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?
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.
I appreciate your knowledge and expertise. I also have substantial knowledge and expertise in all of the areas you mentioned (biochemistry, FDA approval, biomedical/pharmaceutical marketing, clinical research, informed consent, etc., etc.). In general, knowledge of those qualifications does not enhance (or subtract) from an argument or evidence. The argument or evidence either stands on its own or it doesn't. A persons credentials are completely irrelevant, and thus not worth pointing out. In fact they are generally used to create fallacies in argument; "pro hominem" or "ad hominem" depending on if they are for or against the person speaking, respectively.. If you have specific knowledge, that will be readily apparent in your argument (where "argument" just means the claims made, and the logical connections between them).
More specifically, none of those areas of knowledge change the fact that SM-102 has no apparent difficulties in it's biochemistry of being broken down by the cells when it is incorporated into the cell membrane during fusion of the lipid nanoparticle (made primarily of SM-102) with the cellular lipid bilayer. Since that was the topic of my post, I am confused why your response did not address anything I said directly, but was instead a bunch of unrelated things (all of which I agree with, but were completely irrelevant to my post).
Generally when someone responds to something, it is in agreement (additional corroborating evidence e.g.), or in disagreement (evidence or argument to the contrary of the assertions made). In your case, the Pfizer stuff almost sounded like "it's full of pitfalls and fraud, so SM-102 must be too." I'm not saying that was what you were saying. I was looking for something that fell into an agreement or disagreement category, because otherwise your post could have gone anywhere, instead of in reply to me. There was simply no other connection I could make between what you said, and what I was asserting in my post.
If you just wanted to talk about completely different things than the context of my post, giving me that information in the beginning of your reply would have alleviated the confusion.
Wrt the code block, if you could post that part of your post with a tick (single quote) that should give me the text used to create it. I would really appreciate the effort. I have been trying to figure out how to make a code block for over a year (they are really useful for certain posts). Every time I see one I ask, and no one knows how to make them, but they happen, therefore the interface allows for it. I'm guessing there is a shorthand that people accidentally do.
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.
I want you to appreciate that I am not saying that SM-102 can't possibly be toxic. I am only presenting an argument against using data for it in solution as evidence of toxicity as a lipid nanoparticle (which can't even be formed until it has been completely removed from solution).
What I mean is, there is no reason to take that and end all suspicions. I am suspicious of everything (though in the case of SM-102 specifically, my suspicions are very low). I will always keep my eyes open for evidence of it's toxicity if such evidence presents itself. I won't however, just believe it is true without digging further, no matter the source.
If this particular molecule is something you want to investigate further because of your own suspicions, I certainly do not want to deter you. 90% of everything I have dug into has a fuckery layer underneath. How deep that goes is only found by investigation. I would never want to discourage any investigation. I only want to discourage our tendency to believe that evidence that supports our bias/beliefs must be Truth.
'the lipid nano particle, owned by Juatin Trudeau,'