene therapies and in particular includes transfection, a process that uses HEK cells. So they themselves admit on their own website, gene technology includes transfection and transfection is a part of the COVID vaccine process. So can I table this document just to point out these people are contradicting their own statements? (24) (25) (26)

Clip 2 Canavan

Senator Canavan grills Aussie Pfizer Officials

Did Pfizer test whether your COVID-19 vaccine could stop or reduce the transmission of the virus before its approval and rollout in late 2020?

Senator, to bring this vaccine to patients, we were required to show that the vaccine was safe and effective in preventing illness, in preventing severe disease and in preventing hospitalisations. The primary purpose of vaccination was and remains to protect the person who received the vaccine.

So is it yes or no? Did you test whether the transmission would be reduced or stopped before the approval of the vaccine?

Senator, we designed our clinical programmes in agreement with regular pre-ledancies, the purpose of which was to demonstrate the vaccine was safe and effective in preventing infections.

Okay. Or we might just move on then… on the 14th of January 2021, so just a month, six weeks after Mr Albert Bourla’s statement to NBC News, six weeks later the official Pfizer Twitter account tweeted that, and I quote, “The ability to vaccinate at speed to gain herd immunity and stop transmission is our highest priority.(27)

On what evidential basis what evidence did Pfizer have to make that public statement to imply that vaccination could stop transmission?

Senator, I’m not familiar with the context or the details of those comments.

Could I ask you to take that on notice, then? The question being on what evidence did Pfizer have for their statement on Twitter on the January the 14th 2021?

Senator, I’d be happy to take that question on notice, and come back to the committee with what information we’re able to provide.

So by the 8th of June, 2021, the Pfizer CEO, Mr Albert Bourla tweeted, and I quote, that the vaccine was “a critical tool to help stop transmission. (28)

Was there any evidence, what evidence did Mr Bourla have by that stage by June the 8th 2021 that the vaccination could stop transmission?

Senator, it has been very clearly demonstrated that the robust efficacy of Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine has been a centrally important tool in enabling societies to open up international borders to reduce the…


Okay, I’m asking for what evidence, what is that evidence? Can you point me to a study that Pfizer or an independent scientist has done that to give grounds for Mr Bourla’s statement that your vaccine stops transmission?

Senator, I’m not familiar with the context of that statement. We’ve complied and worked very closely with the regulatory agencies around the world to probe the evidence that they required to approve this vaccine to preventing infections, severe disease and hospitalisations.

Okay, I’ll ask you to take on notice again the evidential basis for Mr Bourla’s comments on June the 8th 2021.

I’d be happy to take that on notice.

Thank you. Do you still believe that the COVID vaccine, your COVID vaccine, is a critical tool to help stop transmission?

Absolutely. (Check out the other Pfizer guy giving him the death-stare when he said that!) It’s a critical tool in preventing, as I said earlier, infections, severe disease and hospitalisation.

Okay, that wasn’t my question. You did, I think so. Absolutely, but just to be clear on that evidence and if you’ll get you to clarify, do you believe, is it Pfizer’s view that your COVID vaccine is a critical tool to help stop transmission?

Sorry, I may have misheard your question. I was replying.

Okay, that’s why I re-asked it. I thought you might have misinterpreted it, but is your view that the COVID vaccine is a critical tool to help stop transmission?

Pfizer’s view is that the vaccine is a critical tool in protecting the health of individuals who are vaccinated and enabling society to operate normally as it is at the moment.

Well, okay. I’m taking from that that you don’t think that it’s a critical tool to help stop transmission. You haven’t repeated Mr. Bourla’s statement today under oath, so it doesn’t sound like you’re that confident in it. What I’m concerned about here is that you have a statement from your CEO that is obviously very, has huge weight for governments around the world on their regulatory settings saying that the COVID vaccine could stop transmission or was a critical tool to help stop transmission, can you point me to any statements made by Pfizer officials, the Pfizer CEO, anything that has pulled back, that has somewhat moved away from that very strong statement from Mr. Bourla’s statement in June 2021 that it was a critical tool to help stop transmission. Have you clarified the record since that time?

