Home  •  C19 Rapid Antigen Test Concerns

C19 Rapid Antigen Test Concerns

on June 21, 2023 IN Killer C19 Protocols
Canada cov-ID-19 ethylene oxide FDA (villain) Hydrogel Johns Hopkins (NWO) Nanotechnology PCR Pregnancy and Birth-Control Symptom - Cancer United Kingdom
  • Updated:5 months ago
  • Reading Time:53Minutes
  • Post Words:14083Words
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

So I was in hospital last week and one of the most alarming things for me (of MANY), is that they attempted to give me a swab Rapid Antigen Test, which I obviously refused, but the fact that they were going around testing all patients with these tests still, instigated this post. Even though the entire test is a scam, and I felt like I was in lala-land, I was astonished that the torturous “swabs” are still the weapon of choice, given that there are far less-torturous and more humane “spit” tests, that are just as unreliable and fraudulent as the “jam it up your nose” and risk exposure to “god knows what” types.

With the swabs, whether it’s PCR or RAT, you are risking whatever else could be on the swabs, including bacteria contamination, in addition to the brutality of “someone else” sticking something up your nose, and parents who don’t know what they are doing jamming it into their kids and babies (I’ve seen the videos—too brutal to post here—the stuff of lifetime-nightmares).

We have the “known” toxic ingredients on the swabs – the ones where the manufacturer package inserts list them, and we have the potentially “unlisted” toxic ingredients with a side-serving of a current eugenics/depopulation agenda to concern ourselves with.

This post got too big, that it crashed my shitty host (please donate if you’re sick of my site going down lol). But I’ve moved two parts to separate posts as a bandaid fix:


Known Toxic ingredients of Swabs:

  • Sodium Azide
  • Ethylene Oxide (at 7x greater than the safety specifications in one analysis, listed below)
  • Proclin Oxide (Isothiazolone Biocide)
  • Aluminum and Silicon
  • Bacteria contamination including Enterococcus, Enterobacter, Klebsiella and Serratia.

Studies & Analysis:

  • Union calls for suspension of rapid testing after toxic substance found(01)
    1. Under EU Regulation No. 2015/868, the maximum residue level for the sum (of ethylene oxide and the conversion product 2-chloroethanol), referred to as ethylene oxide, has been specified at 0.05 mg/kg.
    2. The Isotita union’s concerns come after a report aired two days ago on media channel Pronews TV, about a rapid test swab found to contain 0.36 mg/kg of ethylene oxide.
    3. Analysis by Larnaca-based Food Allergens Lab, had set the detection limit at 0.025 mg/kg.
  • A separate analysis by A-D Research Foundation in California found aluminum and silicon at concentrations as high as 7.25% and 14.06% respectively in some spots on PCR test swabs.
    • Undeclared Hazardous Components in Nasopharyngeal Test Swabs Used in COVID-19 PCR Tests (02)
  • Adverse effects of nasopharyngeal swabs: Three-dimensional printed versus commercial swabs (03)

FDA Recalls of Rapid Antigen Tests

As this post ended up getting quite huge, I moved the hundreds of FDA RAT test recalls to it’s own post here: FDA Rapid Covid-19 Tests Recall List

Examples of reasons were varied, from bacteria contamination to pieces of swab breaking off, to false results.

Rapid Antigen Tests (RAT Concerns) (Clip Compilation)

COVID test swabs have been found to be contaminated now with aluminum, with silicon, and with many dangerous chemicals. This is from DailySceptic.org. A public sector trade union in Cyprus has called for the suspension of these tests. After analysis, it found multiple times the permissible trace level of ethylene oxide. The analysis by Cyprus-based Food Allergens Lab found that it was over seven times the limit, allowed under European Union regulations for ethylene oxide—seven times the limit.

A union group called Isotita (Equality) that represents public sector workers is calling for Wuhan coronavirus (Covid-19) “rapid tests” to be suspended from use after it was discovered that the swabs contain ethylene oxide, a toxic substance.

In the European Union, ethylene oxide is prohibited in food production, and under EU Regulation No. 2015/868, the highest amount allowed in residue is specified at 0.05 mg/kg.

In Fauci Flu rapid tests, however, the amount of ethylene oxide detected is around 0.36 mg/kg, more than six times the allowable level under current government guidelines.”

  • Covid Test Swabs Found Contaminated With Aluminium, Silicon and Dangerous Chemicals (DailySceptic)

According to the European Chemicals Agency, ethylene oxide is toxic, carcinogenic, and mutagenic, especially when it inhaled. It is used to coat and to sterilize PCR and rapid test nasal swabs, however.

