Cayman chemicals listed the LNP SM102 as carcinogenic on there website (I may still have the screenshot) but removed the info, they gave no info to state what had changed to warrant the removal.It does (or did) state "not for human or vetinary use"👍
Good shout. SM-102 was mentioned in the CDC censorship emails, where the CDC tried to censor references to the harms SM-102 causes, which was covered by The Daily Beagle here:
The problem with the cayman data is, that chemicals in biotech grade are NEVER allowed to be uese in humans. That's also true for antibiotics, PEG and other chemicals I used in the lab. For humans you need medical grade chemicals. If the cayman sheet was not for medical grade chemicals it's useless.
We can only prove that with the security sheets by Acuitas, Merck and Evonick. I mailed them, but thy don't send them: With the sheets by the real producers, this would be proof.
You can't just say, that it doesn't exist, you have to prove it.
"You can't just say, that it doesn't exist, you have to prove it."
No, the burden is upon you, the pharmaceutical companies, to demonstrate safety.
The onus is not on me to prove harms. Unless it is categorically proven to be medical grade, one has to assume worst case scenario, and the only evidence for the chemical is non-medical grade.
That's how it WAS in court. Nowadays it's unfortunately the other way round. That's the problem. The argument that the companies have to prove the non-toxicity doesn't work in court. I work for a lawyer. The judges believe the companies do what they should do: work with proper chemicals. That's why we work with the general toxicity of this class of chemicals. Otherwise you are in trouble because you have to differenciate between the ALC and SM platform. The Moderna/Pfizer study used NaCl as placebo, which makes it even harder to prove toxicity.
As I understand it, that is one of the biggest issues, the trial product was not the product out on general release to the human subjects due to industrial upscaling and a lack of QC, this has been covered in detail by Hedley Reece amongst others.
The trial was done with (possibly) medical grade product and the product on release was not (industrial) and they new this from the start and tried to hide it.
The actual trial started with the mass vacination.
They also new it did not stop transmission and the PCR tests were a scam.
Sa£e&E££ective was a marketing slogan to push a novel product on a scared and manipulated population.
They have to hide the evidence. Think about what would happen if youngish cancer patients tied their aggressive cancer diagnosis with the clot shots. I seem to also recall the infamous SV40 rearing its head in the vax fiasco. So at least two definite carcinogenic factors are present along with the pathogenic spike (prion fun anyone?); this won't end well.
Thanks for taking a great tangential approach to this, UD. I think the cancer rates will be the tell. In my area, a couple of the larger hospitals are building nice, shiny, massive cancer treatment centers. Perhaps getting ready for a surge in business...
Given they have independent funding from pharma, that won't work.
A better option would be for someone to start up a new cancer society not beholden to pharmaceutical companies, and start detailing accurate cancer case reporting figures; then encourage everyone to ignore the bought-out ACS.
Great work TDB. It can’t be long before the MRNA cancer vaccines make a reappearance now the authorities have been softened up. After all, that was Moderna’s original product.
Beyond Meat is the plant-based burger company. I don’t think they are using the lab grown stuff. They have a severe risk ESG rating, ranking 457/615 in food products companies. Quite surprising eh?
The "Impossible Foods" (also Gates financed) employees published an obviously rigged "safety" "study" claiming that Soy leghemoglobin was 'safe', but the experimental protocols are highly dubious, especially given they all have financial conflicts of interest not to find flaws:
Cayman chemicals listed the LNP SM102 as carcinogenic on there website (I may still have the screenshot) but removed the info, they gave no info to state what had changed to warrant the removal.It does (or did) state "not for human or vetinary use"👍
Good shout. SM-102 was mentioned in the CDC censorship emails, where the CDC tried to censor references to the harms SM-102 causes, which was covered by The Daily Beagle here:
https://thedailybeagle.substack.com/i/66503833/cdc-trying-to-censor-people-posting-factual-information
“WARNING This product is not for human or veterinary use.”
The cancer aspect is not however mentioned there, which is probably after they censored that reference. Good mention either way!
Still have the screen shot :
"H351 - suspected of causing cancer"
"For research use only ,not for human or vetinary use"
Safety Data Sheet dated 4/11/21 Caymen Chemicals 👍
Could you upload the screenshot to somewhere like here:
https://postimages.org/
And send me the image link so I can retain a copy for future use?
Have sent the image as requested👍
I would need the URL to see/receive the image, I don't own postimages, they're a third party site who do image hosting.
The screenshot is all I have, it was taken from christian observer.net
The problem with the cayman data is, that chemicals in biotech grade are NEVER allowed to be uese in humans. That's also true for antibiotics, PEG and other chemicals I used in the lab. For humans you need medical grade chemicals. If the cayman sheet was not for medical grade chemicals it's useless.
