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."

Safety of formulary components was the respondent’s topic

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.

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.

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.

As far as what “evidence” you say you have seen?

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.

Since you hold yourself out as an authority of some sort

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.

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.

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.

can you tell readers that SM-102 is not implicated in the inherent toxicity of the LPN’s

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).

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

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.

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.

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 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."

Safety of formulary components was the respondent’s topic

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.

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.

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.

As far as what “evidence” you say you have seen?

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.

Since you hold yourself out as an authority of some sort

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.

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.

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.

can you tell readers that SM-102 is not implicated in the inherent toxicity of the LPN’s

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).

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

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.

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.

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 am not sure where to begin. You have made so many assumptions, including the assumption my argument was made in ignorance. (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."

Safety of formulary components was the respondent’s topic

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.

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.

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.

As far as what “evidence” you say you have seen?

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.

Since you hold yourself out as an authority of some sort

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.

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.

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.

can you tell readers that SM-102 is not implicated in the inherent toxicity of the LPN’s

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).

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

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.

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.

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 am not sure where to begin. You have made so many assumptions, including the assumption my argument was made in ignorance. (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."

Safety of formulary components was the respondent’s topic

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.

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.

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.

As far as what “evidence” you say you have seen?

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.

Since you hold yourself out as an authority of some sort

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.

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.

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.

can you tell readers that SM-102 is not implicated in the inherent toxicity of the LPN’s

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).

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

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.

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.

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 not insubstantial percentage of the scientists on the planet studying the S-protein that the (highly modified) mRNA in "the jab" is designed to create.

I am not sure where to begin. You have made so many assumptions, including the assumption my argument was made in ignorance. (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."

Safety of formulary components was the respondent’s topic

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.

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.

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.

As far as what “evidence” you say you have seen?

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.

Since you hold yourself out as an authority of some sort

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.

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.

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.

can you tell readers that SM-102 is not implicated in the inherent toxicity of the LPN’s

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).

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

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.

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.

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 not insubstantial percentage of the scientists on the planet studying the S-protein that the (highly modified) mRNA in "the jab" is designed to create.

I am not sure where to begin. You have made so many assumptions, including the assumption my argument was made in ignorance. (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."

Safety of formulary components was the respondent’s topic

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.

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.

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.

As far as what “evidence” you say you have seen?

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.

Since you hold yourself out as an authority of some sort

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.

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.

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.

can you tell readers that SM-102 is not implicated in the inherent toxicity of the LPN’s

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).

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

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.

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.

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 (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 not insubstantial percentage of the scientists on the planet studying the S-protein that the (highly modified) mRNA in "the jab" is designed to create.

I am not sure where to begin. You have made so many assumptions, including the assumption my argument was made in ignorance. (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."

Safety of formulary components was the respondent’s topic

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.

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.

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.

As far as what “evidence” you say you have seen?

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.

Since you hold yourself out as an authority of some sort

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.

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.

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.

can you tell readers that SM-102 is not implicated in the inherent toxicity of the LPN’s

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).

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

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.

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.

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 (albeit higher than the "official reports").

I am not sure where to begin. You have made so many assumptions, including the assumption my argument was made in ignorance. (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."

Safety of formulary components was the respondent’s topic

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.

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.

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.

As far as what “evidence” you say you have seen?

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.

Since you hold yourself out as an authority of some sort

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.

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.

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.

can you tell readers that SM-102 is not implicated in the inherent toxicity of the LPN’s

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).

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

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.

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.

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 (albeit higher than the "official reports").

I am not sure where to begin. You have made so many assumptions, including the assumption my argument was made in ignorance. (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."

Safety of formulary components was the respondent’s topic

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.

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.

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.

As far as what “evidence” you say you have seen?

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.

Since you hold yourself out as an authority of some sort

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.

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.

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.

can you tell readers that SM-102 is not implicated in the inherent toxicity of the LPN’s

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).

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

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.

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.

