Why are they using the toxic SM-102 when their sister company Acuitas produced the LNPs that Pfizer used, that were (supposedly) tested and passed by their friends Charles River labs. Like, why add in a new toxic compound that is lab use only? Was it just to show that people really don't care and as long as the media tell you to shut up about it, you will?
I think you're overreacting. While I've not tried SM-102, I've been using 2[(polyethylene glycol)-2000]-N,N-ditetradecylacetamide sauce and ((4-hydroxybutyl)azanediyl)bis(hexane-6,1-diyl)bis(2-hexyldecanoate) powder on my eggs in the morning, with no noticeable problem.
Mutagens... they're starting to be found everywhere. Better start eating lots of berries, spices and foods high in antioxidants and start limiting inflammatory processes where you can. Oxidative stress and inflammation are bad mmkay.
So the medical industrial politcal complex has spent 2 years being busy not lying to us then? I personally am convinced that any and all new-age 'vaccines' are to be avoided like the plague.
All the TV drugs ads usually have a phrase "and may (significantly) increase your risk of certain cancers"...the Informed Consent on the "magic juice" to borrow Ed Dowd's term, should list cancer as a side effect. Actually I think most vaccines contain harmful chemicals and all come with the risk of dysregulating and permanently harming immune system...I know this personally.
Given my bias against these injectables, I would like nothing more than to conclude SM-102 is toxic. But I think your analysis suffers from an unintended comparison between Cayman’s current and former formulations of SM-102. Apparently, SM-102 used to be listed as a solution in chloroform (see https://youtu.be/iZ2nPiTt12A?t=65). But as you reported, the current formulation is in ethanol. This would explain your statements, “There is an SDS for chloroform, and there is an SDS for SM-102. They are separate and different.”
Regardless, it appears that the current Safety Data Sheet states the hazards of ethanol, not the hazards associated with SM-102 itself. On page 2/11 it says, “Hazard-determining components of labeling: ethanol.”
Finally, there is this statement that can be reached from a link in the Product Description for SM-102 (or directly at https://www.caymanchem.com/news/sm-102-statement): “While it is a common solvent, ethanol has several known serious hazards, which have been included on Cayman’s SDS. Neither the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), Registry of Toxic Effects of Chemical Substances (RTECS), or the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) Classification and Labelling Inventory list any hazards associated with SM-102.”
I share your love of data sleuthing, and I am hooked on your substack. Keep it up!
"I know how to read MSDS sheets. It’s a vital part of doing safe work in the laboratory environment. It’s the very first thing I do. "
Thinking for yourself is the first problem.. some folks just lack trust in experts!
"Oh. So it’s very low. In in vitro and in vivo models. And how many animals were tested? Ok. Hmm. And no carcinogenicity studies. They aren’t meant to cause cancer. Right. "
Contrary to public belief most chemical substances are NEVER tested for safety because looking for problems destroys the ability of profiteers to say, "We see no harm." which is the substantial equivalent for safe in America's public health policy.
If an industrial chemical is allowed by law to be released into the environment, most people assume that it must have been tested and evaluated for its potential risks. Unfortunately, this is simply not true. Keeping chemical hazards under control requires information about what kinds of hazards each chemical poses. If the basic tests to check on a chemical's toxicity haven't been conducted, or if the results aren't publicly available, current laws tend to treat that chemical as if it were perfectly safe. For the chemicals being used in large quantities, Scorecard tells you whether or not eight basic types of tests for health and ecological effects have actually been conducted, based on the public record.
Today I watched a video discussion, apparently the second with both Dr. Naomi Wolf (of Daily Clout) and Edward Dowd (former Blackrock portfolio manager) and at 23:50 Dr. Wolf talks about
SM-102 in the Moderna vaccine and how there are two grades of it, a lab grade, which is carcinogenic, among many other terrible things, and a less toxic grade...and that it is not clear which grade was put in the Moderna vaccine.
The entire discussion is a review of the Daily Clout team findings of the Pfizer research information recently released under the FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) after a judge ruled that they could not have the 75 years requested, to release said information. ???!!!
I read this post prior to the viewing of that video, so was well informed (thank you Jessica Rose)
Thank you for digging and breaking all this down to inform us. Made me think of something RFKJr said - parents spend a lot of time researching to find the safest car seat for their child, but they don’t think to research what they are injecting into their child’s bodies. Such a simple but profound observation. If they only knew…
Why are they using the toxic SM-102 when their sister company Acuitas produced the LNPs that Pfizer used, that were (supposedly) tested and passed by their friends Charles River labs. Like, why add in a new toxic compound that is lab use only? Was it just to show that people really don't care and as long as the media tell you to shut up about it, you will?
https://etana.substack.com/p/the-arc-of-a-fraud/comments
Dr. Naomi Wolf mentions SM-102 in this interview with Ex BlackRock manager Edward Dowd. Plenty of other interesting info from Pfizer’s trial data.
