This is not ingredients in the vaccine. The HIV-Luc cell line is used in virus testing and creation. This does not make it part of the virus either. It's just the cell line they used in its development which is completely unsurprising. This cell line was designed for testing all sorts of things.
If you want to find something sinister where there is nothing sinister I can not stop you. I have explained why the HIV-Luc system is a commonly used system.
There is something else I forgot to mention above. The lipid called SM-102 has nothing to do with Luciferase specifically. The sheet you used in your graphic explains how it has been used to create a lipid nanoparticle to deliver mRNA for the reporter Luciferase. It can be used to create the same type of nanoparticle to deliver ANY mRNA, such as the mRNA that encodes the SARS-CoV-2 S protein, or a protein for a cancer specific surface protein (a common usage) or mRNA for any protein you want.
In the sheet you have it says "Luciferase" as an example because it is the most used reporter protein because when it catalyzes its reaction it gives off a photon in the visible spectrum. That's IT. Luciferase is not only not sinister, it is used all over the world in every bio lab everywhere because it is so damn useful, because it brings light (visible) and allows us to see, in real time, what is going on. If I used it as a reporter in my nanoparticle it tells me exactly which cells my nanoparticle made it into. That is useful for a million reasons.
Was it called "Luciferase" (bringer of light) 120+ years ago by the discoverer in tribute to Satan? Maybe, maybe not. I have no idea. But if that is true, that is not something that most of the hundreds of thousands (probably) of people that use it regularly have any clue about (myself included until recently) Its just an amazingly useful tool in the cell bio toolkit.
SM-102 not being approved safe for human use means that it hasn't been sufficiently tested, or tested and not yet approved.
Looking at the molecule I see no obvious problems, but who knows. I'm not particularly concerned about it, but it absolutely shouldn't be being injected without testing. Again, maybe it has been tested, shown to be innocuous and just not yet approved. Or its been tested and shown to cause cancer etc. (Unlikely imo but not impossible.) Its an unknown.
The data sheet itself is about the whole product, which is SM-102 in chloroform which is what the hazardous label is for. Its just how it is stored and sent, likely to prevent clumping. When used to create the nanoparticles the chloroform is removed.
Again, HIV is a lentivirus. That's the classification of virus that it is.
There are two things going on here.
There is the HIV-Luc cell line and/or plasmid and/or virion (whole virus), which are somewhat different things, all used for studying other things, and there is the fusion of two virions that was used (according to this email which is questionable) to create the SARS-CoV-2 virus.
That has absolutely no connection to any vaccine (at least not with any evidence presented here).
I am not in any way suggesting this isn't sinister as fuck. I am saying it is important to recognize the distinction of what is going on here, and not confuse it with what is not.
I don't understand what is going on with this virion fusion. It's going to take a virologist who creates their own viruses to explain this I think. If there were more information I could do it, but its a little too cryptic for me to decipher.
Normally a fusion of cells is taking one cell and fusing it to another. To fascilitate such fusion sometimes one cell will be genetically altered to express a protein that has a receptor on another cell. After fusion there will be a single cell with two nuclei. Inducing mitosis in such a cell will cause the nuclei to fuse into one, with the resulting daughter cells getting a mishmash of DNA. If they are viable they will be a combination of the genetics of the original two cells which can be grown and their unique properties studied.
It sounds to me like they are doing the same thing with HIV and SARS? (Big maybe on that.) Its confusing, because the RNA (genome) of the SARS-CoV-2 does not have enough HIV RNA to justify such a mixture (its only a dozen or so nucleotide similarity I think).
Its important to remember though, the Luciferase is in the HIV virus because Luciferase is a great tool for being able to see which cells have been infected. It is not in and of itself in any way sinister.
The email itself may be the smoking gun, or it may be nothing. If it was sent FROM Fauci, it would be immediate GITMO for Fauci. Because it was sent to him from someone unknown (as far as I know) it doesn't have a direct connection to him, and isn't really proof of anything (yet). It could have been sent by someone who Fauci had no connection with, or for whom there can be no connection established other than this one email. It could have been a hoax email for all I know.
This is not ingredients in the vaccine. The HIV-Luc cell line is used in virus testing and creation. This does not make it part of the virus either. It's just the cell line they used in its development which is completely unsurprising. This cell line was designed for testing all sorts of things.
