On 13 July, Australia’s drug regulator quietly granted full approval for Pfizer’s Comirnaty “vaccine.” This is the same product that currently has 81,361 reported adverse events, with 443 deaths.
Why would the Australian Therapeutic Goods Administration (“TGA”) give full approval to a drug that has a bad safety profile? Is it because the TGA receives nearly all its funding from the companies that it is supposed to regulate?
Australia’s drug regulator, the Therapeutic Goods Administration (“TGA”), has quietly granted full registration to the Pfizer Comirnaty covid vaccine.
There was no media release, and the page associated with the product has not been updated since September 2022.
However, the TGA’s website page titled ‘Covid-19 vaccines regulatory status’, last updated on 27 July 2023, clearly states that full registration was granted on 13 July 2023.
This is the same product that currently has 81, 361 reported adverse events in DAEN (Australia’s VAERS or Yellow Card database). 443 of these entries are reported deaths, one of whom is Amy Sedgewick, who died at 23 years old after suffering a “catastrophic reaction” to her Pfizer vaccinations.
It should surprise no one that the Pfizer Comirnaty product has received full registration, despite: high rates of infection, hospitalisations and excess deaths after the vaccine rollout; independent peer-reviewed analysis of Pfizer’s own trial data determining the product to have one of the most appalling safety profiles of any drug in pharmaceutical history; and pharmacovigilance data indicating the same.
After all, an investigation by Australian science journalist Maryanne Demasi for the British Medical Journal found that the TGA receives more industry funding than any other regulator in the world, at 96%. More than nine out of every ten applications for new drugs are approved by the regulator.
From the investigation:
Sociologist Donald Light of Rowan University in New Jersey, US, who has spent decades studying drug regulation, says, “Like the FDA, the TGA was founded to be an independent institute. However, being largely funded by fees from the companies whose products it is charged to evaluate is a fundamental conflict of interest and a prime example of institutional corruption.”
From FDA to MHRA: are drug regulators for hire? By Maryanne Demasi and published in the British Medical Journal on 29 June 2022
Or, in Senator Alex Antic’s words, in a Senate Committee Hearing last week, “The TGA is not going to bite the hand that feeds it.”
Representatives from the TGA insisted that receiving most of their funding from industry presents no conflict of interest. They also disputed the figure of 96% of funding coming from the TGA.
At the same hearing, for the Committee’s review of a bill proposing to abolish workplace discrimination on the basis of covid vaccination status, two Pfizer representatives repeated, “safe and effective, benefits outweigh the risks” like bots churning out pro-forma answers to questions that were not in their FAQ database.
During the hearing, Drs. Krishan Thiru (Country Medical Director, Pfizer Australia), and Brian Hewitt (Head of Regulatory Sciences, Pfizer Australia):