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).

I am not sure where to begin. You have made so many assumptions, including the assumption my argument was made in ignorance. (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 argument, and probably don't realize it.)

I will start with the topic of this conversation that you are "calling me out on."

Safety of formulary components was the respondent’s topic

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.

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.

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.

As far as what “evidence” you say you have seen?

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.

Since you hold yourself out as an authority of some sort

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.

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.

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.

can you tell readers that SM-102 is not implicated in the inherent toxicity of the LPN’s

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).

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

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.

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.

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).

I am not sure where to begin. You have made so many assumptions, including the assumption my argument was made in ignorance. (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 argument, and probably don't realize it.)

I will start with the topic of this conversation that you are "calling me out on."

Safety of formulary components was the respondent’s topic

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.

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.

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.

As far as what “evidence” you say you have seen?

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.

Since you hold yourself out as an authority of some sort

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.

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.

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.

can you tell readers that SM-102 is not implicated in the inherent toxicity of the LPN’s

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).

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

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.

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.

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). Until there is, I suggest you not call evidence I show to the contrary "whining" or "ignorance." My argument was not made from either of those positions, despite your numerous assumptions to the contrary.

I am not sure where to begin. You have made so many assumptions, including the assumption my argument was made in ignorance. (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 argument, and probably don't realize it.)

I will start with the topic of this conversation that you are "calling me out on."

Safety of formulary components was the respondent’s topic

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.

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.

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.

As far as what “evidence” you say you have seen?

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.

Since you hold yourself out as an authority of some sort

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.

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.

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.

can you tell readers that SM-102 is not implicated in the inherent toxicity of the LPN’s

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; supposition.

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

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.

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.

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). Until there is, I suggest you not call evidence I show to the contrary "whining" or "ignorance." My argument was not made from either of those positions, despite your numerous assumptions to the contrary.

I am not sure where to begin. You have made so many assumptions, including the assumption my argument was made in ignorance. (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 argument, and probably don't realize it.)

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.

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.

As far as what “evidence” you say you have seen?

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.

Since you hold yourself out as an authority of some sort

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.

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.

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.

can you tell readers that SM-102 is not implicated in the inherent toxicity of the LPN’s

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; supposition.

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

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.

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.

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).

Safety of formulary components was the respondent’s topic

The impetus for the respondent's statements was based on information regarding SM-102 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. 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). Until there is, I suggest you not call evidence I show to the contrary "whining" or "ignorance." My argument was not made from either of those positions, despite your numerous assumptions to the contrary.

I am not sure where to begin. You have made so many assumptions, including the assumption my argument was made in ignorance. (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 argument, and probably don't realize it.)

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.

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.

As far as what “evidence” you say you have seen?

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.

Since you hold yourself out as an authority of some sort

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.

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.

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) 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.

can you tell readers that SM-102 is not implicated in the inherent toxicity of the LPN’s

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; supposition.

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

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.

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.

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).

Safety of formulary components was the respondent’s topic

The impetus for the respondent's statements was based on information regarding SM-102 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. 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). Until there is, I suggest you not call evidence I show to the contrary "whining" or "ignorance." My argument was not made from either of those positions, despite your numerous assumptions to the contrary.

I am not sure where to begin. You have made so many assumptions, including the assumption my argument was made in ignorance. (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 argument, and probably don't realize it.)

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.

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.

As far as what “evidence” you say you have seen?

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.

Since you hold yourself out as an authority of some sort

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 a carpenter talking about how to drive a nail, and calling him out for "holding himself up as an authority."

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.

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) 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.

can you tell readers that SM-102 is not implicated in the inherent toxicity of the LPN’s

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; supposition.

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

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.

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.

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).

Safety of formulary components was the respondent’s topic

The impetus for the respondent's statements was based on information regarding SM-102 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. 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). Until there is, I suggest you not call evidence I show to the contrary "whining" or "ignorance." My argument was not made from either of those positions, despite your numerous assumptions to the contrary.