Senator, I’m very confident that the evidence that we have presented to regulatory agencies still stands and clearly demonstrates that the vaccine is safe and effective for its intended use.

That’s not my question. I’m sorry, I’m very, very sorry to pull you up. I don’t normally do this, but we have very limited time and you are being very, very shifty here when not answering the very clear questions.

Governments by late 2021 in this country, our government, Australian government, state governments, imposed vaccine mandates on their own employees, and required other employees to impose them on their employees. They definitely did that in part, based on the evidence and advice from organisations like yourself, from the statements of Mr. Bourla. We were constantly told by our leaders that your vaccine was necessary to stop the spread, and I have pages and pages of quotes from those leaders saying that the vaccine would stop the spread. What I’m asking you, is – you would have seen those statements – you’re the head of regulatory services. You would have seen those statements. Is there any statement from Pfizer that clarified Mr. Bourla’s statement from June 2021 that responded to the very strong statements from premieres about your product? Because if there’s not, what you’re doing is effectively only reporting the good news that you have about your vaccine and not clarifying where there may be a short-coming from your product that has then led to thousands of Australians to lose their jobs, and their livelihoods.

Why hasn’t Pfizer clarified the record on transmission when governments have used that to mandate your product and provide you then with billions of dollars of profits around the world by doing so?

Senator, perhaps I can make a comment. So, Pfizer was very clear and met an application to TGA that it sought an indication for active immunization to prevent coronavirus disease caused by SARS-CoV-2.

But you said more than that. That’s not what I am asking about your public statements from your CEO. He said it was a critical tool to stop transmission, and I can’t find anything from him or anyone else of his employees that has removed back from that statement since yet you won’t repeat his statement on evidence today. So, you obviously don’t believe in it. Why haven’t you clarified the public record since June of 2021?

So, Senator again, I can only repeat that in making an application to TGA, Pfizer sought active immunization to prevent coronavirus disease. (29)

Clip 3 Hanson

Senator Hanson grills Pfizer Officials

If you don’t watch the whole video, at least read this bit (from the end):

Senator Hanson: “You must have been fully aware that people, nurses, doctors, people to have their jobs, to keep their jobs were forced to have the vaccination. Now, do you retract your statement that they were not forced?”

Pfizer: “Senator, no, I believe firmly that nobody was forced to have a vaccine. Mandates for vaccine requirements are determined by governments and health authorities. I believe everybody was offered an opportunity to get a vaccine or not get a vaccine. I don’t believe that anybody was forced to take a vaccine.

Hanson: A lot of Australians will disagree with you on that one. (30)

A recent peer-reviewed paper and the establishment’s Scientific Journal, ‘Vaccine’ examined Pfizer’s COVID vaccine randomised phase three clinical trial data. It used the World Health Organization’s framework made for this purpose, the Brighton Collaboration adverse events of special interest. (31) (32)

Now authors of world leading virologists and pharmacology experts from the UCLA, Stanford University, University of Maryland Baltimore, and Queensland’s Bond University, the paper concluded that Pfizer’s vaccine was associated with a 36% increase in serious adverse events. The most common were coagulation disorders, including thrombosis and acute cardiac injury. In every 10,000 people injected, 18 will experience a life threatening or altering medical complication. Serious adverse events from Pfizer COVID vaccine are four times higher than any benefit from the vaccine in reduced hospitalisation. The paper said the product should never have been approved. Would you like to respond to that, please?

Senator, I do not have a copy of your paper, I cannot comment on it specifically. What I can say is this, that this benefit-risk ratio of vaccination in all age groups in all populations continues to be strongly positive and vaccination continues to be encouraged by health authorities globally, including in Australia. The most common adverse events that are seen are local reactions, a painful arm, a sore, some redness or swelling, some muscle aches and pains, maybe a fever, some fatigue or a tightness. We take all reports of adverse events seriously. We collect that information, we analyse that information, we communicate it to regulatory agencies such as the TGA. They pool that data from the safety data that they receive from other sources, whether that be from healthcare professionals, whether that be from patients directly, whether that be from state departments of health. Their conclusion is very consistent with conclusions of other regulatory agencies around the world, and that is that the benefit-risk ratio for vaccination remains strongly positive in all indications, all age groups, for which it has been approved.

