The little pictogram with the blue red and yellow set of diamonds at the bottom of the second page means that this product can cause temporary incapacitation or residual injury and will burn (flashpoint greater than room temperature) and is stable. Below are the analogous pictograms for gasoline and diesel. SM-102 is more dangerous from a health (blue) point of view than both gas and diesel.
The third page reinforces what page 2 primarily shows which are the protective conditions/measures one must apply or use when handling SM-102. I always made sure I followed these recommendations to the letter.
Now everyone should know that this ‘story’ has been ‘
fact-checked’ by ‘FactCheck.org’ and their claim is that, quote:
Cayman Chemical offers a
version of SM-102 for research purposes that is packaged in chloroform, a potentially toxic chemical. So the safety data sheetfrom Cayman Chemical for that product includes warnings related to chloroform — not SM-102.
I don’t even know what they are trying to say here. It seems they are claiming that since the product is packaged in chloroform, which is toxic, that the SDS sheet pictograms refer to chloroform and not the listed product itself. There is no mention of chloroform packaging from what I read. And as far as I know, this is not how it works. There is an SDS for chloroform, and there is an SDS for SM-102. They are separate and different. The product, as far as I can ascertain, has nothing to do with chloroform. It is suspended in ethanol.
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. I have actually been made fun of for being ‘too cautious’ for being very stringent about reading and abiding by SDS sheets, but when I see a skull and crossbones, I take it to mean that I should try not to be the skull and crossbones. Furthermore, if one does get hurt or damaged from not handling a product properly, asses are covered.
Without bias, I checked out the MSDS for SM-102 as I would for any chemical or new product I might be interested for using in assays or lab work. And I found the above.
Now, digging deeper into this, or rather staying in the mindset of purchasing this product and using it in the lab context, I clicked on the link to the ‘Kit, Mixture & Library Option(s)’ tab, and it took me to the neat little ‘build-your-own-LNP’ kit (Lipid Nanoparticle (LNP-102) Exploration Kit) of which SM-102 comprises the cationic lipid in this kit. (Just to remind everyone, the cationic lipid for the P-fizer p-f-roducts is ALC-0315.) The analogous cationic lipid in the Mod(e)rna LNPs is this SM-102.
Notice in the SDS for the LNP-102 kit materials that the Application of the substance / the mixture reads, quote:
This product is for research use –
Not for human or veterinary diagnostic or therapeutic.
Now then. Are you sitting down?
Go to the UK government website listed
here. Here’s a screenshot that made me do a double-take. The screenshot below refers to the Summary of Product Characteristics for ‘Spikevax’ (Mod(e)rna), updated 14 April 2022.
[With regard to genotoxicity and carcinogenicity studies],
in vitro and in vivogenotoxicity studies were conducted with the novel lipid component SM-102 of the ‘vaccine’. Results suggests the genotoxicity potential to humans is very low. Carcinogenicity studies were not performed.
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.
To summarize, the Mod(e)rna injectable products utilize the LNPs from the LNP-102 kit which in turn utilizes the cationic lipids SM-102 that are highly toxic according to the MSDS. It also means that a lab-grade LNP product is being used in humans.
Unless there is a new version of the SM-102 that is non-lab-grade on the go, then Houston, we have a problem.
And by the way, there’s this paper entitled: “The mRNA-LNP platform’s lipid nanoparticle component used in preclinical vaccine studies is highly inflammatory”.