That's the thing, there is no "medical grade" version of the chemical.
It was still sold for use. Still used.
It is toxic regardless of refinement. It is a bit like saying 'medical grade cyanide'.
We can only prove that with the security sheets by Acuitas, Merck and Evonick. I mailed them, but thy don't send them: With the sheets by the real producers, this would be proof.
You can't just say, that it doesn't exist, you have to prove it.
"You can't just say, that it doesn't exist, you have to prove it."
No, the burden is upon you, the pharmaceutical companies, to demonstrate safety.
The onus is not on me to prove harms. Unless it is categorically proven to be medical grade, one has to assume worst case scenario, and the only evidence for the chemical is non-medical grade.
That's how it WAS in court. Nowadays it's unfortunately the other way round. That's the problem. The argument that the companies have to prove the non-toxicity doesn't work in court. I work for a lawyer. The judges believe the companies do what they should do: work with proper chemicals. That's why we work with the general toxicity of this class of chemicals. Otherwise you are in trouble because you have to differenciate between the ALC and SM platform. The Moderna/Pfizer study used NaCl as placebo, which makes it even harder to prove toxicity.
As I understand it, that is one of the biggest issues, the trial product was not the product out on general release to the human subjects due to industrial upscaling and a lack of QC, this has been covered in detail by Hedley Reece amongst others.
The trial was done with (possibly) medical grade product and the product on release was not (industrial) and they new this from the start and tried to hide it.
The actual trial started with the mass vacination.
They also new it did not stop transmission and the PCR tests were a scam.
Sa£e&E££ective was a marketing slogan to push a novel product on a scared and manipulated population.
It's even worse. In Germany we had 4 LNP suppliers and we don't know who was the supplier for which batch:
1. Croda = Avanti
2. Merck via Exelead
3. Evonik[
4. Lipoid
We have not one of the security data sheets of these suppliers.
https://drbine.substack.com/p/liste-der-biontech-zulieferer-work
They have to hide the evidence. Think about what would happen if youngish cancer patients tied their aggressive cancer diagnosis with the clot shots. I seem to also recall the infamous SV40 rearing its head in the vax fiasco. So at least two definite carcinogenic factors are present along with the pathogenic spike (prion fun anyone?); this won't end well.
Thanks for taking a great tangential approach to this, UD. I think the cancer rates will be the tell. In my area, a couple of the larger hospitals are building nice, shiny, massive cancer treatment centers. Perhaps getting ready for a surge in business...
Excellent article, thank you.
Well I guess the answer is to demonetize the cancer society.
Given they have independent funding from pharma, that won't work.
A better option would be for someone to start up a new cancer society not beholden to pharmaceutical companies, and start detailing accurate cancer case reporting figures; then encourage everyone to ignore the bought-out ACS.
they are always begging money but let pharma spend their money
Great work TDB. It can’t be long before the MRNA cancer vaccines make a reappearance now the authorities have been softened up. After all, that was Moderna’s original product.
Beyond Meat is the plant-based burger company. I don’t think they are using the lab grown stuff. They have a severe risk ESG rating, ranking 457/615 in food products companies. Quite surprising eh?
https://www.sustainalytics.com/esg-rating/beyond-meat-inc/2003477310
" I don’t think they are using the lab grown stuff."
I suppose there's a deeper aspect I didn't explain, but it's part and parcel of the wider Gates' scheming.
The fake meat products make use of Soy leghemoglobin (LegH), which is a fake heme iron, that has heck knows what impact on your body:
https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/food-nutrition/genetically-modified-foods-other-novel-foods/approved-products/soy-leghemoglobin-simulated-meat-products/document.html
It is classified as a genetically modified food, made from a GM yeast strain:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/biochemistry-genetics-and-molecular-biology/leghemoglobin
The "Impossible Foods" (also Gates financed) employees published an obviously rigged "safety" "study" claiming that Soy leghemoglobin was 'safe', but the experimental protocols are highly dubious, especially given they all have financial conflicts of interest not to find flaws:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29642729/
The Center for Food Safety sued the FDA and Impossible Foods on the grounds insufficient testing has been performed on Soy leghemoglobin:
https://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/files/2021-01-28--ecf-45-cfs-combined-reply-brief_82674.pdf
I ought to compile this as an article. You can safely assume "Beyond Meat" are involved in genetically modified plants as well.
Have you emailed Cancer Research, it would be nice to get a detailed explanation from them?👍
Buttoned-down, excellent reporting.