Ooo - that is such a good follow up to a paper that I read yesterday. Thank you! Amazing work as always. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34841223/#:~:text=Clinical%20trials%20and%20ongoing%20vaccinations,are%20highly%20inflammatory%20in%20mice.
Wow! This is explosive, literally as well as figuratively. Glad I kept SM-102 out of my veins
I think you're overreacting. While I've not tried SM-102, I've been using 2[(polyethylene glycol)-2000]-N,N-ditetradecylacetamide sauce and ((4-hydroxybutyl)azanediyl)bis(hexane-6,1-diyl)bis(2-hexyldecanoate) powder on my eggs in the morning, with no noticeable problem.
Mutagens... they're starting to be found everywhere. Better start eating lots of berries, spices and foods high in antioxidants and start limiting inflammatory processes where you can. Oxidative stress and inflammation are bad mmkay.
These products are terrible vaccines. No wonder Dr Malone moved on to other things to do. These products are perfect destroyers of health.
So the medical industrial politcal complex has spent 2 years being busy not lying to us then? I personally am convinced that any and all new-age 'vaccines' are to be avoided like the plague.
All the TV drugs ads usually have a phrase "and may (significantly) increase your risk of certain cancers"...the Informed Consent on the "magic juice" to borrow Ed Dowd's term, should list cancer as a side effect. Actually I think most vaccines contain harmful chemicals and all come with the risk of dysregulating and permanently harming immune system...I know this personally.
Given my bias against these injectables, I would like nothing more than to conclude SM-102 is toxic. But I think your analysis suffers from an unintended comparison between Cayman’s current and former formulations of SM-102. Apparently, SM-102 used to be listed as a solution in chloroform (see https://youtu.be/iZ2nPiTt12A?t=65). But as you reported, the current formulation is in ethanol. This would explain your statements, “There is an SDS for chloroform, and there is an SDS for SM-102. They are separate and different.”
Regardless, it appears that the current Safety Data Sheet states the hazards of ethanol, not the hazards associated with SM-102 itself. On page 2/11 it says, “Hazard-determining components of labeling: ethanol.”
Finally, there is this statement that can be reached from a link in the Product Description for SM-102 (or directly at https://www.caymanchem.com/news/sm-102-statement): “While it is a common solvent, ethanol has several known serious hazards, which have been included on Cayman’s SDS. Neither the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), Registry of Toxic Effects of Chemical Substances (RTECS), or the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) Classification and Labelling Inventory list any hazards associated with SM-102.”
I share your love of data sleuthing, and I am hooked on your substack. Keep it up!
love you Jessica! you are amazing.
God bless you sister- so appreciative of your efforts!
"I know how to read MSDS sheets. It’s a vital part of doing safe work in the laboratory environment. It’s the very first thing I do. "
Thinking for yourself is the first problem.. some folks just lack trust in experts!
"Oh. So it’s very low. In in vitro and in vivo models. And how many animals were tested? Ok. Hmm. And no carcinogenicity studies. They aren’t meant to cause cancer. Right. "
Contrary to public belief most chemical substances are NEVER tested for safety because looking for problems destroys the ability of profiteers to say, "We see no harm." which is the substantial equivalent for safe in America's public health policy.
https://web.archive.org/web/20120917041002/http://scorecard.goodguide.com/chemical-profiles/chems-profile-descriptions.tcl#basic_testing
Basic Testing to Identify Chemical Hazards
If an industrial chemical is allowed by law to be released into the environment, most people assume that it must have been tested and evaluated for its potential risks. Unfortunately, this is simply not true. Keeping chemical hazards under control requires information about what kinds of hazards each chemical poses. If the basic tests to check on a chemical's toxicity haven't been conducted, or if the results aren't publicly available, current laws tend to treat that chemical as if it were perfectly safe. For the chemicals being used in large quantities, Scorecard tells you whether or not eight basic types of tests for health and ecological effects have actually been conducted, based on the public record.
Today I watched a video discussion, apparently the second with both Dr. Naomi Wolf (of Daily Clout) and Edward Dowd (former Blackrock portfolio manager) and at 23:50 Dr. Wolf talks about
SM-102 in the Moderna vaccine and how there are two grades of it, a lab grade, which is carcinogenic, among many other terrible things, and a less toxic grade...and that it is not clear which grade was put in the Moderna vaccine.
The entire discussion is a review of the Daily Clout team findings of the Pfizer research information recently released under the FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) after a judge ruled that they could not have the 75 years requested, to release said information. ???!!!
I read this post prior to the viewing of that video, so was well informed (thank you Jessica Rose)
of the implications therein.
It's been a tough day on my stomach.
Thank you for digging and breaking all this down to inform us. Made me think of something RFKJr said - parents spend a lot of time researching to find the safest car seat for their child, but they don’t think to research what they are injecting into their child’s bodies. Such a simple but profound observation. If they only knew…
Wow! Whats the problem? 😬