In my engineering work, an essential part of it is quality control. We are constantly testing our antimicrobial nutritional and surface-coating products in third-party laboratories to assure their safety.
Perhaps because of all the testing done over the years, it occurred to me very recently (just this month, January 2022) that since it seems almost all pharmaceutical ingredients come from China, the PCR test swabs might come from China as well. Unfortunately, it was just quite recently this occurred to me⏤and I wish I had thought of this earlier. But in any case, here is the information.
Note that this relates to just one manufacturer and may not represent results from all manufacturers of the PCR swabs. However, the frightening results of the toxicological study is a clarion call for a study of the swabs from all manufacturers.
A recent internet search turned up some disturbing research on possible toxicity on the “cotton” part of the swabs. At least that of one manufacturer in China. The study concerns only one Chinese manufacturer, but the results lay a foundation for a very thorough study of ALL the PCR test swabs in use today.
Millions of people are tested daily, and this is part of a rush and panic to get massive testing done. I suppose rushing into anything in a panic is not a very sound principle.
To underscore the seriousness of this potential problem, I’d like to provide the background of the researcher who tested the swabs for possible toxicity. Dr. Antonietta M Gatti, Ph.D., is a heavyweight.
Antonietta M. Gatti, PhD, is the co-founder and principal investigator of Nanodiagnostics srl. She is an International Fellow of the Societies of Biomaterials and Engineering, and is the coordinator of the Italian Institute of Technology’s Project of Nanoecotoxicology, called INESE.
Dr. Gatti founded the association, Health, Law and Science, in Geneva, Switzerland. She is a Member of the NANOTOX Cluster of the European Commission. She is a selected expert of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and the World Health Organization (FAO/WHO) for the safety in nanotechnological food.
Dr. Antonietta M. Gatti
Dr. Antonietta Gatti has an interdisciplinary background that ranges from physics, chemistry, biology, physiology, and pathology. Dr. Gatti has 30 years of experience in research in the field of biomaterials and biocompatibility at national and international levels in various capacities.
Dr. Gatti received her Ph.D. in Biomedical Technologies at the Faculty of Medicine of the University of Bologna, Italy, where she was on the faculty in the Laboratory of Bioengineering and at the Orthopaedic Institutes.
She is an undisputed expert in Nanopathology, Nanotoxicology, Environment, Ecotoxicity, Investigative and Personalized Medicine, Environmental Medicine, Forensic Pathology, Expert of Environment Sustainability, Nanotoxicology, Nanoecotoxicology, Risk assessment, Nanomaterials, Materials Biocompatibility, Biomaterials, Food Contamination, Scanning Electron Microscopy and x-ray microanalysis.
Now Let’s See What She Discovered:
Professor Antonietta Gatti examined various PCR test swabs and analyzed their ingredients. The results showed that they are made of tough materials and contain a large number of nano-particles, including silver, aluminum, titanium, and glass fibers. All of which are not declared on the PCR test package insert.
Prof. Gatti came to the following very frightening conclusions:
“The “porcupine” swabs are made from tough fibers. If they scrape on the nasal mucosa, they can damage it, causing a bleeding lesion or, in any case, trauma to the tissue.
“During the healing process of the mucous membrane, the broken fibers can penetrate the tissue without an opportunity to remove them, causing the formation of a granuloma or fibrotic tissue, as happens with any foreign body.
The medical devices examined are not completely biocompatible and therefore do not meet the requirements of ISO standard 10993 and the tests required to obtain the CE mark.
The summary of the professors’ findings is as follows:
> Swabs are dangerous for the nasopharyngeal mucosa. The glassy fibers, hard and brittle, can scratch the mucous membrane and create lesions. The bleeding is an indication of the invasiveness of the test.
> Repeated swab testing can produce chronic lesions. The release of fragments of the brittle, glassy fibers can cause biological reactions such as granulomas and/or fibrosis of the tissue.
> These smears pose a risk to the health of infants and children. If the tests are necessary, small and mild smears must be carried out in children.”
COVID PCR Test Swabs are as dangerous as inhaling Asbestos
What about Dr. Fauci and Dr. Walensky? Working day and night as guardians of public health?
Fauci as director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and the Chief Medical Advisor to our sock-puppet president…and Walensky, director of the CTC…
The possibility of a problem related to the safety of PCR tests may be shown after further research to be simply another pandemic disaster caused by or allowed to occur by health authorities.
A complete and ongoing quality control study of PCR test swabs of all manufacturers is called for on an urgent basis. And is something that can be added to the list of negligence attributable to Fauci’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and Walensky’s CDC, if it has not been carried out previously.
Please note: the toxicological study referred to in this article, was only of one manufacturer of the swabs, and that manufacturer is located in China. It is possible and hopefully the case, that this test result is unusual, and swabs are generally safe. And particularly, swabs that are manufactured in the US and EU fulfill safety requirements. However, a massive quality control effort is being called for to determine what the situation actually is relative to the safety of PCR swabs!
DISCLAIMER: No one in this post is being accused of a crime. Criminality in this matter can be determined only in a court of law. Furthermore, there is no medical advice in this article. Readers should consult with their own doctor and follow that advice. The article presents a political analysis, and an educational analysis only, and is based on varied sources of reliable publically available opinion.