There appear to be up to 7 fully redacted ingredients in Pfizer’s experimental genetic vaccine BNT162b2. In this video, I discuss a heavily redacted excerpt of Section 3.2.P.1 from a confidential Pfizer document, released by the MHRA in response to my Freedom of Information request. For further details, please visit alltherisks.com/trade-secret. I have already extensively documented #AllTheRisks across toxicology, molecular biology, virology, immunology and epidemiology in a fully independent biosecurity risk assessment at http://www.alltherisks.com.
Summary Basis for Regulatory Action – Comiranty
Source: https://www.fda.gov/media/151733/download
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1sgZYqm7vJhxEk4Zc0nbFsv69ClCZqniX/view
CRITICAL UPDATE! In response to my Freedom of Information (FOI) request, on 11 November 2021, the MHRA provided the below heavily redacted excerpt from a confidential Pfizer document. Table 3.2.P.1-1 appears to list 7 fully redacted ingredients.
Background: COMIRNATY is a trade name of Pfizer’s experimental SARS-CoV-2 genetic vaccine BNT162b2, the same experimental product deployed in the UK under Regulation 174 from the MHRA, the UK’s Medicines and Healthcare Regulatory Agency. According to the CDC, “There has been no change in the formulation of the vaccine since the name change.” The FDA’s document Summary Basis for Regulatory Action – COMIRNATY, dated 23 August 2021, outlined the full approval of COMIRNATY. As below, Table 2 protected a 0.450ml excipient from public disclosure, according to U.S.C. § 552(b)(4), in lieu of “[t]rade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person and privileged or confidential”.
Without reversioning their document, as below, the FDA later spontaneously updated Table 2 to supposedly reveal this previously undisclosed excipient to simply be water for injection (UNII: 059QF0KO0R).
However, this new disclosure cannot be reconciled with Table 3 in the same FDA document.
Therefore, on 20 October 2021, I raised a Freedom of Information (FOI) request to the MHRA entitled: Exact quantity of Water for Injection pre and post dilution in BNT162b2.
On 28 October 2021, the MHRA responded with the following:
The duty in Section 1(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act 2000 does not apply, by virtue of Section 41 (Information provided in confidence) and Section 43 (Commercial interests) of that Act.
Section 41 is an absolute exemption and no consideration of the public interest is required, except to state that we consider its disclosure to constitute an actionable breach of confidence.
Section 43 is a qualified exemption and a consideration of the public interest should be made. We have considered the public interest and cannot see any public interest argument that outweighs the commercial harm whereby the information can be used by competitors to inform their own product development and overcome regulatory hurdles.
Critical questions that must immediately be addressed by the MHRA therefore include:
- What could possibly warrant the MHRA’s decision to not disclose the exact amount of water for injection (UNII: 059QF0KO0R) in BNT162b2 by invoking an absolute exemption (Section 41) and a qualified exemption (Section 43)?
- Why would the disclosure of the exact amount of water for injection (UNII: 059QF0KO0R) in BNT162b2 inflict any “commercial harm” on Pfizer, as the MHRA claim?
- If the only solution present in BNT162b2 in liquid or frozen state is water for injection (UNII: 059QF0KO0R) then how could confirmation that it comprises the entire solution of BNT162b2 in its pre-dilution and post-dilution state “be used by competitors to inform their own product development and overcome regulatory hurdles”?
A diagram of mine illustrating dilution and post-dilution dosing of BNT162b2 is shown below.
the news network 