I am not sure where to begin. You have made so many assumptions, including the assumption my argument was made in ignorance. (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 argument, and probably don't realize it.)

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.

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.

As far as what “evidence” you say you have seen?

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.

Since you hold yourself out as an authority of some sort

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 for why I think the way I do.

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 a carpenter talking about how to drive a nail, and calling him out for "holding himself up as an authority."

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.

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) 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.

can you tell readers that SM-102 is not implicated in the inherent toxicity of the LPN’s

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; supposition.

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

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.

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.

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).

Safety of formulary components was the respondent’s topic

The impetus for the respondent's statements was based on information regarding SM-102 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. 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). Until there is, I suggest you not call evidence I show to the contrary "whining" or "ignorance." My argument was not made from either of those positions, despite your numerous assumptions to the contrary.

I am not sure where to begin. You have made so many assumptions, including the assumption my argument was made in ignorance. (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 argument, and probably don't realize it.)

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.

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.

As far as what “evidence” you say you have seen?

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.

Since you hold yourself out as an authority of some sort

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 in any way 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 for why I think the way I do.

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 a carpenter talking about how to drive a nail, and calling him out for "holding himself up as an authority."

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.

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) 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.

can you tell readers that SM-102 is not implicated in the inherent toxicity of the LPN’s

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; supposition.

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

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.

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.

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).

Safety of formulary components was the respondent’s topic

The impetus for the respondent's statements was based on information regarding SM-102 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. 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). Until there is, I suggest you not call evidence I show to the contrary "whining" or "ignorance." My argument was not made from either of those positions, despite your numerous assumptions to the contrary.

I am not sure where to begin. You have made so many assumptions, including the assumption my argument was made in ignorance. (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 argument, and probably don't realize it.)

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.

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.

As far as what “evidence” you say you have seen?

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.

Since you hold yourself out as an authority of some sort

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 in any way 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.

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 a carpenter talking about how to drive a nail, and calling him out for "holding himself up as an authority."

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.

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) 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.

can you tell readers that SM-102 is not implicated in the inherent toxicity of the LPN’s

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; supposition.

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

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.

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.

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).

Safety of formulary components was the respondent’s topic

The impetus for the respondent's statements was based on information regarding SM-102 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. 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). Until there is, I suggest you not call evidence I show to the contrary "whining" or "ignorance." My argument was not made from either of those positions, despite your numerous assumptions to the contrary.

I am not sure where to begin. You have made so many assumptions, including the assumption my argument was made in ignorance. (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 argument, and probably don't realize it.)

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.

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.

As far as what “evidence” you say you have seen?

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.

Since you hold yourself out as an authority of some sort

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 in any way 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.

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.

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) 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.

can you tell readers that SM-102 is not implicated in the inherent toxicity of the LPN’s

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; supposition.

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

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.

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.

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).

Safety of formulary components was the respondent’s topic

The impetus for the respondent's statements was based on information regarding SM-102 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. 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). Until there is, I suggest you not call evidence I show to the contrary "whining" or "ignorance." My argument was not made from either of those positions, despite your numerous assumptions to the contrary.

I am not sure where to begin. You have made so many assumptions, including the assumption my argument was made in ignorance. (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 argument, and probably don't realize it.)

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.

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.

As far as what “evidence” you say you have seen?

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.

Since you hold yourself out as an authority of some sort

How exactly did I present myself as such? I presented an argument. That is not speaking from authority, but presenting an argument. It is exactly that difference I was attempting to explain to you.

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.

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) 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.

can you tell readers that SM-102 is not implicated in the inherent toxicity of the LPN’s

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; supposition.

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

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.

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.

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).

Safety of formulary components was the respondent’s topic

The impetus for the respondent's statements was based on information regarding SM-102 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. 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). Until there is, I suggest you not call evidence I show to the contrary "whining" or "ignorance." My argument was not made from either of those positions, despite your numerous assumptions to the contrary.