A separate analysis by AD Research in California found aluminum and silicon in concentrations that are much higher than allowed by law. They said aluminum and silicon can both be hazardous to the health and suggest that this may explain the rapid onset nasal bleed and strong and lasting adverse reactions reported by tested individuals.

I’ve talked before about a friend who’s had some elderly relatives, so they were scared to death of this whole pandemic, they stayed isolated, they did everything they were told to do. He got sick with something that wasn’t involved with COVID at all. They took him to the hospital. They wanted to get their bonus, so they tested him and he tested negative. They kept testing and testing and over a 24-hour period, they tested him four times. Every time it came back negative, but what they did do was create a massive nasal bleeding and other issue. Why? Because these bristles are coming off. I’ve shown you the picture before, under the microscope. Why wouldn’t they just use cotton swabs? This is a very common thing, but no, no, they had to come up with a different swab, and you’ve seen the pictures, the bristles that are out like a, you know.

Today’s topic is, testing the so-called test. Key question today, what do those swabs do? Original, sterile, and clean, to make sure everything is, as it is designed to be. Whatever that might be. Now for a closer look. Cotton swab first for comparison, and now the COVID-19 test swab.

I suggest we move on to try something really insightful. Test some meat, to see, what it actually does to you, in contact with soft skin, or mucus membrane especially. As you can see, the meat is spotless. Let’s go with the cotton first. Remember to check, if you can see a difference, each time. 1000 fold magnification. Clean meat. Despite really working it, no trace.

Now the COVID swab, and just a gentle touch. You can already see the first spikes that have broken off, on their way into the flesh. Let’s have a closer look. Those spikes broke off and penetrated the meat. It took little time to realize. They were everywhere. All standing straight up. When looking at the swab, obviously by design. Meat cells to the left, showing the magnification level into the right of spike, that small. Swab after touching the meat. Barely anything came out with it, but a large of it remained.

If the task was to harvest a bit of genetic material, a normal cotton swab would do just fine. The COVID swab however does sting and break. It leaves large amulets of itself, that where it touches skin and flesh, and this material stings, and penetrates. What those spikes do, or what they deliver, is beyond my testing capacities. I can only prove to you that they do break off, and are designed to do so, to remain in the body for whatever purpose.

Legitimate concerns about the swab test

  • David Knight Show 28Oct21 – Part 3 Of 3 (Bitchute)

And that when you rub it across the meat, they stay behind, and we look at them under a microscope. The bristles are easy to separate from the swab. They’re about 15 micrometers in diameter. They are comprised of an outer tube with an inner filling. The inner material does not seem to exude or to flow or to deviate from a cylindrical shape when the bristles are dissected, and so we would provisionally conclude, the inner material is solid, or semi solid, in nature. That’s the lab report of those swabs.

Johnhopkins Theragripper Dust

Not too many people notice this story coming out of a publication by John Hopkins University, where they showed a Q-tip swab, and it looks like tiny specks of dust that you can barely see, and they call it a Theragripper about the size of a speck of dust, inspired by parasitic worm that digs its sharp teeth into the hosts intestines.

  • “Theragrippers” are tiny, shape-changing machines that deliver medicine efficiently to the GI tract

John Hopkins researchers have designed a tiny machine to deliver medicine efficiently, and some people look at that. They said, well, you know, all of these tests that they’re putting out there, putting up a long Q-tip swab up your nose. Very, very, very far up your nose. Is this to deliver some kind of a vaccine or something else? Through that process?

  • Yes, They Can Vaccinate Us Through Nasal Test Swabs And Target The Brain (Biohacking P.1) (silview.media)

See, quite frankly, I don’t put anything past these people. When you look at what DARPA is doing, we’re just talking to Tim Mablerino, DARPA financing, and of course these people have hundreds of millions of dollar grants that are given to them for the brain project to map the brain. That’s what really the project is right now, and the NIH, the current research that they’re working on, you know, genetic stuff they’ve been doing that for a while and that that was Francis Collins reward his human genome project. I’m not so sure that they know what they’re doing, frankly. That’s one of the even scarier things about it, right? If they know what they’re doing, they don’t have any ethics or any legal restraints to what they do, but then there’s also the aspect of it that these people are just kind of blindly grouping in the dark with things as well, because when they came out of that, they very high percentage of the DNA that they call junk DNA. It doesn’t do anything. No, actually does. It just means that you don’t understand what God’s done. You’re not as clever as you think you are, but they can still do a lot of damage, and when you look at something like this, these Theragrippers, “a way to deliver medicine”. Well, you know, let’s just hope that they’re not going to do some kind of a vaccination surreptitiously on us or something else.

