Ignoring the fact almost you ENTIRE COMMENT is a word for word copy and paste from Wikipedia

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:

It is listed as being 90% ethanol and 10% SM-102

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.

Ignoring the fact almost you ENTIRE COMMENT is a word for word copy and paste from Wikipedia

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:

It is listed as being 90% ethanol and 10% SM-102

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.

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.