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?
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.
Dude … ur good. Totally good … and u can bet ur ass I will be spending a little time digging. Im a numbersfag/statsfag, so Im on a learning curve wrt chemistry. Not to prove you wrong … but to sharpshoot my osha brother that got me spun up about sm102.
Know this … you are officially head Chemicalfag for our community now. All things chemical/biochem … u gotta play referee and gatekeeper.