  • World Alternative Media – Shocking: Are PCR Tests Secret Vaccines? – Johns Hopkins Develops Micro Drugs Delivered By Swab! (Bitchute)

Hey, everybody, Josh Sigurdson, World Alternative Media, here, and we’ve got some absolutely crazy news that many of you will find hard to believe, and I found it hard to believe at first as well, but I’ve looked into it and it actually is true. This is going around. It shows a swab with very small matter on the swab that could represent either microchips or disease agents, and now this isn’t just some thing that’s going around online by a bunch of people that are paranoid or whatever. Though they’d be right to be paranoid. It’s actually from Johns Hopkins, and this is from https://hub.jhu.edu/2020/11/25/theragripper-gi-tract-medicine-delivery/ —on their own website. This is absolutely insane.

johnshopkins

Johns Hopkins researchers take inspiration from parasitic work for medicine delivery. Theragrippers are tiny shape-changing machines that deliver medicine, efficiently to the GI tract. You heard that right.

This is some kind of device that’s so microscopic. You can’t see it, and you could put on a swab, up someone’s nose (where have you heard that one before?)… and essentially deliver medication to them like that, which we’ve seen in cows; they’ve been delivering vaccines to cows that way for a long time.

I heard a bit about this a couple months ago, and I thought, you know, this just doesn’t seem likely, I’ll look into it, but it just seems like one of those things that’s going around to discredit us, but this is real.

I’m going to read right out of their own piece here. It says:

Inspired by a parasitic worm that digs its sharp teeth into its host intestines. Johns Hopkins researchers have designed tiny star-shaped micro devices that can latch on to intestinal mucosa and release drugs into the body.

David Gracias, a professor in the Whiting School of Engineering and gastroenterologist, Florian, M. Selaru, director of John Hopkins Inflammatory Bowel Disease Center, led a team of researchers and biomedical engineers that designed and tested shape-changing micro devices that mimic the way the parasitic hook worm affixes itself to an organisms intestines.

The “theragrippers” are made of metal and a thin, shape-changing film, then coated in heat-sensitive paraffin wax. The devices, each roughly the size of a dust speck, can potentially carry any drug and release it gradually into the body.

The team published results of an animal study this week as the cover article in the journal Science Advances.

Gradual or extended release of a drug is a long-sought goal in medicine. Selaru explains that a problem with extended-release drugs is they often make their way entirely through the gastrointestinal tract before they’ve finished dispensing their medication.

Oh, no, that’s terrible…

“Normal constriction and relaxation of GI tract muscles make it impossible for extended-release drugs to stay in the intestine long enough for the patient to receive the full dose,” says Selaru, who has collaborated with Gracias for more than 10 years. “We’ve been working to solve this problem by designing these small drug carriers that can autonomously latch onto the intestinal mucosa and keep the drug load inside the GI tract for a desired duration of time.”

Thousands of theragrippers can be deployed in the GI tract. When the paraffin wax coating on the grippers reaches the temperature inside the body, the devices close autonomously and clamp onto the colonic wall. The closing action causes the tiny, six-pointed devices to dig into the mucosa and remain attached to the colon, where they are retained and release their medicine payloads gradually into the body. Eventually, the theragrippers lose their hold on the tissue and are cleared from the intestine via normal gastrointestinal muscular function.

Gracias notes advances in the field of biomedical engineering in recent years.

Well, not so much about conspiracy theory when it’s coming straight from the website is it? Definitely is a conspiracy though…

“We have seen the introduction of dynamic, microfabricated smart devices that can be controlled by electrical or chemical signals,” he says. “But these grippers are so small that batteries, antennas and other components will not fit on them.“

“Theragrippers,” says Gracias, don’t rely on electricity, wireless signals or external controls. “Instead, they operate like small, compressed springs with a temperature-triggered coating on the devices that releases the stored energy autonomously at body temperature.“

The Johns Hopkins researchers fabricated the devices with about 6,000 theragrippers per 3-inch silicon wafer. In their animal experiments, they loaded a pain-relieving drug onto the grippers. The researchers’ studies found that the animals into which theragrippers were administered had higher concentrates of the pain reliever in their bloodstreams than did the control group. The drug stayed in the test subjects’ systems for nearly 12 hours versus two hours in the control group.

The technology is available for licensing through Johns Hopkins Technology Ventures.

Johns Hopkins

Oh great, so again, they are able to use a q tip, put medication on these bacterial things, and put them up your nose and medicate you. I don’t know about you guys but this is getting a little bit Orwellian.

Johns Hopkins alongside the National Institute for Allergies and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), which is headed by doctor Fauci have been involved in bioweapon warfare for a long time.

