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?
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.
In order to make a block like that in your comment, start a new line and type a > followed by a space. Everything on that line after that will be within that grey block. There also needs to be a blank line underneath the > line before new text or it all gets combined. If you again use a > and space to make more text in a block, if there isn't anything without a > between the lines, they will combine into a single block. You do need to include an extra line between > lines of text in order to actually make a new line in the quote box.
'> First block here
^ with ' to show you the source text.
Now regular text.
'> Second block
'
'> With multiple lines of text in the box.
And again...
'> Third block with two lines, but no extra line between them. '> this causes the multiple lines to combine into one.
Hope this helps. There's also the " quotation mark icon at the top of the comment window that will apply the quote boxes to what you highlight in your comment. You can see what a comment would look like when you post it by using the " Preview Mode " button at top right of the comment box.
" A persons [sic.] credentials are completely irrelevant..."
This is a common complaint of those who lack credentials or meaningful accomplishments.
"In fact they are generally used to create fallacies in argument; "pro hominem" or "ad hominem" ..."
No one insulted you. However, if you feel you need some time in a cry corner, I can wait.
"More specifically, none of those areas of knowledge change the fact that SM-102 has no apparent difficulties in it's [sic.] biochemistry of being broken down by the cells...."
The ability of SM-102 to be broken down by cells was not the question. The poster with whom you were communicating was speaking in a context about a concern they had re: chemical safety of formulary components of the jabs. In reply you wrote an apologetic about SM-102, "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)."
If you knew anything about pharma development, you'd know that one does not view the possible toxicity of a formulary component as a stand-alone without also taking into consideration the other components with which it is formulated and the route of delivery of the therapeutic moiety. There are such things as drug-excipient, and excipient-excipient interactions, which may diminish or amplify the activity of formulary components. This often times presents itself as something impactful upon product safety.
“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”
As far as what “evidence” you say you have seen?
Are you a toxicologist who has run safety studies with SM-102 formulated in the presence of ~280 [unidentified] chemical entities which comprise BioNTech jabs, as delivered IM (which apparently finds itself seeping into general circulation)?
Please comment on what you know for certain from your own research about the safety profile of SM-102, Polyethylene glycol (PEG) 2000 dimyristoyl glycerol (DMG), 1,2-distearoyl-sn-glycero-3-glycero-3-phosphocholine (DSPC), formulated along with ~280 [unidentified] chemical entities as delivered IM.
Prior to the expediencies of CV19 no lipid nanoparticles (LPNs) were ever used to formulate an injectable product intended for human therapeutic use. In pre-clinical studies, general toxicity of jabs was evident, LPN’s were a suspected culprit. Since you hold yourself out as an authority of some sort, can you tell readers that SM-102 is not implicated in the inherent toxicity of the LPN’s?
LPN’s comprised of SM-102 ferrying a host of other chemical substances through cell walls have been shown to deposit heavily in germ cells and they also penetrate the blood-brain barrier. Can you say with certainty that what may be your own jab induced brain fog is in no way related to the fact that SM-102 is a component of LPN’s?
“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."
What you completely missed is the fact that Pfizer has ~ 280 components manufactured in 19 countries whose safety should be placed in doubt because the formulary components have been inadequately characterized, doubtfully inspected adequately (if at all) for cGMP compliance, and this is of particular concern since this is an injectible route of administration of a new, first of its kind gene therapy.
“ 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)….
“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.”
Now you’re just whining. Safety of formulary components was the respondent’s topic, and you replied glibly and with little to no appreciation for the inherent relevance of safety issues attendant to pharmaceutical development -- much as a low level. inexperienced academic might.