I am not sure where to begin. You have made so many assumptions, including the assumption my argument was made in ignorance. (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 argument, and probably don't realize it at all.)

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.

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.

As far as what “evidence” you say you have seen?

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.

Since you hold yourself out as an authority of some sort

How exactly did I present myself as such? I presented an argument. That is not speaking from authority, but presenting an argument. It is exactly that difference I was attempting to explain to you.

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.

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) 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.

can you tell readers that SM-102 is not implicated in the inherent toxicity of the LPN’s

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; supposition.

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

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.

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.

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).

Safety of formulary components was the respondent’s topic

The impetus for the respondent's statements was based on information regarding SM-102 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. 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). Until there is, I suggest you not call evidence I show to the contrary "whining" or "ignorance." My argument was not made from either of those positions, despite your numerous assumptions to the contrary.

I am not sure where to begin. You have made so many assumptions, including the assumption my argument was made in ignorance. (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 argument, and probably don't realize it at all.)

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.

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.

As far as what “evidence” you say you have seen?

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.

Since you hold yourself out as an authority of some sort

How exactly did I present myself as such? I presented an argument. That is not speaking from authority, but presenting an argument. It is exactly that difference I was attempting to explain to you.

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.

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) 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.

can you tell readers that SM-102 is not implicated in the inherent toxicity of the LPN’s

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; supposition.

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

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.

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.

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).

Safety of formulary components was the respondent’s topic

The impetus for the respondent's statements was based on information regarding SM-102 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. 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). Until there is, I suggest you not call evidence I show to the contrary "whining" or "ignorance." My argument was not made from either of those positions, despite your numerous assumptions to the contrary.

I am not sure where to begin. You have made so many assumptions, including the assumption my argument was made in ignorance. (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 argument, and probably don't realize it at all.)

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.

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.

As far as what “evidence” you say you have seen?

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.

Since you hold yourself out as an authority of some sort

How exactly did I present myself as such? I presented an argument. That is not speaking from authority, but presenting an argument. It is exactly that difference I was attempting to explain to you.

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.

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) 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.

can you tell readers that SM-102 is not implicated in the inherent toxicity of the LPN’s

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; supposition.

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

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.

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.

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).

Safety of formulary components was the respondent’s topic

The impetus for the respondent's statements was based on information regarding SM-102 in solution, 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. 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). Until there is, I suggest you not call evidence I show to the contrary "whining" or "ignorance." My argument was not made from either of those positions, despite your numerous assumptions to the contrary.

I am not sure where to begin. You have made so many assumptions, including the assumption my argument was made in ignorance. (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 argument, and probably don't realize it at all.)

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.

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.

As far as what “evidence” you say you have seen?

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.

Since you hold yourself out as an authority of some sort

How exactly did I present myself as such? I presented an argument. That is not speaking from authority, but presenting an argument. It is exactly that difference I was attempting to explain to you.

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.

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) 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.

can you tell readers that SM-102 is not implicated in the inherent toxicity of the LPN’s

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; supposition.

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

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.

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.

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).

Safety of formulary components was the respondent’s topic

And I gave an informed argument in response. 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). Until there is, I suggest you not call evidence I show to the contrary "whining" or "ignorance." My argument was not made from either of those positions, despite your numerous assumptions to the contrary.

I am not sure where to begin. You have made so many assumptions, including the assumption my argument was made in ignorance. (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 argument, and probably don't realize it at all.)

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.

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.

As far as what “evidence” you say you have seen?

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.

Since you hold yourself out as an authority of some sort

How exactly did I present myself as such? I presented an argument. That is not speaking from authority, but presenting an argument. It is exactly that difference I was attempting to explain to you.

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.

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) 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.

can you tell readers that SM-102 is not implicated in the inherent toxicity of the LPN’s

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; supposition.

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

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.

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.

You will get no argument from me on this, however, this is still irrelevant to anything I said (other than as supposition, as stated).

