Fact Checking the fact checkers

For discussion of liberty, freedom, government and politics.
Post Reply
User avatar
Fred
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 7611
Location: Zion

Fact Checking the fact checkers

Post by Fred »

Fact check: Moderna vaccine does not include poisonous substances

The claim: Moderna vaccine has poisonous SM-102 chemical in it

This article states that the Moderna does not contain a harmful substance. But then The company's SM-102 safety sheet says the chemical is "fatal in contact with skin" and "causes damage to the central nervous system, the kidneys, the liver and the respiratory system through prolonged or repeated exposure."

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/fac ... 152680001/

User avatar
inho
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3286
Location: in a galaxy far, far away

Re: Fact Checking the fact checkers

Post by inho »

Whether doing fact checking or fact checking the fact checkers, it is good to be honest. This kind of misguided statements doesn’t really do any good, quite the contrary.

So here is the full quote in context:
The company's SM-102 safety sheet says the chemical is "fatal in contact with skin" and "causes damage to the central nervous system, the kidneys, the liver and the respiratory system through prolonged or repeated exposure."

But the product referenced there isn't raw SM-102. It's SM-102 mixed with chloroform, a colorless toxic liquid that the safety sheet indicates is the dangerous ingredient, not the SM-102.

It is common for substances — like chloroform — to be mixed with other chemicals to help them properly dissolve, which is the purpose it serves in this case as well, Lowe said.

Chloroform is not an ingredient in the Moderna vaccine

User avatar
InfoWarrior82
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 10861
Location: "There are 15 on the earth today, you can trust them completely." -President Nelson (Jan 2022)

Re: Fact Checking the fact checkers

Post by InfoWarrior82 »

inho wrote: November 3rd, 2022, 1:45 pm Whether doing fact checking or fact checking the fact checkers, it is good to be honest. This kind of misguided statements doesn’t really do any good, quite the contrary.

So here is the full quote in context:
The company's SM-102 safety sheet says the chemical is "fatal in contact with skin" and "causes damage to the central nervous system, the kidneys, the liver and the respiratory system through prolonged or repeated exposure."

But the product referenced there isn't raw SM-102. It's SM-102 mixed with chloroform, a colorless toxic liquid that the safety sheet indicates is the dangerous ingredient, not the SM-102.

It is common for substances — like chloroform — to be mixed with other chemicals to help them properly dissolve, which is the purpose it serves in this case as well, Lowe said.

Chloroform is not an ingredient in the Moderna vaccine
Two things.

If Choloform is not an ingredient in the Moderna vaccine, how can it be "SM-102 mixed with Chloroform'"?

Secondly, the stated purpose of the chloroform is to "help them properly dissolve". This does not give us any indication that the substances are any less dangerous.

User avatar
inho
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3286
Location: in a galaxy far, far away

Re: Fact Checking the fact checkers

Post by inho »

InfoWarrior82 wrote: November 3rd, 2022, 1:51 pm Two things.

If Choloform is not an ingredient in the Moderna vaccine, how can it be "SM-102 mixed with Chloroform'"?

Secondly, the stated purpose of the chloroform is to "help them properly dissolve". This does not give us any indication that the substances are any less dangerous.
This is not the first time SM-102 is discussed here, see: viewtopic.php?p=1141304#p1141304

The point is that people have misread the fact sheet for SM-102. The fact sheet they have found is for solution, where chloroform is used to dissolve SM-102. 90% of the solution is chloroform, so no wonder that solution is not good for human. But the vaccine does not contain the solution, it only contains SM-102, no chloroform.

Anti-vaxxers loose all credibility if they continue making as misguided claims. There is too much of that already.

User avatar
InfoWarrior82
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 10861
Location: "There are 15 on the earth today, you can trust them completely." -President Nelson (Jan 2022)

Re: Fact Checking the fact checkers

Post by InfoWarrior82 »

inho wrote: November 3rd, 2022, 1:57 pm
InfoWarrior82 wrote: November 3rd, 2022, 1:51 pm Two things.