  • Johns Hopkins helped fund the very anthrax attacks that spread throughout the world in 2001, which was overshadowed by 9-11 but nonetheless it was found, after the FBI and CIA tried to cover it up and got into a bunch of trouble after being caught trying to cover it up, it was found that they were trying to release this anthrax into the populace to get people to accept crazy new restrictions on their freedoms.
  • Fast forward to things like Crimson Contagion which Johns Hopkins and Bill Gates were involved in as well as the dark winter exercise, which you find funny because Biden keeps talking about Dark Winter—it’s like a slip up of his dementia. Dark Winter was the exercise where they released anthrax into the public and then blended on one mad scientist Fort Detrick.
  • Then there is Event 201. Let’s bring that up on the screen. This is their official website. Event 201 the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security and Partnership with the World Economic Forum and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation hosted Event 201; a high level pandemic exercise on October 18 2019.

Why is Johns Hopkins allowed to operate? They’re getting caught spreading bio warfare and killing people. They’re trying to push the force vaccinations by social credit where you can’t get a job, can’t work, can’t get a bank account, can’t go to public places, can’t fly, can’t do anything, can’t eat without having a vaccine. You just can’t do anything because it’s on social credit and they won’t accept cash anymore. I mean Johns Hopkins is involved in all these things—why are they allowed to operate?

They’re obviously devising evil plans evil plots to enslave the populace I mean it’s not a conspiracy theory it’s a conspiracy fact; we have that right in front of our eyes at this point, you’d have to be a coincidence theorist and completely off your rocker to think that they’re not trying to develop this stuff for nefarious reasons.

Keep in mind with Event 201, it took place on October 18 2019 at the exact same time as Dr. Fauci; who again, is head of the NIAID (which also took part in Dark Winter et cetera) was finishing his studies on coronavirus and bats at the Wuhan Institute of Virology a six year study which made him $7.4 million.

World Health Organization, which also helps Fauci, which is funded by Gates, who funds Fauci, was doing an investigation into Wuhan into the origins of the coronavirus and refused to investigate the lab.

On top of this with the testing, does it not seem apparent to you guys that they’re going to try and find any way possible to force medicate you, and the fact that people are okay with being people being forced medicated?

I’ve said for years they would use a pandemic in order to get people on their side, for forced vaccinations. By the way, these studies were killing people just a month and a half ago, and giving extreme neurological damage which has led to lawsuits. “Oh well a couple of weeks has gone by—surely it’s fine now”.

I don’t want credit I want people to listen to me for the love of God listen to me this is the end game this is the end goal of the global tyrants, and we have to stand up now or forever hold our peace, because we’re going down with the ship if we don’t stand up—we must disobey—we must always say no to authoritarian tyrants.

Of great concern is the fact that tests are also being put in the hands of children. As an example, on Tuesday 22nd February 2022, in the province of BC, ARTRON Covid-19 Rapid Antigen Tests were sent directly to schools by the Ministry of Health for use by every student and teacher. This dissemination was carried out in a negligent and cavalier manner with the tests being given directly to children to take home. There was no instruction given to either the children or the parents about the safe handling of these tests. This is happening Canada-wide.

On Thursday 24th February 2022, Health Canada issued a warning regarding the Covid-19 Rapid Antigen Tests https://recalls-rappels.canada.ca/en/alert-recall/rapid-antigen-test-kits-and-potential-exposure-hazardous-substances (07)

Warning summary:

  • Keep rapid antigen test kits and solutions out of the reach of children and pets.
  • Do not swallow the solutions, and avoid eye and skin contact.
  • Wash hands thoroughly after use.
  • If spillage occurs, rinse well with water.
  • Follow all instructions for proper disposal.
  • Report any health product-related side effects or complaints to Health Canada.
  • Contact your local Poison Information Centre in cases of accidental ingestion or direct skin exposure to test kit solutions.

Issue:

Following an increase in reports to poison control centres, Health Canada is advising Canadians about potential risks associated with the misuse or accidental ingestion or spillage of COVID-19 rapid antigen test kit solutions on the skin. Health Canada has determined that the kits are safe and effective when used as intended. However, many test kits include liquid solutions with chemical preservatives, such as sodium azide and Proclin that may be poisonous if swallowed or absorbed through the skin, particularly in children and pets.

  • Small doses of sodium azide can lower blood pressure, and larger doses may cause more serious health effects.
  • Proclin is also found in many kits. It contains chemicals that can cause skin and eye irritation, as well as allergic reactions.
    • Accidental ingestion or skin exposure to very small quantities of liquid solutions would not be expected to cause the serious effects associated with larger doses.
    • However, even small quantities may cause effects in small children and pets.