(Oh My God. I would love to see how much these people get paid to flat-out lie in front of the Senate… is there any pay cheque high enough though to sell your soul in this way?)

Well, I want to know your response with the reported 1,476,227 adverse event reports up to December 2022, including 32,621 deaths.

Senator, I’m not aware of the figures or the document from which you’re reading.

Right… You don’t know, you haven’t read up much on all this, have you? You knew you were going to come to this inquiry, yet you haven’t done anything whatsoever to respond to our questions. I think it’s very poor of you to not be able to answer these questions. You’re a scientist, you’re from “science”, Dr. Hewitt, and you’re a country doctor, Dr. Thiru, I expected to have more of an answer here, because we’re going through dire straits. People in Australia have had adverse side effects. You say that injection site is the main cause of adverse side effects. Well, while I’m reading here in your figures and pages and pages of adverse side effects, and you know what, most of this comes up with, is nervous system disorders, thousands upon thousands of people, whether it be the lethargic, headache, you got other problems here with them, but another one that really concerns me is about it’s to do with reproductive system and breast disorders.

Did you state to the TGA the impact that this drug would have on pregnant women?

Senator, it’s very, firstly, I reject the premise of your question in terms of those safety findings that you’ve communicated. It’s very important to note that the difference between an adverse event that has been reported and an adverse reaction that has been actually attributed to the product. The TGA carefully analyzes all of the reports that it receives and makes a determination as to whether there was a causal link to the therapeutic product or not. This is not something different for vaccines. This happens with all therapeutic products. In terms of your specific question about pregnancy, all of the information that we have has been communicated to the TGA. I would draw your attention. So in the approved product label for the product, it says that there is limited clinical trial data in or limited clinical trial evidence in pregnant women and that it should be the subject of informed decision between a woman and her physician or vaccine provider. Also that animal data has not suggested any untoward effects on pregnancy, on foetal development, on childbirth, or on postnatal development. I might add to that, that expert groups have said this about vaccination in pregnancy. So the Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunization (ATAGI) has recommended if you are pregnant, you can get vaccinated with the Pfizer vaccine at any stage of pregnancy. They have also said real world evidence has shown that the Pfizer vaccine is safe if you are pregnant and breastfeeding. If you are pregnant and unvaccinated, you have a higher risk of severe illness from COVID-19. Your baby may also have a higher risk of premature birth. So that is one group of experts. Another group of experts, and probably the most August authority in this area is the Royal Australian New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. So this is the peak body of obstetricians, the doctors who have spent their lives training and are specialised in the care of pregnant women. They have said pregnant women in Australia are a priority group for COVID-19 vaccination and should be routinely offered the Pfizer vaccine, Comirnity or Moderna Spikevax at any stage of pregnancy. They have said there is no evidence of increased risk of miscarriage or teratogenic risk with mRNA or viral vaccines. It is very clear that experts who have spent their lives and are dedicated to examining this data in pregnant women have come to that conclusion. We continue to take all reports of adverse events where the pregnancy related or otherwise very seriously, work with the TGA and other regulators around the world to further characterise the vaccine. But based on the information that is available at the moment, that is the recommendation of expert authorities.

You’re still on trial with this drug, aren’t you? Because any other drugs that are actually introduced into our society usually goes through 10 years. You actually said that when this pandemic was released, told by the World Health Organization, you said within six days you started doing trials into it, you started the vaccination which you said came out a year later. And it was passed, what trials had you done prior to that? What trials had you performed to ensure the full safety of this drug on the people of the world?

Senator, let me just correct the record. I did not say that any vaccination or clinical trial was done within six days. I said we signed.

You started, you responded to the World Health Organization six days later and a year later you produced the drug.

Senator, we signed a contract. We signed an agreement with another company BioNTech to research the vaccine. And then that proceeded over the year. I might ask my colleague, Dr. Hewitt, to talk about the clinical trial program.

