"Just a harmless test swab?" Werner Bergholz | COMMENTARY #28 SPECIAL (TRABSCRIPT AND LINK TO 3 MINUTE VIDEO)

YOUTUBE.COM ^ | Dec 14, 2021 | Professor Werner Bergholz

[ransomnote]

ransomnote: I am preparing to post a DailyExpose article about the test swabs which links to this video. I transcribed the video in case YOUTUBE decides to delete it and will post it as a standalone thread, which I will then link to The Expose article: Prof. Werner Bergholz: Dangerous Chemicals and Nanotubes Found In Covid Test Swabs – The Expose (dailyexpose.uk) 

The video is 3.5 minutes long and presented in German, with English subtitles which I have transcribed below.

Here's the introductory text posted beneath the video on YOUTUBE:

OVALmedia in English

 

Werner Bergholz, former professor of electronic engineering and consultant for the German parlament, presents laboratory results from examining test swabs and discusses the finding of ethylene oxide in that context. -----------

Transcript with a few images begins:

Professor Werner Bergholz: "Ethylene oxide is a gas that is widely used in medicine to sterilize medical equipment and products. There is nothing to object to, at first, but there is a certain reasonable, or there was a reasonable suspicion based on older publications that there were potential remnants of this ethylene oxide, which is carcinogenic and mutagenic, found on these test strips.And lo and behold, the suspicion was correct.  

 

There, ethylene oxide is detected to be at 0.33 mg/kg, far over the detection limit of 0.01 mg/kg.

In addition, you can see 2-chloroenthanol, or dicholoroethanol, at around twice that amount. This is a decay product that is even somewhat more dangerous than ethylene oxide.

So we are clearly above the detection limit. Now, is that bad?

So the good news is, it's not quite as much as you might have guessed.

But the bad news is, there is something there. And is it too much?

Well, the question is quite simple to answer. Yes, definitely. But why?

Here you can see an image of a scanning electron microscope of the tip of a swab like this.

The investigation report which I have in my possession literally states "it looks like a porcupine." This is made of plastic, which is classified as rather brittle.

Well and then a Bermpohl laboratory once did the following experiment:

They took a test tube, dipped the swab in, pulled it out again and there you see a lot of these rods floating around. That is, you can say that you only have to give them a funny look, and some of them break off. 

 

And it stands to reason, I think, that if I swab something now, then they will be mechanically stressed and a good part of them will really stick somewhere in the mucosa.

And you can't even make this up. These are also those used for the "lollipop test." If children now suck or even chew on it, that is even more disastrous.

And then that stays in the mouth for the most part, and is surely swallowed and goes into the body. 

 
And, of course, if it is carcinogenic, there can even be a problem years later.

So I am really speechless at how obviously careless the authorities have been in handling this in the past.

Now it would be up to the authorities to investigate this systematically. And if these tests are absolutely necessary, then please as a saliva test, but no longer in the mouth or nose."

END OF TRANSCRIPT

 

[ransomnote]

PING

[exinnj]

What a bunch of pseudo-chemical crap! Ethylene oxide at 0.33mg/kg, or 0.33 mkg/g or 0.33 ng/mg. So your precious nose is exposed to nanograms of potential carcinogen at one test swab. It will probably be exposed to thousand more “carcinogens” if you step into Costco in the afternoon! The ignorance of all things chemical among general population, as well as among “scientists”, is astonishing. I blame high school system employing mostly imbeciles as science teachers.

[Tennessee Conservative]

To go with that.

https://photos.imageevent.com/shegen/sherriespictures/blog/video-1629811961.mp4

[zeestephen]

Pushing a sharp stick within one inch of your brain...

What could possibly go wrong?

Affirmative Action medical technicians for $2,000, Alex!

[ransomnote]

In the General/Chat forum, on a thread titled "Just a harmless test swab?" Werner Bergholz | COMMENTARY #28 SPECIAL (TRABSCRIPT AND LINK TO 3 MINUTE VIDEO), exinnj wrote:

What a bunch of pseudo-chemical crap! Ethylene oxide at 0.33mg/kg, or 0.33 mkg/g or 0.33 ng/mg. So your precious nose is exposed to nanograms of potential carcinogen at one test swab. It will probably be exposed to thousand more “carcinogens” if you step into Costco in the afternoon! The ignorance of all things chemical among general population, as well as among “scientists”, is astonishing. I blame high school system employing mostly imbeciles as science teachers.

*

I can't figure out why you're so proud of your ignorance. That's a German professor talking about standards for chemical detection and discussing relevance and you shriek, roll your eyes and complain about the high school system. 

Say, when information is exposed that makes you uncomfortable, does bleating like you just did really make it all disappear?

[ransomnote]

In the General/Chat forum, on a thread titled "Just a harmless test swab?" Werner Bergholz | COMMENTARY #28 SPECIAL (TRABSCRIPT AND LINK TO 3 MINUTE VIDEO), zeestephen wrote:

Pushing a sharp stick within one inch of your brain...

What could possibly go wrong?

Affirmative Action medical technicians for $2,000, Alex!

*

A nurse posted a video about this about a year ago but I didn't post it because she didn't offer data. SHe pointed out there is NO REASON to rub a swab on the barrier between the nasal cavity and the brain because like all coronaviruses, it's available in the saliva/mouth.

They had a reason for insisting on THIS nasal swab when other viruses are typically tested in the mouth.

[AppyPappy]

Hey! We are trying to enjoy Fear Porn here. Keep it down

[AppyPappy]

Every test I have seen now is just run it around in the nostril

[gdc61]

Arrogant sophistry fits you well.
You sure you didn’t cut and paste that?

[gdc61]

First you validate his findings, And so then you play down there significance by comparing mechanically inserted carcinogens, to possibly naturally occurring carcinogenic particles in the air?

Precious nose? Really? what a massive douce bag of fallacious arrogance you toss around. How much did you pay for that education anyway?

[Nifster]

Exactly

[setter]

“Pushing a sharp stick within one inch of your brain...What could possibly go wrong?”

The new test just uses a cotton swab 1/2 inch into your nose and turn it 3 times and remove.

[MurrietaMadman]

Wait 'til you get to this chapter

https://dailyexpose.uk/2022/01/29/doctor-detects-mac-addresses-in-covid-vaccinated-individuals-with-bluetooth-applications/

[dsrtsage]

Wafer thin mint

[zeestephen]

A couple months ago a medical journalist wrote about the deep nasal probe and pointed out that there is NO published record of any comparison between deep probes and lower nasal probes for corona viruses.

In other words, it is completely possible that a painless, risk free, lower probe collects exactly the same sample as a painful, potentially dangerous, deep probe.