Health Canada is aware of approximately 50 calls made to poison centres in Canada related to accidental exposure, which have resulted in minor health outcomes. Health Canada is advising Canadians on a precautionary basis to help mitigate the risks associated with misuse, accidental ingestion or skin exposure.

Mainstream Media: Highlighting the Concerns Associated with Rapid Antigen Tests

Sodium Azide: Poison Control Issues Warning About Covid-19 Rapid Antigen Tests

A warning now for the 60 million people who are receiving those free government issued at home COVID tests. The extraction tube in many of the kids includes a chemical that can be harmful or even deadly. It’s colorless, tasteless, odorless is the powder that’s found in things like airbags and pest control solutions. Maya Belay from our Cleveland station checks in with poison control for a look at the potential dangers.

Ohio poison control centers are sounding the alarm surrounding a liquid substance called sodium azide found in some at home COVID testing kits that could be toxic to children as well as adults if used incorrectly.

Our toxicology community has been both surprised that this was ingredient and some of the kits and also concerned we have seen exposures in all age groups.

The Drunken Poison Information Center at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital reports an increase in calls to their hotline related to accidental exposure to the substance. So far, nearly 40 exposures were reported there and the problem is nationwide.

We are one of 55 poison control centers and nationwide other poison centers have been reporting a similar finding and there have been more than a couple of hundred exposures nationwide to sodium azide and test kits.

Doctors advise parents to keep the kids out of reach of children and when testing children for COVID at home to make sure they are supervised in order to avoid any adverse side effects from exposure. Sodium azide can be toxic to human to animals and things that it can cause that we would want to look out for would be like low blood pressure, weakness, fatigue, people passing out. If an accident occurs, call the nearest poison control center.

The dose makes the poison and the dose of sodium azide and these kits is very small and the exposures that have we have seen has been a small amount of that. Experts say following instructions is key. Some adults actually end up using the potentially harmful substance to swab their nose because they didn’t follow directions.

Click to expand
Show less

COVID-19 Rapid Antigen Tests & Toxicity Harms: Fact Sheet

The purpose of this fact sheet is to bring awareness to the recorded and observed harms that are associated with COVID-19 rapid antigen test kits. Currently, there is no proper disclosure of the known toxins in these tests; the risk of injuries, cancers, and death-as well as long-term health impacts-due to exposure to these toxic chemicals. Environmental impacts are also at the forefront of concern, as these chemicals impose significant impact on both land and water environments. Please read this information and pass it on, in order to draw attention to the threat of the components of COVID-19 rapid antigen tests. (12)

On February 22, 2022, COVID-19 rapid antigen test kits were sent home with school children, from kindergarten to Grade 12. Rapid antigen tests were also widely dispersed at university settings. (13)

On February 24, 2022, Health Canada issued a warning regarding the use of COVID-19 rapid antigen tests, specifically concerning the toxic ingredients sodium azide and ProClin-300, commonly found in the extraction buffer liquid. The issuing of this statement was reactionary, not precautionary. Schools continued to allow these tests to go home with children after this warning. Poison control calls continue to occur. (14)

On March 23, 2022, COVID-19 rapid antigen test kits are now available to any individual aged 18+ from pharmacies, at no cost. Each test kit contains 5 tests and can be picked up every 28 days. Homes and communities across British Columbia are being unknowingly subjected to these biohazard waste items, in unlimited quantities, without proper warnings or directives. (15)

What follows are the details and facts related to serious concerns and harms associated with the widespread distribution of rapid antigen tests.

Health Canada-approved rapid antigen tests as listed on the BCCDC website: (3 list Sodium Azide)

Rat Canada

See full PDF

Inserts for the 5 BCCDC and Health Canada approved products for COVID-19 rapid antigen tests:

  1. Artron Product Insert (16)
  2. Abbot Product Insert (17)
  3. BNTX Product Insert (18)
  4. BD Veritor Product Insert (19)
  5. SD Biosensor – no inserts found; these tests are considered ‘illegal’ in the US yet considered ‘approved’ by Health Canada on the BCCDC website. FDA recall for SD Biosensor (20)

You don’t know what you’re sticking up your nose or the nose of your children, and the manufacturer won’t tell you—why?

Transcript call to Artron Lab

What are they trying to hide? (ARTRON | RAT TESTS)

Rumble

Yes, I’m still here.

Yeah. So unfortunately for the buffer ingredients, we are not able to provide you that information because it’s confidential information, but for the swab, so the tip, of course, is made of the plastic tip, and then for the tip, like the tip tools, it’s made out of the nylon fiber and the ABS material.

