Section 22(1) is not a vague “could mean anything” clause. MHRA can only apply it when the information already exists, has gone through a formal process like a CHM meeting, and is queued for publication. If this was still in scientific back-and-forth, they’d have used other exemptions like §41 (confidentiality), §43 (commercial sensitivity), or §44 (legal prohibition). The fact §22(1) was used here means the meeting happened, the minutes are written, and they’re scheduled for release.
The July 15 NICE letter isn’t idle wording either. NICE’s PMG24 is clear: they cannot complete appraisal until the final SmPC is available. “Not yet in a position to provide their evidence submission” means exactly that the final label isn’t issued yet, and label finalisation only happens after MHRA has already made its internal approval decision.
So when you put the FOI and NICE statements together, you get the standard endgame sequence: CHM review complete, label finalisation, public licence, NICE appraisal. No deficiencies, no stall, just the quiet, closed-door step before approval.
The rest of this is classic paid-shill misdirection: bury the thread in every FOIA exemption under the sun to muddy §22(1)’s meaning, pretend NICE’s wording has no procedural context, and throw in personal smears (“fantasy bot doctor”) to shift attention off the facts. It’s the same tactic every time, flood with irrelevant noise, attack the messenger, and hope readers forget the simple regulatory reality in front of them.
Bullish
AI
Market Data 
Markets 