Again, totally common cell bio stuff.
Totally normal HIV plasmids being used.
If you want to find something sinister where there is nothing sinister I can not stop you. I have explained why the HIV-Luc system is a commonly used system.
There is something else I forgot to mention above. The lipid called SM-102 has nothing to do with Luciferase specifically. The sheet you used in your graphic explains how it has been used to create a lipid nanoparticle to deliver mRNA for the reporter Luciferase. It can be used to create the same type of nanoparticle to deliver ANY mRNA, such as the mRNA that encodes the SARS-CoV-2 S protein, or a protein for a cancer specific surface protein (a common usage) or mRNA for any protein you want.
In the sheet you have it says "Luciferase" as an example because it is the most used reporter protein because when it catalyzes its reaction it gives off a photon in the visible spectrum. That's IT. Luciferase is not only not sinister, it is used all over the world in every bio lab everywhere because it is so damn useful, because it brings light (visible) and allows us to see, in real time, what is going on. If I used it as a reporter in my nanoparticle it tells me exactly which cells my nanoparticle made it into. That is useful for a million reasons.
Was it called "Luciferase" (bringer of light) 120+ years ago by the discoverer in tribute to Satan? Maybe, maybe not. I have no idea. But if that is true, that is not something that most of the hundreds of thousands (probably) of people that use it regularly have any clue about (myself included until recently) Its just an amazingly useful tool in the cell bio toolkit.
Why would lentivirus HIV protein be used? I mean the sinister nature of it is in its name, HIV.
It also states the SM-102 is not for human use.
SM-102 not being approved safe for human use means that it hasn't been sufficiently tested, or tested and not yet approved.
Looking at the molecule I see no obvious problems, but who knows. I'm not particularly concerned about it, but it absolutely shouldn't be being injected without testing. Again, maybe it has been tested, shown to be innocuous and just not yet approved. Or its been tested and shown to cause cancer etc. (Unlikely imo but not impossible.) Its an unknown.
The data sheet itself is about the whole product, which is SM-102 in chloroform which is what the hazardous label is for. Its just how it is stored and sent, likely to prevent clumping. When used to create the nanoparticles the chloroform is removed.
Again, HIV is a lentivirus. That's the classification of virus that it is.
There are two things going on here.
There is the HIV-Luc cell line and/or plasmid and/or virion (whole virus), which are somewhat different things, all used for studying other things, and there is the fusion of two virions that was used (according to this email which is questionable) to create the SARS-CoV-2 virus.
That has absolutely no connection to any vaccine (at least not with any evidence presented here).
I am not in any way suggesting this isn't sinister as fuck. I am saying it is important to recognize the distinction of what is going on here, and not confuse it with what is not.
I don't understand what is going on with this virion fusion. It's going to take a virologist who creates their own viruses to explain this I think. If there were more information I could do it, but its a little too cryptic for me to decipher.
Normally a fusion of cells is taking one cell and fusing it to another. To fascilitate such fusion sometimes one cell will be genetically altered to express a protein that has a receptor on another cell. After fusion there will be a single cell with two nuclei. Inducing mitosis in such a cell will cause the nuclei to fuse into one, with the resulting daughter cells getting a mishmash of DNA. If they are viable they will be a combination of the genetics of the original two cells which can be grown and their unique properties studied.
It sounds to me like they are doing the same thing with HIV and SARS? (Big maybe on that.) Its confusing, because the RNA (genome) of the SARS-CoV-2 does not have enough HIV RNA to justify such a mixture (its only a dozen or so nucleotide similarity I think).
Its important to remember though, the Luciferase is in the HIV virus because Luciferase is a great tool for being able to see which cells have been infected. It is not in and of itself in any way sinister.
The email itself may be the smoking gun, or it may be nothing. If it was sent FROM Fauci, it would be immediate GITMO for Fauci. Because it was sent to him from someone unknown (as far as I know) it doesn't have a direct connection to him, and isn't really proof of anything (yet). It could have been sent by someone who Fauci had no connection with, or for whom there can be no connection established other than this one email. It could have been a hoax email for all I know.
More evidence and virologist insight is needed.