So it’s ABS nylon on the swab tips, and sorry, what was the other thing you said just before that on the swabs?

Like the stick.

Oh, okay. Is there ethylene oxide used on the swab for sterilization?

Sorry, could you?

Ethylene oxide. It’s often on swab tips for sterilization. Is that on there as well? The other, it’s just it’s different because I’ve seen and used the Abbott test kits before, and they fully disclose all ingredients, including that their tips on their swabs have EO, which is ethylene oxide, but also that their liquid, which I’m assuming that your test would be similar to, has sodium azide in it. I find it confusing that you have a privacy happening on your liquid to not be able to say what’s in it, but yet it’s being handed out, sold, and distributed. You have to be able to say what is in that liquid? What is private about that when you’re giving it to people, especially school children? What could not be disclosed in that?

Okay. Well, could you give it a quick second? Please, I’ll pull up with our technician again with that with your inquiry.

Sure. Maybe I can speak with your technician directly. I think that might be more clear.

Oh, she was in a meeting just now. Could you give me a quick second again? I’ll go ask her.

Sure.

[inaudible] How can I help you?

Oh, hi there. Yeah. I’m just calling in regards to the rapid test kits, specifically these Artron ones that have been sent out to our kids. I’m looking at the inserts and there’s no information on the ingredients of the extraction buffer. Can you tell me what is in the extraction buffer liquid?

I cannot provide the precise information because of the authorization, but I can definitely let you know that it’s basically a Tris Buffer and all that information has been provided along with authorization documentation to the government, to Health Canada, to federal government with orders. So this buffer is extremely safe and is not, you know, toxic that way, but unfortunately, we cannot provide this information to the end user. However, this has been the safety and efficacy of the buffer and the test kits have been established in the lab as well as in different clinical sites across the world.

So hold on. If it’s safe, then why can’t you say what it is?

It’s company policy. We just cannot say that, but we have provided that information to the government.

But not to the end user. I can’t buy a bottle of soap out of a store without an ingredient list.

But the problem is, we are not selling this product to the end users. So I would recommend, you know, contacting your distributor or wherever you have got these; whoever is distributing their test kits to you; so that they can provide you more information because we are not supplying these test kits to the end users directly. It’s the federal government. So it is their responsibility to provide you with that information. However, I can tell you that this is a basic Tris Buffer and it doesn’t contain toxic materials.

So, sorry, you call it a Trist?

Yes.

And so, I just, I question this because I use an Abbott test, which looks identical to your test and there is absolutely sodium azide in there, and they list it. They have no problems listing it, even though it is very toxic. So how can you have what looks to be an identical test, but not have the same ingredients? Wow, is that ever loud?

Yeah, actually we were not asked to provide this information on the inserts and the labeling.

You were asked to not provide it by Health Canada?

We were asked to provide them with the information, but they did not specify us to put this information on the insert and out there. If they would have asked us to it, we would have done that because all these documentation have gone through careful review by Health Canada and other regulatory authorities.

That’s fascinating. Have you had any other calls like this? Any questions regarding it?

So far, no, I haven’t received any such calls yet.

So if I was, because I see I can buy this off of a website for $145, would, if I bought it off a website, would I not get a list of ingredients that way?

This is a professional endpoint of care use test. We, as a manufacturer are supplying this to the federal government and other distributors. We are not claiming it to be a home use test, so it is not our responsibility to, supply these to end users and we are not even distributing it on websites and like online sales. It’s with the federal government who is providing it to different pharmacies or maybe different school districts and different organizations or maybe distributors where you are buying it. So yeah, we cannot provide this information to the end user. However, we have provided all the necessary information to Health Canada as well as other regulatory authorities.

Okay, because our schools just received it with no information. Our kids have it with no information. So if the understanding is that Health Canada is going to submit information, our families do not have that information. So, you’re saying, though, I need to go to Health Canada and ask them for the ingredients of your product?

I’m afraid you need to talk to the distributor or you need to discuss with the pharmacy where you bought it or…

No, we didn’t buy it. It was distributed to our kids at school.

Then probably the school authority would be able to have documentation with them, but the major component of the buffer is Trist buffer, which is totally harmless and doesn’t have any toxic ingredients.

So, if I was to ask you because this other test has sodium azide, it’s a powder that’s added to liquid. Can you confirm or deny that sodium azide is in that Tris buffer as an additive?

I’m afraid I won’t be able to provide that information to the end user directly.

