Modern Discontent is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
Yesterday I made a post that looked at the cationic lipid SM-102 that many people have been concerned about.
My conclusion, based on what I was able to piece together, was that the strange SDS was not reflective of actually toxicity of SM-102, but of a haphazard change of the SDS to reflect the solvent change from chloroform to ethanol.
Now, I mentioned that the last revision to the SDS was September of 2021, and if we could find prior evidence of what the original SDS was we could at least validate this argument.
One commenter from that post, named el bicho palo, suggested I take a look at the Wayback Machine for further evidence.
Of course, I thought of how stupid it was of me to not look there, then I decided to take a look and see what I could dig up.
There were two timepoints of interest here. One was the revision date of September 2021 as that is actually reflective of the SDS change. One would also be before the fact-checks began to emerge, pointing to early May 2021 as a good place to start.
Interestingly, May 2021 was a busy time for the Wayback Machine and Cayman Chemical’s SM-102 product page, so I guess those fact checks made people suspicious of possible changes.
Now, before looking through the Wayback Machine I thought it was strange that Cayman Chemical lists the formulation as “a solution in ethanol” even though it lists the solubility of SM-102 in chloroform- why not mention the solubility for the proper solvent?
But if we take a look at May 10, 2021 we can see that it actually lists a Formulation for chloroform. We can also see that there isn’t an option for a “formulation change”:
So this label does seem a bit more fitting; it mentions chloroform all throughout the SDS, although Cayman Chemical still thinks that chloroform is flammable.
I guess it was caught near the end of May, as on May 26, 2021 there was a revision to the SDS that looks a lot more appropriate:
So this looks like the proper SDS for SM-102 dissolved in chloroform.
Nothing serious happens for several months, although there appears to be a minor revision to the SDS in late August, 2021.
And finally, that brings us to the date in question: September 15, 2021. This appears to be the date where the huge overhaul occurred and everything was swapped from chloroform to ethanol.
I won’t post the hazard labels here as no revisions occurred from September 2021 until now, so the labels from yesterday’s post should be the same. The same can be said about the “formulation” on the product page.
So, taken together I believe this validates that the concerning SDS page is nothing more than a rushed modification to reflect a solvent change. Why it was done, I am not sure, but the evidence from the Wayback Machine, as well as heat from both fact-checkers and vaccine skeptics alike may have put some pressure on Cayman Chemical. Or it could be that the “SM-102 in ethanol” SDS needed to be added because of its use in the vaccines.
Again, this does not mean that SM-102 is safe, but I would also argue that ALC-0315, which many people have argued is safe, should at least suggest that SM-102 should have a similar safety profile- the two compounds only differ in carbon chain length.
Overall, I would say this concludes that the SDS page is not something to be concerned about as it does not properly reflect both the solvent and the SM-102, and care should be taken not to look at this SDS and conclude something nefarious.
I am examining other concerns over LNPs and toxicity right now, but if anyone has any comments or questions, including what may have happened around September, please feel free to comment below!