By C. Stuart

Thanks to UK nurse practitioner and online commentator, Dr. (Ph.D) John Campbell, we were alerted to the late March 2023 release of a study completed by Australia’s Department of Health in January 2021. The redacted study, released as a result of an Australian Access to Information request — is entitled “Nonclinical Evaluation Report: BNT162b2 [mRNA] COVID-19 vaccine (COMIRNATYTM) and was created in reply to Pfizer Australia’s “application for provisional registration of a new biological entity, the Covid-19 (COMIRNATY) vaccine”.

It can be found here:
tga.gov.au/sites/default/files/foi-2389-06.pdf

The document is an evaluation of the claims made by Pfizer as it sought government approval to make its product available to the Australian public. It is a key document because it sheds shocking light on what the Australian government knew about Pfizer’s product and when precisely they knew it. For anyone with a long enough memory, this information can be evaluated against the public health messaging at the time “vaccines” were being rolled out by Western governments. The data contained in this report is thought to have been available to the US, UK, Canadian and European governments at the same time it was available to the Australian government.

Both the two-year delay in getting the document released and the substantially redacted parts of it suggest that its findings contain information that the Australian (and other Western governments) would prefer not ever see the light of day. As we will explore below, the Evaluation makes it plain that Western governments were lying to their citizens about several key facts related to Pfizer’s product, while simultaneously and strenuously — (even irrationally) — pushing it on their trusting populations.

Site of Injection

Who can forget the government narrative that stated unequivocally — that after injection, “vaccine” contents remained at the point of injection? The Australian report proves that at the same time, governments were promoting this as an indisputable fact (and labeling any criticism a conspiracy theory), they were aware it was demonstrably untrue.

The Australian study shows that the lipid nanoparticles contained in the shots did not remain at the injection site. These lipids (which carried the MRNA payload) were systematically distributed throughout the body of test animals (monkeys, rats), via the plasma in the blood. The study included a useful if disconcerting table (Table of Organ distribution — Table 4.2) proving the lipids gathered in dozens of places outside the injection site, but mainly in the liver, spleen, ovaries and adrenal glands. After discovering that the lipids traveled throughout the test animal’s systems — to the bladder, bone, bone marrow (where blood cells are produced by the body), brain, eyes, heart, kidneys, pancreas, lungs, lymph nodes. prostate, spinal cord, testes, and uterus — the Australian Health authorities decided not to investigate or inquire as to whether the spike proteins manufactured by the MRNA, might be distributed similarly.

The report noted…” a slow but significant distribution of lipid nanoparticles from the site of injection with major uptake into the liver”. Remember when even suggesting the jabs might travel was labeled tinfoil-hat theory by government officials, captured scientists and mainstream media across the Western world?

Equally disturbing for a health agency whose job it is to evaluate such matters; upon noting this worrisome lipid distribution in the first 48 hours after injection, Australian health authorities stopped looking. One might have expected that upon confirming the lipid’s travels over 2 days, they might continue looking for results after say, 3 days and 4 days. They did not.

The report clearly shows that the fact of systemic distribution was known in January 2021. Consequently, any Western health authority or politician who repeated that false claim after January of 2021 was either uninformed or lying. If they were uninformed, they were grossly negligent since it was their job to be informed, with vast resources available to them for this purpose. If they were lying, one might consider it reasonable that they are held criminally liable.

Infection

At Page 4, the report notes very similar lung inflammation results in test animals whether the infected (with Covid-19) animals received the Pfizer shot or not. In plain terms, the virus was given to unvaccinated animals and they ended up with the same levels of lung inflammation (infection) as the ones who were administered the “vaccine”. Based on that finding, Australian Health concluded that the jab was efficacious enough to push out to everyone.

On page 4, the report acknowledged that there was no data in January 2021, to determine where the S-antigen encoding MRNA went after it was injected or how long it stayed in the animal’s system. The report noted, “there was no distribution or degradation data”. Strangely, Australian Health did not ask Pfizer to test for the systemic distribution of the spike protein produced by MRNA. Health authorities appear to have assessed this lack as irrelevant to the overall calculus when deciding to tell everyone it was safe to inject into their bodies. Lipids went absolutely everywhere in the body. It should have been determined whether the mRNA and the spike protein it produced, similarly traveled (it was, after all, using the lipid nanoparticle as a means of conveyance). The Evaluation also showed that there was “No data” on how long the spike protein persisted (in the body). Based on that lack of data, the vaccines were authorized to go into everyone’s arms.

At Page 5, the Evaluation notes that Antibodies and T-cells declined quickly 5 weeks after injection, after the 2nd booster. For Australian Health, this discovery raised “concerns about long-term immunity”. Having raised these important concerns about the limits of the so-called vaccine’s durability, the governments rolled it out to all. Australian Health seemed content with Pfizer’s statement on long-term immunity that…”The animal studies were of short term; long term immunity was not assessed. The sponsor indicated that long term immunity would be addressed by human data.”

Whether Pfizer meant this important element would be determined by later human clinical trials, or the upcoming vaccine rollout to a global population, is unclear.

Interestingly, the Report noted there was one study showing natural immunity produced a good Helper T-cells response in precisely 100 percent of people who had Covid. In plain speak that meant that antibodies to Covid-19 were naturally produced in 100 percent of test subjects!

Recall that natural immunity was roundly poo-poohed at the time, with irrational emphasis placed on “vaccines” as the only solution. Why were authorities silent on the natural immunity noted in the Evaluation? Claiming they were merely silent is generous. In fact, in their single-minded quest to get a jab in every human within their grasp, western governments went out of their way to destroy the long-since-proven scientific fact that infection resulted in natural immunity in the human body.

The Evaluation acknowledges several other important unknowns.

A lack of short-term protection studies

Lack of pharmacokinetic data, which is a lack of data about the way the body affects the drug/vaccine. i.e. how MRNA is broken down by the body. Health authorities had no idea;

Lack of knowledge about how the MRNA vaccines affected genotoxicity (i.e. how it affects one’s genes). There was no data examined about whether these vaccines were having a toxic effect on genes. The paper acknowledges — they did not know;

Lack of studies investigating the potential for autoimmune diseases to be triggered by the vaccines. The report acknowledges the potential that this could be an undesirable outcome of the shots but then requests absolutely no further study to explore that possibility.

Long-term immunity was unknown. The report put it this way: “Long-term immunity, vaccine-induced autoimmune diseases were not studied in the nonclinical program and should be addressed by clinical data post provisional registration”.

As Dr. John Campbell rightly notes, we took senior public health authorities scientists at their word because they said everything had been done normally when the vaccines were rolled out. There was nothing to worry about, they told us. This Evaluation that they fought to keep out of the public eye, confirms that many things the public was told were untrue — and known to be untrue at the time they were conveyed to a trusting public. Judging by this report, it is clear there was plenty to be concerned about. If we had been told the truth, our calculation would quite possibly be different.

Anyone can access this report and all are encouraged to download it and read it for themselves. It is not an easy read at over 50 pages, but worth the effort, for posterity’s sake.