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?
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.
I appreciate the effort, but that's not a code block, that's a quote.
A code block looks like a grey box (as at the bottom of the post I responded to). It has a font that is monowidth, and doesn't concatenate spaces, so you can do all sorts of cool formatting tricks, like make tables and other interesting things, which is something you can't do with regular pseudo-BBCode, like in this post, and yours.
Oh, my mistake! Use the Tilda symbol: `
It's usually from pressing shift on the ~ key.
Make three Tilda's at the beginning and end of the text you want in the block, and it'll do it.
Wow, thank you so much. I've been asking for over a year! Probably like 20 times! This makes me so happy.
It's amazing how the little things can mean so much. :)
" 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.
I am not sure where to begin. You have made so many assumptions, including the assumption my argument was made in ignorance (or lack of credentials...). This is a form of ad hominem, but you do not seem to want to listen to what that means, since you immediately employed it to begin your response.
I will start with the topic of this conversation that you are "calling me out on."
The impetus for the respondent's statements on SM-102 was based on information regarding that specific amino lipid in solution from the manufacturer, as they have been the last 50 times I have responded to this topic (please see follow up posts). I gave an informed argument in response.
Yes, biology is complicated. However, one can, if one understands biochemistry, and has worked with molecules such as this for a couple decades, look at the molecules and make some reasonable assumptions on interactions. That is what I did, based on my own experiences. Could it possibly be toxic in combination? Absolutely. I even stated that it could be toxic. However, there are no moieties (what I called "signals" to not be obtuse) that present obvious deleterious interactions with anything I know about cell biology (which is not insubstantial). However, as I said, biology is very complicated, and one never knows without testing.
What evidence have you seen? I have looked for papers on SM-102 toxicity and all of the ones that I have found suggest it is non-toxic. If you know of any papers that support your assertions (AKA actual evidence and not supposition) I am all ears.
How exactly did I present myself as such? I presented an argument. Some of that argument comes from personal experience. Should I discard all of my experiences in my argument? Perhaps, but to do so would then require explaining to someone who is not a chemist, many years of biochemistry and cell biology, just to get the context of why the molecule does not pose a threat in any apparent way. You could call that speaking from authority, and in a way it is, but it's not the same as a direct appeal to authority ("trust me, I'm a doctor" e.g.), since I am not calling on my credentials, but my direct personal experience, with (minimal) explanation of those experiences to help elucidate my reasoning.
I will admit that does not make the strongest of arguments without all the requisite explanations of biochemistry, but it's hardly the "holding myself out as an authority of some sort" as you suggest. It would be like calling out a carpenter for "holding himself up as an authority." when he is trying to explain to someone who has never seen a hammer how to drive a nail into wood.
I have done work in this specific field (cell specific targeting lipid and/or mesoporous silica nanoparticles) so I have some idea of those toxicity signals. They are most prominent in nanoparticles that do not have targeting molecules (specific ligands or antibodies) on their surface (like "the jab"). In instances where such cell specific targeting is used, the deleterious effects go way down (statistically zero if the payload is non-toxic, as far as I have seen). This suggests it is not the lipid constituents per se, but the systemic uptake. When I first saw "the jab" and it's design I practically screamed (it was a huge wake up call). It was stupid as fuck to create such a system that didn't target the local environment to increase muscle cell uptake (e.g.). It was guaranteed to go everywhere, which is exactly what the evidence suggests happens.
I can tell people that I have seen no evidence to support it (despite having done my due diligence), and in my decades of experience, lipids of this nature do not pose a threat. I can tell people that, because both of those statements are true. That doesn't mean it isn't toxic. It means there is no apparent reason to suspect it is. Do you have a reason to suspect it is other than that "biology is complicated" and "you never know until you do the science"? Because that is all I'm hearing from you. I totally agree with those suppositions, but they are purely "supposition" (of the negative nancy variety).
I didn't miss that, it just wasn't relevant to anything I said. All it does it support your suppositions (albeit very weakly). It doesn't make them not suppositions.
You will get no argument from me on this, however, this is still irrelevant to anything I said (other than as support for supposition, as stated).