No, Senator, I think given the then urgent public health need to responsibly develop a vaccine with a favourable safety profile, we collaborated very closely with independent regulatory and health authorities around the world. And that allowed us to conduct key activities in parallel to allow us to significantly accelerate vaccine development without compromising safety.

Right, last question. You both Australians, you live here? Were you in the country during COVID-19?

Yes, I was.

You were. Okay. Dr Thiru, you actually made a comment that no one was forced to have the vaccination. Who made the comment? Was it Dr Thiru?

Hewitt: I believe I made that comment.

You made that comment, right? You were in Australia in COVID-19. You must have been fully aware that people, nurses, doctors, people to have their jobs, to keep their jobs were forced to have the vaccination. Now, do you retract your statement that they were not forced?

I, Senator, no, I believe firmly that nobody was forced to have a vaccine. Mandates for a vaccine requirements are determined by governments and health authorities. I believe everybody was offered an opportunity to get a vaccine or not get a vaccine. I don’t believe that anybody was forced to take a vaccine.

A lot of Australians will disagree with you on that one.

Clip 4 O'Sullivan

Senator O’Sullivan can’t believe Pfizer’s response

Senator O’SULLIVAN: I have a quick question. Dr Hewitt, I looked at all the information before me, as every other Australian had the opportunity to do, to get vaccinated. I decided that getting vaccinated was the right thing for me. I am fully vaccinated. There are many Australians who, looking at that information, didn’t believe the vaccination was right for them. I’m from Western Australia. In Western Australia, vaccines were mandated essentially across the entire population. There were a few exceptions. There were very few exceptions. If you wanted to go to work and earn a living and provide for your family, you had to be vaccinated. Based on your evidence, I’m staggered that was the response you gave earlier to questions in relation to whether or not people were forced to have vaccines. If you had to make a choice between paying your mortgage and putting food on the table for your family, you can hardly say that those people were not forced. They were making choices. There were plenty of people who were forced to do it. There were some in Western Australia—I’ve had so many who have contacted me—who had to go without because they chose not to be vaccinated. The state government forced them to be vaccinated, frankly. What do you have to say to that?

Dr Hewitt: Mandates or vaccine requirements are determined by governments and health authorities. As a company, we were not involved in the development of any government vaccine mandates.

Senator O’SULLIVAN: But they didn’t have the same opportunity. You said that they had the opportunity to be vaccinated. Well, there were people who had the opportunity to not pay their mortgage and they chose to not be vaccinated.

Dr Hewitt: Is there a question there, Senator?

Senator O’SULLIVAN: Do you still stand by your original statement that you made a few minutes ago?

Dr Hewitt: The mandates for vaccine requirements are determined by governments and health authorities. I don’t believe that the mandates actually forced individuals to get vaccinations. (33)

Clip 5 Rennick

Senator Rennick grills Pfizer Australia on Myocarditis

CHAIR: Senator Rennick.

Senator RENNICK: I note that you’ve already stated today that the vaccine was designed to actually stop or prevent infection. This was also reiterated by your CEO, Albert Bourla, on 2 April 2021, when he posted a tweet,:

Excited to share that updated analysis from our Phase 3 study … showed that our COVID-19 vaccine was 100% effective in preventing #COVID-19 cases—

By September 2022, Australia had recorded 10 million cases of COVID despite having an adult population vaccinated to the tune of 95 per cent. Given those real-world figures in Australia, do you still stand by that statement you’ve just said to Senator Canavan that the vaccine was effective in preventing infection?

Dr Thiru: We strongly believe, and we reiterate, that the vaccine is safe and effective for its intended use. What changed was that the virus evolved. If we look at the clinical data from before the virus mutated into Delta, Omicron and subsequent variants, the vaccine maintained high levels of efficacy. If we look at the six-month data from the pivotal trial, efficacy for the prevention of serious—

Senator RENNICK: Sorry, I’m not referring to trials. I’m referring to the fact. I’m referring to the Omicron variant. That’s a product of the nature of the vaccine. You have actually designed a vaccine that is an epitope on one spike protein and not the other 28 proteins in the vaccine. That is a design fault of yours, the fact that it can’t cope with other variants. That is the nature of the way you have designed that vaccine.

