https://www.howbadismybatch.com/cdcexpiry3.pdf
Why do other batches have no expiry date? Why do the batches with expiry date happen to be the deadly ones? Why does CDC want to keep this list a secret?
The reason is that the batches which contain the mRNA vaccines are the ones that would expire. The batches with the saline are the ones that don't need an expiry date.
Does it mean all the batches other than the deadly ones were actually Saline?
Most of the humanity is actually safe?
The shit they used as the delivery encapsulate is enuf to make anyone sick:
SM-102, Polyethylene glycol (PEG) 2000 dimyristoyl glycerol (DMG)., 1,2-distearoyl-sn-glycero-3-glycero-3-phosphocholine (DSPC)
Fuking SM102 is an industrial solvent. I have a close friend that is the top OSHA guy for a F500 corp. he said that shit is heavily regulated when used in any industrial process … yet for the jab - crickets. The FDA website says 70-80% of the population has some degree of allergy to PEG.
Its fuking insane that people even now don't bother to do a simple search of the PRIMARY shit in every shot. Retards.
SM-102 is not a "solvent." (I mean, everything is a solvent to something, but that's not what "solvent" usually means).
SM-102 is just a amino lipid. Looking at the molecule it looks like it is easily broken down by normal lipid breakdown pathways (beta-oxidation e.g.). It is a relatively simple molecule, with no apparent hot spots. That doesn't mean it can't possibly be toxic, but I see no toxicity signals in the molecule itself (as in none).
It is the solvent that the SM-102 is stored in that is toxic (chloroform), and the reason for the regulation. Extracting the solute (SM-102) from the chloroform is a relatively simple process. It is highly unlikely that substantial amounts of chloroform (if any at all) are in the vaccines after the SM-102 molecules are extracted and then put in an aqueous solution to make the lipid nanoparticle.
SM-102, as far as I can tell, and as far as all the evidence I have seen, is not a danger in any way.
PEG on the other hand can have toxicity issues, but its commonly a function of the length of the molecule (in this case ~2000 monomers of ethylene glycol). Of course the total amount is probably a bigger issue.
It can be broken down by the body however, so it isn't a permanent toxicity, and it isn't a ubiquitous one. I find your statement of 70-80% toxicity highly suspect. It has been used for many years without issue in other applications, though not usually in this amount.
There is likely a genetic predisposition to an allergic reaction, and it would be a simple test to find out before injection (if there were any honest interest in a persons health in the Jabbing process).
It isn't the "primary" shit that's the problem. I have seen no evidence that supports such an assertion. Of course PEG does have issues, but like I said, a simple allergy test would take care of that completely.
Pfizer Fights to Control Secret of $36 Billion Covid Vaccine Recipe
https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2021-pfizer-secret-to-whats-in-the-covid-vaccine/ (Bloomberg, November 14, 2021)
“The secret formula that Bourla [Pfizer’s CEO] is protecting is much more complicated than a simple recipe. Pfizer’s shot has more than 280 materials made by suppliers in 19 countries, many of which are protected in one form or another. For a manufacturer to produce a vaccine, it would have to negotiate multiple licenses to waive protections on everything from lipids to mRNA strands and trade secrets used in the manufacturing process. The waiver proposal could in theory do that in one go.”
Did your healthcare provider who jabbed you with Pfizer’s CV-19 shot inform you of what all the 280 ingredients were in addition to deleterious, immune-suppressive effects of the genome altering spike protein programming mRNA sequence before you gave your consent to be administered the shot?
Did they discuss the potential toxicity of any one of those 280+ materials with you, including what the body-altering mechanism of the experimental gene therapy is?
Did they tell you this injection was life altering, or was in any way possibly life threatening to you?
They didn’t?
Or did your boss say you’d better get jabbed, or you’d be fired?
Or did you get fired for refusing to be medically raped by the jab?
Or did any establishment, school, or government entity require you or your child to produce a “vackz passport” to enter their premises, or to engage in commerce with them?
If so … you might want to be contacting a smart tort lawyer, real soon.
Start here: Siri/Glimstad (NYC): https://www.sirillp.com/aaron-siri/
I'm confused. Why is this a response to me?
Also, How did you make the code block? (The gray part.)
I am a biochemist who has knowledge of and an appreciation for pharmaceutical formulary science. I also know what it typically takes to get new products through FDA review, and their approval for marketing, including necessary inspections of manufacturers and clinical research organiations. I also have significant appreciation for the concept of informed consent. It is apparent to me that there were many corners cut, all of which are impactful on inherenrt product safety.
You write as one who appears to have some familiarity with biomolecules. I could be wrong. The code block came about on its own.