If Choloform is not an ingredient in the Moderna vaccine, how can it be "SM-102 mixed with Chloroform'"?

Secondly, the stated purpose of the chloroform is to "help them properly dissolve". This does not give us any indication that the substances are any less dangerous.
This is not the first time SM-102 is discussed here, see: viewtopic.php?p=1141304#p1141304

The point is that people have misread the fact sheet for SM-102. The fact sheet they have found is for solution, where chloroform is used to dissolve SM-102. 90% of the solution is chloroform, so no wonder that solution is not good for human. But the vaccine does not contain the solution, it only contains SM-102, no chloroform.

Anti-vaxxers loose all credibility if they continue making as misguided claims. There is too much of that already.

SM-102 is a lipid excipient, meaning it is a substance that is not soluble in water that is used as an inactive ingredient in a vaccine (here , here).

SM-102 is listed as one of the lipids in the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine as seen in the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) fact sheet here . Moderna describes SM-102 here as a “proprietary ionizable lipid” meaning it was produced for use in vaccines by Moderna. This lipid is not in the other COVID-19 vaccines granted an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) by the FDA, as seen in the Pfizer and Janssen fact sheets here and here .

However, the Cayman Chemical product information sheet explains here that they supply SM-102 as “a solution in chloroform”. The Cayman Chemical safety fact sheet which lists the hazards explains here that the product (labelled “item No. 33474”) is therefore made up of 90% chloroform and 10% SM-102. The only product listed as a “dangerous component” and “hazard-determining component of labelling” (here , here) is chloroform. SM-102 is simply listed under “other ingredients”.

A Cayman Chemical statement here confirms that Cayman’s SM-102 is a mixture of 90% chloroform and 10% SM-102 intended for research use by academic and industrial scientists in the preclinical exploration of novel therapies. It goes on to explain that SM-102 is not harmful: “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.”


"The Cayman Chemical safety fact sheet which lists the hazards explains here that the product (labelled “item No. 33474”) is therefore made up of 90% chloroform and 10% SM-102. The only product listed as a “dangerous component” and “hazard-determining component of labelling” (here , here) is chloroform. SM-102 is simply listed under “other ingredients”."

and

"A Cayman Chemical statement here confirms that Cayman’s SM-102 is a mixture of 90% chloroform and 10% SM-102 intended for research use by academic and industrial scientists in the preclinical exploration of novel therapies. It goes on to explain that SM-102 is not harmful"

So basically it's a mixture of two dangerous components: 90% chloroform and 10% SM-102. Gotcha. Oh.. and it's not dangerous... because.... they said so.... OK.
Last edited by InfoWarrior82 on November 3rd, 2022, 2:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
inho
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3286
Location: in a galaxy far, far away

Re: Fact Checking the fact checkers

Post by inho »

InfoWarrior82 wrote: November 3rd, 2022, 2:06 pm So basically it's a mixture of two dangerous components: 90% chloroform and 10% SM-102. Gotcha. Oh.. and it's not dangerous... because.... they said so.... OK.
Read it one more time and maybe you get it.

The vaccine contains SM-102. That is a lipid (i.e., one component).
Cayman Chemical product information sheet explains here that they supply SM-102 as “a solution in chloroform” (i.e., two components).
The vaccine does not contain chloroform, only SM-102, so the fact sheet doesn't apply to the vaccine.

User avatar
Fred
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 7611
Location: Zion

Re: Fact Checking the fact checkers

Post by Fred »

Cayman Chemical, which manufactures the crap, says this about it:
https://cdn.caymanchem.com/cdn/msds/33474m.pdf
sm-102.pdf
(153.62 KiB) Downloaded 4 times

User avatar
inho
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3286
Location: in a galaxy far, far away

Re: Fact Checking the fact checkers

Post by inho »

Please guys, you are smarter than this

User avatar
InfoWarrior82
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 10861
Location: "There are 15 on the earth today, you can trust them completely." -President Nelson (Jan 2022)

Re: Fact Checking the fact checkers

Post by InfoWarrior82 »

inho wrote: November 3rd, 2022, 2:12 pm
InfoWarrior82 wrote: November 3rd, 2022, 2:06 pm So basically it's a mixture of two dangerous components: 90% chloroform and 10% SM-102. Gotcha. Oh.. and it's not dangerous... because.... they said so.... OK.
Read it one more time and maybe you get it.