Dr Thiru: Senator, I categorically reject your statement. The vaccine was carefully designed against the virus that was prevalent at the time, which was the original wild-type virus. It remained highly effective against preventing illness and preventing severe disease.

Senator RENNICK: Thank you. Can you define ‘highly effective’ in terms of a duration?

Dr Thiru: When the wild-type virus was prevent, efficacy of approximately or greater than 90 per cent was maintained at six months for both overall the illnesses and severe disease.

Senator RENNICK: The TGA non-clinical report on the Pfizer vaccine said that T-cells, antibodies and T-cells in monkeys declined quickly after five weeks after the second dose of the vaccine. So the best we’ve got here in animal studies was five weeks, 35 days, a bit over a month. Why are you saying six months when animal studies showed five weeks? In human studies, you cut them short after two months.

Dr Thiru: The human immune system doesn’t rely on antibodies alone. Antibodies provide short-term protection against infection. T-cell and other immune responses, which are a bit more difficult to measure, provide longer lasting protection.

Senator RENNICK: Maybe you didn’t hear what I just said. It said antibodies and T-cells declined quickly after five weeks. That’s what the TGA Pfizer non-clinical report said—five weeks.

Dr Thiru: It is very difficult to measure the totality of the immune system’s responses against the infection. What we need to rely on is—

Senator RENNICK: Okay. If that’s the case—

CHAIR: Senator Rennick, Dr Thiru could finish his answer. Are you finished, Dr Thiru? By all means, if you have something else to say, say it. I’ll then go back to Senator Rennick.

Dr Thiru: I will make one more comment. We then need to look to clinical outcomes. It’s very clear that, even with the Omicron variant, with a virus that is now quite different to the original virus, efficacy against, in particular, severe disease, hospitalisation and people not surviving is maintained for significant durations.

Senator RENNICK: I’m referring to infection. For the bulk of the people, half the country was infected with COVID 10 months after. For healthy people of working age population, their risk from COVID was very low. I’m putting it into context here. These people were forced to take a vaccine that you said—you’ve said today—was effective in preventing infection. That is not the real-world data. The real-world data showed that almost 50 per cent of the population, despite being vaccinated twice, if not three times, caught COVID. You’ve just said it’s very difficult to measure the duration. Are you going to retract the statement that the vaccine was effective, because you’ve basically contradicted yourself already?

Dr Thiru: Senator, the virus had approval for the prevention of infection, for the prevention of severe disease and the prevention of hospitalisation. Despite the fact that the virus had evolved, had mutated significantly, vaccination remained significantly effective against severe disease and hospitalisation for prolonged periods.

Senator RENNICK: I will move on. Thank you.

Dr Hewitt: May I say something? I actually reject your statement that people were forced to take the vaccine.

Senator RENNICK: We’ll deal with that later. That’s not your decision. That’s not to do with today. According to the Pfizer non-clinical report, there were no carcinogenic tests, no genotoxicity tests, no immune toxicity tests, no interaction studies with other medicines and no longitudinal studies. I note that in regard to pregnancy and lactation, studies were conducted on rats. How can Pfizer say that the vaccine was unequivocally safe without qualifying any risks around the vaccine?

Dr Hewitt: I don’t have that report in front of me so I’m afraid I can’t talk to it. What I can say is that the TGA is one of the world’s leading regulators.

Senator RENNICK: You can take my word for it. I’m happy to table this document. It clearly stated that a number of tests were not conducted. Those tests weren’t conducted. I accept that we had a short time frame, but that doesn’t remove the fact that certain risks were not analysed. You never highlighted those risks when the vaccine was rolled out.

Dr Hewitt: I disagree with that statement. The Therapeutic Goods Administration is a very thorough and very competent authority perfectly able to reach a decision based on data that it reviews.