The questions I posed were for anyone to ask themselves, possibly yourself too.
Excellent point about SM102 … it is completely unstable without cloroform. You cant have SM102 without it. Ergo, the deceptive labeling as SM102, and only SM102.
No worries … you need sauce, have some sauce
PEG allergies derive from its residual persistence in the germ of grains we consume. Hence the mass population being ‘allergic’. Again … SAUCE
MORE SAUCE
EDIT: You are 100% correct about it not being a solvent in the traditional use of the term … it is used in many many solvents.
If it matched wikipedia that is not my fault. I was speaking from experience. People shun wikipedia as if it was some bad source. It isn't, it is an excellent source. The problem with wikipedia is the same problem with any source, it is not to be trusted. The assumption is that other sources are more trustworthy. I assert that is not true. No sources should be trusted. Each should be approached with critical thinking.
You have to understand, my perspective is from a couple decades experience in biochemistry. I am looking at the molecular structure. I am not basing my words on "wikipedia" (which I didn't even read, I only linked it to help you, because it's generally right about chemicals and such thing). I am basing my words on having worked with many similar chemicals for decades. That is where I am coming from.
As for your evidence:
The first one links to the chemical sheets and cries foul. But the chemical sheets are for the chloroform stored lipid. It says it is a "liquid." SM-102 would almost certainly not be a liquid at room temperature. It would be at best like a thick oil, and looking at it, with its quite long straight hydrogenated carbon chains and small head groups, it would almost certainly be more like a wax (at room tempurature). If I had to guess, I'd say it would be a solid(wax like) up to over 100 degrees.. That is why it has to be stored in a solvent like chloroform.
It also says: "highly flammable liquid and vapor."
Sm-102 would not only not be a liquid, it couldn't possibly be a vapor. But Chloroform would be.
She says:
I can't find that anywhere on her list of things, but even if true (and it could be, because I think ethanol would likely be a viable solvent), pure ethanol, is toxic as fuck. A solution of 90% ethanol, if breathed in, could straight up blind you.
Again, SM-102 is just a lipid. I can find all sorts of papers that talk about ethanol toxicity (in pure form). I can't find any that talk about SM-102 toxicity.
Everything she talks about relies on her misunderstanding of the chemical data sheet. Because of the nature of the SM-102 molecule it requires specific solvents (It can't dissolve in water). Those solvents are all toxic. That is why all solutions of the molecule are toxic; because of the solvent.
As for the PEG, I agree that continued exposure may be problematic. It is a very low toxicity molecule however. I think people may have allergies because it is used ubiquitously. It's in so much stuff that we use, which can build up immune responses to it (allergies). Again, a simple test will determine if it will cause such an immune response. If it does not cause an immune response, it is reasonable to assume it is safe to use, because the body breaks it down easily. It has no residual toxicity (at least I have found no evidence to suggest that it does).
This is why the debate is so important. Your sources do not understand chemistry. They are reading a data sheet and not understanding the toxicity of the solvent. These data sheets are about what people get from the manufacturer. That includes the solvent. That is why all that stuff is there. That is why it is so confusing to so many people. For me, if I saw that, I would recognize exactly why it was so toxic. I know the procedures required to extract the lipid (basically a fatty acid, like solid olive oil) called SM-102, from the toxic solvent. I can use the warnings to know what precautions I have to take during that extraction process. THAT is their purpose. If you aren't a chemist, you might not know that. By her words, your source does not seem to understand that either.
I removed that after the fact. That was Bad form on my part. Honestly … I thought I was responding to a handshake account, I looked up right as I was responding to your comment. Still tho. Ur objectivity is necessary to keep the discussions value-added. My retarded comment was an obvious limp ad-hominem. Apologies.
I acquiesce to your obvious expertise with respect to the discussions on SM102. Knife-gunfight paradigm.
'the lipid nano particle, owned by Juatin Trudeau,'
PEG is in all kinds of consumer products - especially dental. I always found it amusing with patients that were so concerned about all kinds of toxins in food and water, but took little notice of the toothpastes and mouthwashes they used - all of which are toxic and serve no purpose in advancing dental health - or health in general. I would say that toothpastes are probably the biggest contributor to PEG sensitivity. Sensitivities and allergies both come from repeated exposure. Allergies are developed when a threshold is crossed.
The best thing to use is just plain old baking soda - preferably non aluminum. A drop of Fennel extract is good for balance of microbiome. A body that is in balance should not stink - either from bad breath or body odor. If there are smells, it is because there is a problem with disease or toxicity. Marketing has indoctrinated the public into thinking they need all of these toxic products. They are all contributing to our demise.