Toxic Corona Test Strips

As if the vax weren’t bad enough, now we learn that a commonly-used test for infection with the Wuhan Coronavirus contains dangerous levels of a carcinogenic chemical.

Many thanks to Hellequin GB for translating this article from Der Wochenblick:

Shock: 50 times the amount of carcinogenic ethylene oxide on test strips than allowed

In a risk analysis of Covid-19 rapid tests and PCR tests, Prof. Dr. Werner Bergholz came to the conclusion that all of the antigen test kits he examined contain several hazardous substances. Therefore, the “implementation is inevitably associated with risks for the health of the users and for their surroundings and the environment.” The greatest danger comes from the swab, which also applies to the PCR test, as Bergholz states. One of the problematic ingredients is ethylene oxide (EO), which is extremely carcinogenic. The mass testing of students and asymptomatic people is completely pointless.

  • All swab sticks analyzed contain carcinogenic ethylene oxide (EO)
  • Nanoparticles in antigen tests
  • Contact with hazardous substances can hardly be avoided
  • 50 times the amount of carcinogenic EO than allowed in the workplace
  • Cerebral fluid leakage due to skull injury from swab sticks is possible
  • Carrying out tests by laypeople violates safety regulations for handling hazardous chemicals
  • Mass tests, especially with schoolchildren, are completely pointless
  • Rapid antigen tests should only be performed by qualified personnel
  • Tests only make sense if there are symptoms

Apart from the “predictable flood of false positive results “ and the “relatively poor sensitivity” between 20% and 50% “overlooked” actual positives in the rapid antigen tests, there is a far greater problem with the tests, which has received too little attention so far, according to the professor. Because all of the tests he analyzes appear to contain hazardous substances such as the highly carcinogenic ethylene oxide (EO). Even with the greatest care in handling the tests, a certain “rate of contamination / contact with skin etc. without suitable protective measures (which are often omitted in the instruction leaflets for lay use) would occur in many cases.”

Contact with dangerous substances can hardly be avoided

Due to the large number of antigen tests carried out daily, even if there is a very low probability of error when carried out by laypeople, the release or absorption of the hazardous substances into the body can be expected. Because when laypeople use the test kits, it is likely that they will have unnoticed reagents on their fingers. This is not acceptable, says Prof. Bergholz.

The hazardous substances in the tests

Hazardous substances were detected in all of the tests examined. The rapid antigen tests contain gold nanoparticles and at least in one case a chemical not approved in Europe, which has now received an exemption, according to Prof. Bergholz. “All of these substances are harmful to health and the environment.” All of the package inserts for rapid tests that he examined contain chemicals that are hazardous to health.

The spitting tests are based on carbon nanotubes. This substance is basically subject to the European REACH chemicals regulation.

50 times more carcinogenic EO than allowed

“According to scientific studies, it can be assumed that the swab sticks for both the antigen rapid tests and the PCR tests for the ethylene oxide sterilization contain 50 times as much EO on the surfaces as the daily amount allowed for occupationally exposed persons,” says the alarmed professor. Food should not contain any EO at all. The reason for this is that it is extremely carcinogenic and mutagenic.

Injury to the skull — leakage of cerebrospinal fluid

The swab sticks pose an additional risk, as they damage the mucous membranes, often lead to nosebleeds and leave foreign bodies on the mucous membranes. In extreme cases, cerebral fluid has even escaped from nasal swabs.

Missing information in the instruction leaflet

The protective measures required in the instruction leaflets because of the hazardous substances are inconsistent; they range from no information to approximately 80% of the protective measures actually recommended. Package leaflets for lay use often completely withhold important information on hazardous substances and protective measures and usually contain no further information at all about the chemicals.

Implementation by laypeople violates safety regulations

The fact that tests are carried out by laypeople in the home environment or in classrooms violates general safety regulations for handling chemicals that are harmful to health. In at least one case, the provisions of the European chemicals regulation REACH had been violated. This regulates the registration, evaluation, approval and restriction of chemicals uniformly for the EU countries. The use “was therefore illegal before an exemption was granted,” says Prof Bergholz.

Pointless mass testing — especially among students

“The massive use of rapid antigen tests and PCR tests is pointless, since, if viewed realistically, they cannot have a positive effect on the infection process. This is particularly true for use by schoolchildren.” Because the risk of a serious illness and hospitalization for children is “negligibly small”. And “Schoolchildren do not pose a significant risk of infection for other age groups,” explains Prof. Bergholz. However, this also applies to everyday working life, because for those under sixty the risk is also very low and comparable to the risk of medium flu, stated Prof. Bergholz in a statement for the German Bundestag on the subject of the “Infection Protection Act”.

Rapid antigen tests by qualified personnel only

Prof. Bergholz therefore recommends that “rapid antigen tests should only be used by specialist staff in specially equipped laboratories and only for symptomatic persons.”

Prof. Dr. Werner Bergholz is a former professor of electrical engineering with a focus on quality and risk management at Jakobs University Bremen. Before that, Prof. Bergholz worked for 17 years in the management of chip production at Siemens.

Afterword from the translator:

Something that I noticed with ALL these specialists is that their focus is on one thing only that is dangerous and deadly to us, but they completely ignore that there are people in the background who WANT people to get sick, and stay sick as long for as possible before they eventually die after they’ve been bled dry of each and every penny of their savings to stay alive. These monsters are making mountains of money that way and increasing their power over the life and death of the “plebs”. The weirdest part for me is that the “plebs” laud these monsters as saints and even as “gods in lab coats”. And now they’re even happily sacrificing their own children to Moloch.

5 thoughts on “Toxic Corona Test Strips

  1. Any second now some Barnyard goose will make its way in here to tell us all to be careful of accepting the statements by another bonafide expert.

    Apparently, it is far better to listen to one of the myriad of cardboard cutout lying fools who inhabit the MSN via tv or so-called news.

    What is interesting is that the claims made by the professor here were known or suspected 8 plus months ago. Dr Carrie Madej ran videos of the nano particles on the end of the swabs for the PCR test.

    Discernment has been key since this garbage began.

    Rewind to the fact that TRUMP started all this with an EO that allowed the use of mRNA and self assembling nanoparticles. None of which had ever been tested on something that remained alive after the preliminary testing.

    That retard still talks up the quaxines.

    So Barnyard – go look up Dr Madej’s video before you make up more bollocks about “being careful”.

    • For those who don’t know why Thedawg spits insults at me: It is because I told him my view that “we should be careful accepting information from Dr. Andreas Noack – who claimed that the “graphene hydroxide structures in the vaccines are there to act as miniature razor blades to kill by a thousand cuts”

      Thedawg himself wrote this about Dr. Andreas Noack: “The man therefore had no common sense. Killed himself and his own family yet claimed to be the single expert in Europe. What a moron.”
      https://gatesofvienna.net/2021/12/the-mysterious-death-of-dr-andreas-noack/#comments

      but now I am Thedawg’s target to spill insults for saying we should be careful about the information coming from Dr. Andreas Noack.

      Therefore, I believe, Thedawg has no other purpose here but to mess the real truth seeking discussion by personal insults, like any other internet troll…

  2. “… for those under sixty the risk [of Covid infection] is also very low and comparable to the risk of medium flu, stated Prof. Bergholz….”

    That is hazardous pigeonholing. The risk has been observed to be a fairly smooth, exponentially increasing continuum with increasing age. If you want to reduce risk in, say, 99% of the population, you should consider that and consider ages down in to at least the forties. The professor can not even present the general shape of the observed curve, regardless of how much you attach to its significance. Alas, that makes you wonder where the non-science ends and nonsense begins.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.