Your argument is based purely on supposition without a single shred of evidence to support actual toxicity with SM-102. I'm not saying your arguments are bad, or that we shouldn't be looking at those things. I am calling it what it is; at this point it is pure supposition. There is no evidence to support SM-102 toxicity, despite several billion recipients (albeit with a dishonest scientific establishment). Having spent quite a bit of time looking through the VAERS data, I see no signals (reports of specific symptoms) that support any sort of toxicity from the breakdown products (or even any potential substitutions of the amino head group e.g.) of SM-102.
Not that I'm suggesting I can look at the molecule and know all of the possibilities (though I can think of quite a few), but all of the signals in the data point to other known specific interactions. From the VAERS data, the S-protein interactions that have been studied in various tissues show the strongest signals. These are interactions with substantial evidential support in the literature. PEG allergies are also there as a very small secondary signal (albeit higher than the "official reports"). That doesn't mean that the S-protein is the real culprit, but it is (given all the evidence so far) by far the most likely. It is also the only one with supporting evidence. Importantly, that evidence is also quite substantial because they come from two years of a meaningful percentage of the scientists on the planet studying the S-protein that the (highly modified) mRNA in "the jab" is designed to create.
"I know about cell biology (which is not insubstantial)."
"How exactly did I present myself as such [an authority of some sort]? I presented an argument. That is not speaking from authority, but presenting an argument."
You are a wiki schooled academic-style equivocator who wants to have it both ways. "I know my cell bio, just don't mistake me for speaking authoritatively when I also say, ' I can tell people that I have seen no evidence to support it (despite having done my due diligence), and in my decades of experience, lipids of this nature do not pose a threat.'"
Oh really? And, if true, by what route(s) of administration is this true - or didn't Wikipedia happen to say? And if true, in the presence of what other formulated substances is this true – or don’t you know or want to know, because you let yourself be jabbed with a host of other [undisclosed] substances to keep your job (whose cellular penetration is facilitated and whose activity(s) are possibly co-enhanced in the presence of SM-102) that are percolating through your brain right now. Still an irrelevant consideration?
Your narratives continue to evidence the fact that you have absolutely no accomplishment or understanding of basic pharmaceutical development, hence you are flailing about waving your hands and screaming "irrelevant!" at every point you do not have the intellectual capacity to comprehend. Having identified no relevant experience you persoannly have in either biological or pharmaceutical formulary development you’re clearly out of your league in this discussion in spite of all the verbiage you have thrown at it. Example:
Re: 10% SM-102/90% EtOH: “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..”. Research Grade SM-102 (Cayman Chemicals) https://www.caymanchem.com/news/sm-102-statement Simple enough to look up and verify in 10 seconds – if you know where to look and how to do basic research.
“Do you have a reason to suspect it is other than that "biology is complicated" and "you never know until you do the science"? Because that is all I'm hearing from you.”
That is all I need to say. It is incumbent upon you to justify your safety claims (not just what you’ve read in Wiki and have parroted on the board): it is not incumbent upon me to do the science for you. All substances administered (particularly those administered by injection) must demonstrate their satisfactory safety profile through formulation integrity studies, stability/degradation profiling (according to PubMed there are possibly as many as 75 different related substances for SM-102 alone – which ones does your Moderna jab have in it, in what proportions and how are they limited synthetically?), physiologic/metabolic fates studies, and tissue depositon studies to allow for legitimate consideration for use in pharmaceutical or biologic applications. This was not adequately done for any CV19 jabs.
I do not apologize for the fact that I happen to have 40-years of career achievements and patents in pharmaceutical and biologic therapeutics development, which also happen to include having served at one time as a Review Chemist at the FDA, and having completed with distinction 4 academic undergraduate and graduate degree programs, 3 of which are in the natural sciences of biology, chemistry and biochemistry.
You wrote a clearly butt-hurt soliloquy about when one speaks of experience gained through their academics and their profession, but when you turn around and write, "I know about cell biology (which is not insubstantial),” it quickly becomes painfully obvious to readers that whatever you think you know about cell biology is somewhat less than billed and that you are substantially out of your depth on these topics - particularly with respect to your feigned “expertise” as it pertains to your unmerited certainty regarding presumed safety of SM-102 as co-formulated with undisclosed substances in injectibles.
Based upon the way you reason and write, it would come as no surprise to me to learn that the sum of your "decades of experience" is actually as a part-time Moderna summer intern, driving a pallet mover in the warehouse on 3rd shift.