Why is this (toxic) substance in the Moderna 'vaccine'?

You mean MSDS - Material Safety Data Sheet? That's a type of document. The source is where we get the document from. The source used by your OP article was Cayman Chemical, because it was the data sheet for their product of SM-102 in Chloroform. Again, that is here; https://www.caymanchem.com/msdss/33474m.pdf.

As I already pointed out, that lists the two ingredients in that product of page three. Chloroform is listed under "dangerous components" (because it is) and SM-102 is listed under "other ingredients" (because it isn't dangerous in and of itself). It is really that simple.

I was taking it one step at a time. What would be the point of discussing the content of their documents if you're going to dismiss them as untrustworthy? If you want to explain which document you're referring to and why you think that distinction is relevant to the question of the safety of SM-102 in vaccines I'd be happy to discuss it.

 

No further discussion with you Joe.

 

The data sheet you linked is the same one we've been talking about. It is the data sheet for the specific product, SM-102 in Chloroform. That product is toxic because chloroform is toxic, not because SM-102 is. That is set out in section three of the datasheet.

The vaccine ingredient list includes SM-102 but not chloroform. The vaccine isn't made using the same product this datasheet is about, just SM-102 on it's own.

 

Have you run out of evasions and distractions already? And I thought you wanted to discuss something about in vitro and in vivo differences.

 

I don't care. I don't live like a scared little girl. And being a scientist myself I have confidence in the process.

 

Faaaaaaaaaaaaake. You guys really, really need to get better about locating the Conspiracy Theory section to spread this hot garbage.

politifact.com/factchecks/2021/may/21/instagram-posts/no-moderna-vaccine-does-not-contain-ingredient-s-r/
https://apnews.com/article/fact-checking-339133801807

 

Which isn't toxic. The "toxic" version is the version preserved in chloroform . . . the chloroform is what is toxic, not the SM-102. The vaccine doesn't use the chloroform version. It's just more fake propaganda.

 

like radiation bad, but standing in the sun is fine or even eating a banana

the dose makes the poison, just cause something is poisonous in high doses, does not make it harmful in low doses

 

It isn't even harmful in high doses. The only time it is harmful is when it is mixed with chloroform. They are basically saying, "Bananas are toxic when mixed with cyanide, so you shouldn't eat bananas.

 

I was referring to this for bananas, but they are safe to eat, won't get radiation poisoning at least

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_equivalent_dose

"The radiation exposure from consuming a banana is approximately 1% of the average daily exposure to radiation, which is 100 banana equivalent doses (BED). The maximum permitted radiation leakage for a nuclear power plant is equivalent to 2,500 BED (250 μSv) per year, while a chest CT scan delivers 70,000 BED (7 mSv)."

imagine if the same amount of radiation was in the vax, the anti-vaxers would go nuts and probably have no issues eating many bananas a year

 

The datasheet I linked to was for SM-102 alone. Try and keep up.

 

The process that has not been completed with unknowns. You say you are a scientist so you must know that complete testing has not happened and that unknowns are what you don't know.

 

Not what the datasheet says.

 

It is. And I've provided references already. You've fallen for yet another unhinged conspiracy theory.

 

I get it, OSHA's safety sheet on SM-102 is a conspiracy. LOL

 

Not for those able to do some homework and read. Again, you are falling for made-up bull ****

 

Not it isn't.

https://www.caymanchem.com/product/33474/sm-102
This is the product page and it clearly states that the product is a solution in chloroform.



https://www.caymanchem.com/msdss/33474m.pdf
This is the linked data sheet for the product. It clearly lists chloroform as the only "dangerous component" and SM-102 as just "other ingredient".

 

I'm sure he'll still be immune to the facts.

 

I do get a kick out of what the FDA says about it.


HAS THE MODERNA COVID-19 VACCINE BEEN USED BEFORE?
The Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine is an unapproved vaccine. In clinical trials, approximately 15,400 individuals 18 years of age and older have received at least 1 dose of the Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine.

 

Even better is what comes next

WHAT ARE THE RISKS OF THE MODERNA COVID-19 VACCINE?
There is a remote chance that the Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine could cause a severe allergic reaction

 

Then why are so many dying from it? A friend of mine who took both shots about 2 months ago is now on his deathbed.

If it's not harmful, why are so many women experiencing menstrual irregularities and miscarriages after taking it?

 

OP: Propagating conspiracy theories is a reliable way to get attention.

 

You should start a thread about that then. This thread is about the claim that SM-102 is toxic. I guess we can take this attempt to segway to something else as acknowledgement the documentation didn't say what you thought it said.

 

It seems like everyone who comes near you is either dying, severely ill or dead. Are you that contagious?

 

No, but about half the US population has submitted to being a test subject for a dangerous and toxic experimental drug. I can't help that.

Men go mad in herds. That's not my fault.