The vaccine contains SM-102. That is a lipid (i.e., one component).
Cayman Chemical product information sheet explains here that they supply SM-102 as “a solution in chloroform” (i.e., two components).
The vaccine does not contain chloroform, only SM-102, so the fact sheet doesn't apply to the vaccine.

Huh?

"The Cayman Chemical safety fact sheet which lists the hazards explains here that the product (labelled “item No. 33474”) is therefore made up of 90% chloroform and 10% SM-102. The only product listed as a “dangerous component” and “hazard-determining component of labelling” (here , here) is chloroform. SM-102 is simply listed under “other ingredients”."


The Item... 33474 is a product.... made up of 90% chloroform and 10% SM-102.....

And then is further confirmed that these two together are in the vaccine...

"A Cayman Chemical statement here confirms that Cayman’s SM-102 is a mixture of 90% chloroform and 10% SM-102 intended for research use by academic and industrial scientists in the preclinical exploration of novel therapies."

User avatar
inho
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3286
Location: in a galaxy far, far away

Re: Fact Checking the fact checkers

Post by inho »

But the product referenced there isn't raw SM-102. It's SM-102 mixed with chloroform, a colorless toxic liquid that the safety sheet indicates is the dangerous ingredient, not the SM-102.

It is common for substances — like chloroform — to be mixed with other chemicals to help them properly dissolve, which is the purpose it serves in this case as well, Lowe said.

Chloroform is not an ingredient in the Moderna vaccine.

User avatar
InfoWarrior82
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 10861
Location: "There are 15 on the earth today, you can trust them completely." -President Nelson (Jan 2022)

Re: Fact Checking the fact checkers

Post by InfoWarrior82 »

inho wrote: November 3rd, 2022, 2:21 pm
But the product referenced there isn't raw SM-102. It's SM-102 mixed with chloroform, a colorless toxic liquid that the safety sheet indicates is the dangerous ingredient, not the SM-102.

It is common for substances — like chloroform — to be mixed with other chemicals to help them properly dissolve, which is the purpose it serves in this case as well, Lowe said.

Chloroform is not an ingredient in the Moderna vaccine.

Translation:

We mixed SM-102 with chloroform and called it "product 33474”

User avatar
Fred
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 7611
Location: Zion

Re: Fact Checking the fact checkers

Post by Fred »

inho wrote: November 3rd, 2022, 2:21 pm
But the product referenced there isn't raw SM-102. It's SM-102 mixed with chloroform, a colorless toxic liquid that the safety sheet indicates is the dangerous ingredient, not the SM-102.

It is common for substances — like chloroform — to be mixed with other chemicals to help them properly dissolve, which is the purpose it serves in this case as well, Lowe said.

Chloroform is not an ingredient in the Moderna vaccine.
So Moderna buys the SM-102 from Cayman Chemical, the manufacturer, and removes the chloroform? So that it is no longer what the manufacturer manufactured, and therefore no longer SM-102? But they call it SM-102 anyway because that is what the manufacturer calls it? Because the manufacturer says that it IS toxic.

User avatar
inho
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3286
Location: in a galaxy far, far away

Re: Fact Checking the fact checkers

Post by inho »

The manufacturer uses trade name SM-102 for a solution that contains the actual SM-102 lipid. Their fact sheet makes clear that the solvant content of the product is 90%. This means that only 10% of the solution is actually SM-102.

If they would sell salt, they would still call it sodium chloride, even if it had been dissolved in water.

This is not rocket science.