So I could buy your test right now off of GeneBioMedical website. It’s an Artron COVID-19 anti-rapid test, a five test nasal. It looks identical to what came home with our kids. Are you saying, like, I can buy it online. I could buy this right now for $145. It looks like it’s on sale for 70, but could I order this? Open it up and see ingredients in this version? Like, it’s very important to see what these ingredients are. So, are you… If I bought this, do you ever send out test kits that actually have the actual ingredients in them?

No.

Do you not find that odd?

No. Yeah. So we don’t put that information out on the label for the end user. That information is for the regulatory authority and Health Canada to know because they are the ones to make sure that all the test devices which are coming in the market are safe and have been checked for their safety and efficacy. So, yeah, we provide that information to the government.

It’s just odd, because if it was safe, why wouldn’t we put that information on there? Do you understand what I’m asking?

No, I know where you’re coming from, ma’am, but sorry, we cannot provide that information to the end user.

I appreciate the information. So, as talking, you can’t even give that to me even if I’m not an end user myself.

Yes. I mean, we do not… It’s just that we are trying to… Because we realize that federal government has been distributing these tests to the end users. So we are trying to make sure that we are trying to help the end users to the best of our abilities. If they come back to us regarding any technical questions or anything related to the test kits or buffers or like that, there’s kind of information, but we cannot provide the ingredient information to the end users as part of the policy because we are not distributing this test as a home use test to the end users. It’s the federal government.

Who are then distributing it to children as end users.

But the safety and efficacy of the test device has been established in children and in different age groups, and that information is with Health Canada. Based upon that information only, this test has been authorized by Health Canada. It has gone through very strict scrutiny by the review teams at Health Canada. I can assure you that the test is safe and it is not toxic. There is no toxic ingredient in the buffers and it’s safe to use.

Safe and effective. Okay.

Yes.

Okay. That’s very helpful. Thank you. Can I… Sorry, can I get your name, Dr.?

UMA.

Okay, and would you have a contact at Health Canada that I can ask for this end user information that you’re not allowed to send out?

I am afraid they have multiple teams. We are actually just dealing with the review teams. I’m not sure if they have any customer support team. I think you can find that information on the Health Canada website.

But which group? Like where would I…

They must have some contact information for the end users to reach them. Because we as a manufacturer deal with different review teams and we don’t deal with their customer support teams.

Okay. Okay. All right. Okay. Thank you very much. I appreciate your information and your time.

Yeah. You’re welcome.

Thank you, Dr. UMA.

Click to expand
Show less

1.) COVID-19 Rapid antigen tests for medical professional and/or point of care (POC) use only

According to COVID-19 rapid antigen test kit product inserts, these medical products are intended for use by healthcare professionals in clinical laboratory and/or ‘Point of Care’ (POC) settings only. Precautions to be taken when utilizing these kits in a home setting have not been adequately provided to lay persons who may now be in possession of these rapid antigen tests, including the following:

  • The use of personal protective equipment such as laboratory coats, disposable gloves and eye protection when running tests and handling specimens
  • The safe disposal of test equipment, via biohazard collection

Artron, one of the main brands of test kits distributed within British Columbia, offers both a professional and an at-home version. At this time, the at-home self-tests are noted to be ‘coming soon’, and no specification is made on the BCCDC website stating that home-tests have been distributed.

Specific warnings and instructions of note per product inserts:

ARTRON

  • Wear personal protective equipment such as laboratory coats, disposable gloves and eye protection when running each test and handling patient specimens.
  • Do not eat, drink, or smoke in the area where the specimens or kits are being handled.
  • Handle all specimens as if they contain infectious agents. Observe established precautions against microbiological hazards throughout testing procedures.
  • Dispose of all specimens and used devices in a proper bio-hazard container. The handling and disposal of the hazardous materials should follow local, national, or regional regulations.
  • Keep out of children’s reach.
  • If the extraction buffer contacts the skin or eye, flush with copious amounts of water.
  • Before proceeding with sample collection and testing, please read the instruction carefully, and operate strictly in accordance with the instructions.

ABBOT

Out of 15 warnings in the product insert for Abbott, two (2) serious warnings are highlighted:

  • These instructions must be strictly followed by a trained healthcare professional to achieve accurate results. All users have to read the instruction prior to performing a test.
  • The buffer contains <0.1% sodium azide as a preservative which may be toxic if ingested.

The Government of Canada confirms the inclusion of toxic ingredients in Abbott COVID-19 rapid antigen test kits. Refer to section 3 of dangerous material and section 6, 7, and 16 of Abbot’s safety data 9 sheet that codes sodium azide within the test kits as the following: (22)

  • H300: Fatal if swallowed.
  • H400: Very toxic to aquatic life.
  • H410: Very toxic to aquatic life with long lasting effects.
  • These tests cannot be thrown out in regular garbage. They must be treated as a biohazard.

