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 I know the reason. These jabs are designed for depopulation to make billionaire sociopaths happy, so they were designed to be toxic. Like 007, Pfizer and Moderna have a license to kill with emergency use authorization.
Michael Palmer, MD did a good deep dive on how the cationic lipids will cause DNA damage. He didn’t distinguish from those used in the Pfizer jab. See: 6:47, 11:08 in PATHWAYS TO VACCINE INJURY WITH PROF. MICHAEL PALMER MD
“Cationic lipids cause intense tissue damage and inflammation. Cationic lipid toxicity problem not solved”
He then concludes why probably all cationic LNPs are carcinogenic by design as they must puncture the cell walls to work and subject the cell to oxidative damage. Where at the very least long term carcinogenic effects should be considered in a classical dose dependent model like being exposed to radon for example.
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 would agree that something seems off with this SDS as I work with absolute ethanol which has is highly flammable and has a NFPA fire rating of 3 while this one has a zero. In the lower portion there are DOT placards which list it correctly as flammable (3). And it’s also important to note that water has a MSDS as well - it’s potentially lethal by inhalation! And as far as these being lab-grade: that should only mean they were manufactured for research use only and not manufactured using GMP standards required for use in humans. While I remain quite wary of the vaccines, I also want to be nuanced and skeptical and less reactionary when looking at such things.
Yep, agree. Just guessing they flash off the solvent(whatever it is) during processing to make the neat sm-102 LNP feed stock.
Conclusions through this fog of chemistry mostly above my head:
-- The real problem is inflammation potential of the LNP
-- carcinogenicity for long term inability of a body to disable or excrete this crapp
-- the neurotoxicity and ability of this material to cross blood brain barriers or other barriers
-- the ability of the body to sense this material and put out an immune response
-- the fact that it appears no long term studies on humans, rats, or whatever appears to have been done to understand the above by the agencies responsible for regulating nor the Pharma companies pushing this crapp.
The volume of ethanol in the 0.5 ml shot is not toxic if injected intravenously. Historically, intravenously injected ethanol was used to suppress premature labour in pregnancy. It can still be used for treatment of DT's (alcohol withdrawal), and in methanol poisoning (wood alcohol) to saturate the alcohol dehydrogenase system and prevent conversion of methanol to (toxic) formaldehyde.
Intramuscular injection (the Vaxx all stays in your deltoid, recall) may be locally painful and inflammatory, but should not be systemically toxic. In all toxicology, dosage matters.
"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)
Thanks Sharon. I’ll search for the video. If you have the link handy, would appreciate it. Staying informed seems to upset my stomach too. Deep slow breathing is helping. Feel better.
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?
I really don't know my friend. I am trying to find out.
I think I know the reason. These jabs are designed for depopulation to make billionaire sociopaths happy, so they were designed to be toxic. Like 007, Pfizer and Moderna have a license to kill with emergency use authorization.
Thanks for digging into this. Really appreciate your work.
Michael Palmer, MD did a good deep dive on how the cationic lipids will cause DNA damage. He didn’t distinguish from those used in the Pfizer jab. See: 6:47, 11:08 in PATHWAYS TO VACCINE INJURY WITH PROF. MICHAEL PALMER MD
“Cationic lipids cause intense tissue damage and inflammation. Cationic lipid toxicity problem not solved”
https://doctors4covidethics.org/video-replays-d4ce-symposium-iii-session-i/
He then concludes why probably all cationic LNPs are carcinogenic by design as they must puncture the cell walls to work and subject the cell to oxidative damage. Where at the very least long term carcinogenic effects should be considered in a classical dose dependent model like being exposed to radon for example.
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.
Also referenced in footnote #7 of Jessica's article...
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.
lol
Did you add ketchup?
No. I don't like ketchup.
So Shawn, I don't get the joke here:
are these two long-winded polymers the constituents in SM-102?!
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.
I'm convinced that all old age ones should be avoided like the plague. In fact I think the plague should also be avoided.
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 would agree that something seems off with this SDS as I work with absolute ethanol which has is highly flammable and has a NFPA fire rating of 3 while this one has a zero. In the lower portion there are DOT placards which list it correctly as flammable (3). And it’s also important to note that water has a MSDS as well - it’s potentially lethal by inhalation! And as far as these being lab-grade: that should only mean they were manufactured for research use only and not manufactured using GMP standards required for use in humans. While I remain quite wary of the vaccines, I also want to be nuanced and skeptical and less reactionary when looking at such things.
Yes, it does seem to be ethanol. How well is it separated from ethanol before use in the vaccines etc?
Yep, agree. Just guessing they flash off the solvent(whatever it is) during processing to make the neat sm-102 LNP feed stock.
Conclusions through this fog of chemistry mostly above my head:
-- The real problem is inflammation potential of the LNP
-- carcinogenicity for long term inability of a body to disable or excrete this crapp
-- the neurotoxicity and ability of this material to cross blood brain barriers or other barriers
-- the ability of the body to sense this material and put out an immune response
-- the fact that it appears no long term studies on humans, rats, or whatever appears to have been done to understand the above by the agencies responsible for regulating nor the Pharma companies pushing this crapp.
The volume of ethanol in the 0.5 ml shot is not toxic if injected intravenously. Historically, intravenously injected ethanol was used to suppress premature labour in pregnancy. It can still be used for treatment of DT's (alcohol withdrawal), and in methanol poisoning (wood alcohol) to saturate the alcohol dehydrogenase system and prevent conversion of methanol to (toxic) formaldehyde.
Intramuscular injection (the Vaxx all stays in your deltoid, recall) may be locally painful and inflammatory, but should not be systemically toxic. In all toxicology, dosage matters.
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.
Thanks Sharon. I’ll search for the video. If you have the link handy, would appreciate it. Staying informed seems to upset my stomach too. Deep slow breathing is helping. Feel better.
https://www.onenewspage.com/video/20220307/14469630/BOMBSHELL-Naomi-Wolf-Interviews-Edward-Dowd-About-Pfizer.htm
Sorry, was discussing a neighborhood fencing project with parties involved.
The link above is not the one that I viewed the interview on, but it is the very same interview. Hope it works for you!
Sharon
Yes it opened. Thank you!!
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? 😬