LNP ALC-0315: The EMA Ignored that Pfizer’s Jab Was Unsuitable for Injection & A Defective Medicine

Despite being forced into getting the COVID-19 “vaccines,” the components that comprise the mRNA gene-damaging jabs have not been thoroughly explained to the masses. One thing we do know about the toxic concoction is that it has proven to be life-altering and often fatal. We know the shot is supposed to instruct our body to produce spike proteins, and we’ve seen the words Lipid Nanoparticles thrown around as if they’re commonplace in emergency use medicines. Perhaps the lack of details is because the sinister group pushing the poisonous shots understands how confusing and crooked the cocktail is, and they just might be banking on the fact we won’t fully understand. Because when we know, we also see their deception.

As noted by many brave health freedom warriors, including the esteemed former pilot Dr. Kevin Stillwagon, the lipid nanoparticles used by both Pfizer and Moderna become extremely toxic and damaging to cellular components as they travel through our bodies. Moreover, Stillwagon points out “that they are different from each other, and different from the original nucleotide sequence that was published for the Wuhan spike protein.” He added, “So, they are making different proteins that don’t even match what was on the virus. That fact alone should have made anyone using their God-given intelligence extremely suspicious.” He’s right. When realizing that, it’s essential to understand that the deception behind what appears to be all facets of the mRNA shots, including their lipid nanoparticles, is extensive. 

We know that Pfizer BioNTech used the lipid ALC-0315 in their “vaccine” (Moderna used SM102). Yet, when looking specifically at Pfizer’s lipid, what we don’t readily know—but should—is that a pivotal study used by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) to promote the idea that the composition of the LNP-based vaccine Comirnaty developed by Pfizer BioNTech has been somehow “optimized” for intramuscular injection due to ALC-0152 is incredibly biased and misleading. And confusing. Nonetheless, the EMA referenced the study, titled Optimization of Lipid Nanoparticles for Intramuscular Administration of mRNA Vaccines, when declaring Pfizer’s Comirnaty jabs were safe and approved its use. (pg. 42).

Speaking of the fate of Pfizer’s lipid ALC-0315 once the “trojan horse” lipid structure fulfills its mission of the delivery of the MRNA, Independent Research Biochemist, Specialist in Chemistry of microemulsions and colloidal systems Dr. Gabriele Segalla, remarked on October 16, 2023, in his published, peer-reviewed study titled Apparent Cytotoxicity and Intrinsic Cytotoxicity of Lipid Nanoparticles Contained in a COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine:

“Not taking into account at this point the very plausible hypothesis already confirmed by numerous authoritative studies that the spike protein, after having been released from the cytosol, then goes on to be further distributed in the organism where it can potentially reach unpredicted organs or tissues.

Well, well, in all this fascinating bio-technological scenario regarding this revolutionary mRNA platform, isn’t something missing? What is missing? What is missing in this innovative nanotechnology narrative? Well, actually, one of the main protagonists is missing—the biological fate of ALC-0315 is missing. The lipid nano horse has broken up. It has released its mRNA parcel, but where has the cationic ionizable lipid that had primarily contributed to the structuring and functionality of the lipid nanoparticle gone, and why is it that no one is talking about it?”

Upon questioning why practically all scientific publications—”which eulogize the wonders of Pfizer BioNTech nanotechnology”—are “taking good care NOT to investigate” what happened to ACL-0315, Segalla contemplated, “Did ALC-0315 disappear into thin air?” No, it did not. It is wreaking havoc inside the bodies of those injected with it. He explained that once the nanoparticle “trojan horse” particle breaks up, ALC-0315 reverts to being a free amino lipid molecule—free to reassume at the physiological pH of the cytosol, the devastating power of all its positive electric charge. Essentially, ALC-0135 exhibits an apparent low toxicity before cellular internalization, but once penetrated and released into the cytosol, it becomes unrestricted to fully unleash its maximum cytotoxicity (elevated intrinsic pKa). Segalla remarked:

“At this point, ALC-0315 can finally express the maximum of its cytotoxicity and its consequent devastating intracellular effects. The very same devastating effects that BioNTech knew very well. ‘For positively charged nanoparticles, elevated toxicity has been reported, which can be a problem for the application of such preparations as pharmaceutical products’, as BioNTech itself had asserted in its patent released on November 26, 2019.”

Yet, despite this clear evidence of cytotoxicity of cationic lipid nanoparticles, the EMA asserts no genotoxicity studies have been performed in its assessment report dated February 19, 2021. They explain that this lack of testing is acceptable “because the components of the vaccine formulation are lipids and RNA that are not expected to have genotoxic potential.” They also cite that “safety, pharmacology, genotoxicity, and carcinogenicity studies were not conducted in accordance with 2005 WHO vaccine guidelines”… “as they are generally not considered necessary to support the development and licensing of vaccines for infectious diseases. In addition, the components of the vaccine construct are lipids and RNA and are not expected to have carcinogenic or genotoxic potential.” OK, once the EMA brings the WHO into the conversation, there’s instant reason to be suspicious. 

What is the role of the EMA? The EMA’s website states that it is a decentralized agency of the European Union located in Amsterdam responsible for the scientific evaluation, supervision, and safety monitoring of medicines developed by pharmaceutical companies for use in the European Union. The agency ensures that all medicines available on the European Union market are safe, effective, and high-quality. The mission of the EMA is to foster scientific excellence in the evaluation and supervision of medicines for the benefit of public and animal health in the European Union.

Sound familiar? So, what is peculiar and misleading about the EMA’s reference to the study Optimization of Lipid Nanoparticles for Intramuscular Administration of mRNA Vaccines? Incredibly (and quickly confirmed by clicking on each author here), all 19 authors of the paper cited by the EMA are either current or former employees of Moderna Therapeutics and own stock options and shares in the company. Oh, and they’re the main Pfizer competitor in the race for mRNA COVID-19 vaccines. Why were the authors promoting a false “optimal” value for ALC-0315, and why didn’t the EMA notice the discrepancy? Segalla remarked that even more peculiar is that on page 3 of the study, a closer look makes it straightforward (to someone as knowledgeable as him)—but no doubt confusing to most of us—that the EMA’s use of the study is flawed. Calling the EMA’s smoke and mirrors documentation regarding ALC-0315’s toxicity “the classic smoking gun,” a stunned Segalla concluded:

“This means that the ionizing strength of the nanoparticles contained in the preparation of Pfizer BioNTech is approximately three times to six times lower than the optimal range expected for intramuscular inoculation. Doesn’t look so optimized. Three to six times lower is far from optimum.

To conclude, in its assessment report, EMA officially states that the product Comirnaty of Pfizer BioNTech has been properly optimized for an intramuscular type of administration. And in support of this, EMA refers to Moderna’s article in which, however, it is asserted that the characteristics of the Ionizable lipid used by Pfizer BioNTech are such that the entire vaccine results unsuitable for intramuscular administration.

Quite a huge contradiction, don’t you think? It does not seem to [be] representative of the scientific excellence that EMA boasted about in its mission statement.

The documentation that you see here could be described as the classic smoking gun, and on the butt of this smoking gun, one can find EMA’s irrefutable fingerprints. The documentation produced by EMA indeed contained the overwhelming evidence that EMA knew—or at least could not have ignored—the fact that the medicinal product Comirnaty by Pfizer BioNTech was unstable, ineffective, and unsafe.

In other words, it was not only a defective medicine but also that it was unsuitable for intramuscular administration, and consequently, EMA should never have granted Pfizer the marketing authorization for the Comirnaty vaccine. Never.”