Safety of formulary components was the respondent’s topic

And I gave an informed argument in response. 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). Until there is, I suggest you not call evidence I show to the contrary "whining" or "ignorance." My argument was not made from either of those positions, despite your numerous assumptions to the contrary.

I am not sure where to begin. You have made so many assumptions, including the assumption my argument was made in ignorance. (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 argument, and probably don't realize it at all.)

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.

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 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.

As far as what “evidence” you say you have seen?

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.

Since you hold yourself out as an authority of some sort

How exactly did I present myself as such? I presented an argument. That is not speaking from authority, but presenting an argument. It is exactly that difference I was attempting to explain to you.

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.

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) 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.

can you tell readers that SM-102 is not implicated in the inherent toxicity of the LPN’s

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; supposition.

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

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.

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.

You will get no argument from me on this, however, this is still irrelevant to anything I said (other than as supposition, as stated).

Safety of formulary components was the respondent’s topic

And I gave an informed argument in response. 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). Until there is, I suggest you not call evidence I show to the contrary "whining" or "ignorance." My argument was not made from either of those positions, despite your numerous assumptions to the contrary.

I am not sure where to begin. You have made so many assumptions, including the assumption my argument was made in ignorance. (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 argument, and probably don't realize it at all.)

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.

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 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.

As far as what “evidence” you say you have seen?

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.

Since you hold yourself out as an authority of some sort

How exactly did I present myself as such? I presented an argument. That is not speaking from authority, but presenting an argument. It is exactly that difference I was attempting to explain to you.

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.

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) 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.

can you tell readers that SM-102 is not implicated in the inherent toxicity of the LPN’s

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; supposition.

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

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.

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.

You will get no argument from me on this, however, this is still irrelevant to anything I said (other than as supposition, as stated).

Safety of formulary components was the respondent’s topic

And I gave an informed argument in response. 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. Until there is, I suggest you not call evidence I show to the contrary "whining" or "ignorance." My argument was not made from either of those positions, despite your numerous assumptions to the contrary.

I am not sure where to begin. You have made so many assumptions, including the assumption my argument was made in ignorance. (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 argument, and probably don't realize it at all.)

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.

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 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.

As far as what “evidence” you say you have seen?

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.

Since you hold yourself out as an authority of some sort

How exactly did I present myself as such? I presented an argument. That is not speaking from authority, but presenting an argument. It is exactly that difference I was attempting to explain to you.

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.

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) 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.

can you tell readers that SM-102 is not implicated in the inherent toxicity of the LPN’s

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; supposition.

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

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.

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.

You will get no argument from me on this, however, this is still irrelevant to anything I said (other than as supposition, as stated).

Safety of formulary components was the respondent’s topic

And I gave an informed argument in response. 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. Until there is, I suggest you not call evidence I show to the contrary "whining" or "ignorance." My argument was not made from either of those positions, despite your numerous assumptions to the contrary.

I am not sure where to begin. You have made so many assumptions, including the assumption my argument was made in ignorance. (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 argument, and probably don't realize it at all.)

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.

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 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.

As far as what “evidence” you say you have seen?

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.

Since you hold yourself out as an authority of some sort

How exactly did I present myself as such? I presented an argument. That is not speaking from authority, but presenting an argument. It is exactly that difference I was attempting to explain to you.

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.

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) on their surface (like "the jab"). In instances where such cell specific targeting is used, the deleterious effects go way down. 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.

can you tell readers that SM-102 is not implicated in the inherent toxicity of the LPN’s

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; supposition.

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

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.

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.

You will get no argument from me on this, however, this is still irrelevant to anything I said (other than as supposition, as stated).

Safety of formulary components was the respondent’s topic

And I gave an informed argument in response. 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. Until there is, I suggest you not call evidence I show to the contrary "whining" or "ignorance." My argument was not made from either of those positions, despite your numerous assumptions to the contrary.