Senator RENNICK: Initially, when the vaccine was rolled out, myocarditis and pericarditis weren’t recognised side effects. Does Pfizer understand why the vaccine causes myocarditis and pericarditis? If not, how can it guarantee that it is not also injuring other organs? Can you explain why the vaccine causes myocarditis and pericarditis?

Dr Thiru: I’ll take that. Based on our clinical trials and pharmacovigilance data as well as real-world evidence following the distribution now of billions of doses of vaccine, we retain strong confidence in the safety profile of the vaccine.

Senator RENNICK: Chair, I raise a point of order. I have asked whether they understand why it causes these symptoms. I know that it is a low risk. I am asking whether you understand why it causes myocarditis. I want you to explain to me why it causes myocarditis. Do you understand why it causes myocarditis?

Dr Thiru: Pfizer is aware of very rare reports of myocarditis and pericarditis that have been temporarily associated with vaccination. However—

Senator RENNICK: Well, that’s still ongoing for some people.

CHAIR: Senator Rennick, Dr Thiru should answer the question. Thank you, Dr Thiru.

Dr Thiru: According to public health experts and regulatory authorities around the globe, the number of reports of myocarditis remains small.

Senator RENNICK: I’m not referring to the number of reports. I want you to explain to me the mechanism of how the vaccine causes myocarditis. Do you or do you not understand the mechanism of why the vaccine causes myocarditis? It looks to me like you don’t. If you don’t understand it, why are you saying that the vaccine is safe without qualifying the risks?

CHAIR: Senator Rennick, I think Dr Thiru is actually about to get to that point. Whether people agree with his evidence is another question for others to make a judgement on. Dr Thiru, if you could again go to Senator Rennick’s question.

Dr Thiru: All medicines, all therapeutic products and vaccines, have benefits and side effects as well. Looking at the totality of the evidence for Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine, regulatory authorities, health authorities and experts globally, including in Australia within the department of health and the TGA, have maintained that the benefit-risk ratio—

Senator RENNICK: That’s not the question I asked. I asked whether you can explain why the vaccine causes myocarditis. Yes or no?

Dr Thiru: The benefit-risk profile—

Senator RENNICK: Yes or no. You clearly don’t understand the pathway, do you, because you can’t explain it? I’m not referring to the cost-benefit analysis here. I’m referring to whether you understand the biochemical pathway as to why the vaccine causes damage to the heart.

Dr Thiru: Senator, I’m happy to take your question on notice and come back to the committee with whatever information we can provide. I might clarify that I was not referring to a cost-benefit analysis in my previous response. I was referring to the benefit-risk ratio. Health authorities around the globe continue to recommend the benefits of—

Senator RENNICK: This isn’t the question I’m asking. Thanks, Chair.

CHAIR: Just so I can clarify as well, Dr Thiru, you have agreed to take the question on notice and give further response to that question. Is that correct?

Dr Thiru: That is correct, Chair. As I understand the question, it was about the mechanisms. We’re happy to take that question on notice. (34) (35)

Clip 6 Antic

Senator Antic asks Pfizer whether they played a part in social media censorship

To the issue of, and you can take this on notice if you like, and I would remind you that providing correct evidence to the Australian Senate is critical. I want to know whether or not Pfizer had any communications with any government, Australian Government Department, or social media company in relation to the censorship of Australians’ social media posts.

Senator, I have no information in relation to your question.

You may not, but I would like you to take that on notice.

We will take it on notice and come back to the committee with any information of relevance that we can provide. (36)

These are the two bills relating to this Senate Hearing: (37)

  • “COVID-19 Vaccination Status (Prevention of Discrimination) Bill 2022 (38)
  • Fair Work Amendment (Prohibiting COVID-19 Vaccine Discrimination) Bill 2023″ (39)

The first hearing was held on the 2nd of May 2023. Download the Hansard transcript. (40)

See posts tagged:

Posts tagged Australian Government


Penny (
Penny (

Truth-seeker, ever-questioning, ever-learning, ever-researching, ever delving further and deeper, ever trying to 'figure it out'. This site is a legacy of sorts, a place to collect thoughts, notes, book summaries, & random points of interests.