User avatar
Fred
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 7611
Location: Zion

Re: Fact Checking the fact checkers

Post by Fred »

inho wrote: November 3rd, 2022, 2:36 pm The manufacturer uses trade name SM-102 for a solution that contains the actual SM-102 lipid. Their fact sheet makes clear that the solvant content of the product is 90%. This means that only 10% of the solution is actually SM-102.

If they would sell salt, they would still call it sodium chloride, even if it had been dissolved in water.

This is not rocket science.
In your example, taking the water out of the salt water would make it salt again. The manufacturer of SM-102 says that it is toxic because it contains chloroform. Moderna says that they do not use chloroform, which means that they have taken it out. Because the manufacturer put it in. This is not rocket science. They have altered the original formula. But they still call it SM-102. We trust them that there is no chloroform left in their version of SM-102.

User avatar
inho
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3286
Location: in a galaxy far, far away

Re: Fact Checking the fact checkers

Post by inho »

Fred wrote: November 3rd, 2022, 2:51 pm They have altered the original formula. But they still call it SM-102.
You got it the wrong way. The manufacturer still calls their product SM-102, even though what they really sell is a solution.
SM-102 is a synthetic aminolipid (C44H87NO5), not the solution.

User avatar
InfoWarrior82
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 10861
Location: "There are 15 on the earth today, you can trust them completely." -President Nelson (Jan 2022)

Re: Fact Checking the fact checkers

Post by InfoWarrior82 »

inho wrote: November 3rd, 2022, 2:58 pm
Fred wrote: November 3rd, 2022, 2:51 pm They have altered the original formula. But they still call it SM-102.
You got it the wrong way. The manufacturer still calls their product SM-102, even though what they really sell is a solution.
SM-102 is a synthetic aminolipid (C44H87NO5), not the solution.
Do you mean that they put 10% raw SM-102 into a 90% solution of chloroform?

User avatar
harakim
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2819
Location: Salt Lake Megalopolis

Re: Fact Checking the fact checkers

Post by harakim »

inho wrote: November 3rd, 2022, 2:58 pm
Fred wrote: November 3rd, 2022, 2:51 pm They have altered the original formula. But they still call it SM-102.
You got it the wrong way. The manufacturer still calls their product SM-102, even though what they really sell is a solution.
SM-102 is a synthetic aminolipid (C44H87NO5), not the solution.
I was with you until about here. If the data sheet is for the solution and the solution is what they really sell then the point is valid again. Do they sell just SM-102 not in solution? Is that what is in the vaccine? Is there a way to tell?

Also, the data sheet linked says it's suspended in alcohol, not chloroform.

User avatar
inho
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3286
Location: in a galaxy far, far away

Re: Fact Checking the fact checkers

Post by inho »

harakim wrote: November 3rd, 2022, 7:32 pm
I was with you until about here. If the data sheet is for the solution and the solution is what they really sell then the point is valid again. Do they sell just SM-102 not in solution? Is that what is in the vaccine? Is there a way to tell?

Also, the data sheet linked says it's suspended in alcohol, not chloroform.
Your point about the chloroform is very important. Seems that they have changed the solvant. More important is, that the data sheet no longer contains warning about the solution being fatal in contact with skin.

The solution with chloroform had been dangerous substance. The current recipe not as much. And anyway solution is just one way to provide the lipid, and only the lipid is used in the vaccine. Do not get hang up with trade names.

User avatar
Niemand
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 13999

Re: Fact Checking the fact checkers

Post by Niemand »

The most obvious lie was that the jabs are "100% safe". This was made in WHO advertising, even though it is impossible for any injection to be 100% risk free.

A saline placebo, for example, is not 100% safe. Air bubbles can accidentally be injected into your blood, the needle may not be properly sterilised and the person administering it may also screw up damaging a vein in the process. There are several risk factors.

These risks may be negligible but they demonstrate the "100% safe" claim is false advertising even before we even get to what's in the actual shots.

Post Reply