BD VERITOR

  • Other than the swabs used for specimen collection, kit components should not contact the patient.
  • Specific training or guidance is recommended if operators are not experienced with specimen collection and handling procedures.
  • Wear protective clothing such as laboratory coats, disposable gloves, and eye protection when specimens are collected and evaluated.
  • Dispose of used BD VeritorTM System test devices and reagents in accordance with federal, state and local requirements in an approved biohazard waste container.
  • Do not flush reagents down the drain.

2.) COVID-19 Rapid antigen test kit ingredients pose significant health concerns

COVID-19 rapid antigen tests include chemical constituents of concern within the extraction buffer and/or the nasal swab collection material. These include sodium azide, ProClin-300, ethylene oxide, and an undisclosed bioluminescent material which is visible under ultraviolet lighting. Furthermore, it is alarming that product manufacturers such as Artron, one of the largest rapid antigen test manufacturers/distributors in British Columbia, is not required to disclose the chemical components of their rapid test. (listen to call to Artron below ~ Penny)

The following are concerns associated with these rapid antigen test materials:

Sodium Azide:

  • Found in the extraction buffer of most test kits; causes nausea, vomiting, skin burns and/or blistering, respiratory distress (including lung injury), convulsions, low blood pressure, and unknown long-term health effects such as cardiac and neural damage.
  • Refer to CDC document Facts About Sodium Azide. (23)
  • According to the CDC, sodium azide is a rapidly acting, potentially deadly chemical that exists as an odorless white solid. When sodium azide is mixed with water or an acid, sodium azide changes rapidly to a toxic gas with a pungent (sharp) odor. It also changes into a toxic gas (hydrazoic acid) when it comes in contact with solid metals (for example, when it is poured into a drain pipe containing lead or copper). The odour of the gas may not be sharp enough to give people sufficient warning of the danger.

ProClin-300:

Ethylene Oxide (EO):

  • Chemical compound commonly found in nasal swabs that is in direct contact with nasal cavity epithelium. Ethylene oxide is classified as a toxic chemical, requiring proper handling and disposal protocols. EO is carcinogenic, as per documentation provided by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (27)
  • Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment – Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Ethylene Oxide Cancer Inhalation Unit Risk Factor Technical Support Document for Cancer Potency Factors (28)

Fda Indicaid Rat Phase
Rat Sigmaaldrich Proclin300 Safetydatasheet

HHS/CDC Toxicological Profile for Ethylene Oxide

The US Department of Health and Human Services generated a Toxicological Profile for Ethylene Oxide in 2020, detailing the following acute health concerns when exposed to ethylene oxide: (29)

Hhs Cdc Eo P32

  • Acute inhalation exposure of workers to high levels of ethylene oxide has resulted in nausea, vomiting, neurological disorders, bronchitis, pulmonary edema, and emphysema.
  • Dermal or ocular contact with solutions of ethylene oxide causes irritation of the skin and eyes in humans.
  • Tests involving acute exposure of animals have shown ethylene oxide to have high acute toxicity—including death—from inhalation exposures.
  • Inhalation exposure causes: Hematological, endocrine, reproductive, and developmental endpoints.
  • Compromised respiratory function has been reported in workers exposed to high levels of ethylene oxide. Inhalation studies in experimental animals have reported several respiratory effects including labored breathing, nasal discharge, pulmonary lesions, rhinitis, and pulmonary edema. (p.22)
  • Clinical signs of neurotoxicity (e.g., neuropathy, weakness in extremities, impaired hand-eye coordination, cognitive dysfunction, memory loss, headache, lethargy) were reported among workers exposed to ethylene oxide for various durations. (p.23)
  • Animal studies provide convincing evidence of ethylene oxide-induced effects on the male reproductive system (e.g., decreases in male reproductive organ weights, germ cell survival, and sperm count; histopathologic lesions) (p.23)
  • In laboratory animals exposed by inhalation, ethylene oxide was associated with a variety of cancer types (leukemia, mesotheliomas, lymphomas, tumors of lungs, Harderian gland, and female mammary gland and reproductive organs) (p.23)

Hhs Cdc Eo P14
Hhs Cdc Eo P15

Way too many relevant pages to copy into this post, open the document and have a look for yourself. There’s just too many toxic warnings to mention.

Hhs Cdc Eo P24


ConsumerNotice.org Ethylene Oxide

Side effects of ethylene oxide exposure may include:

  • Cancer
  • Diarrhea
  • Difficulty breathing
  • Drowsiness
  • Exhaustion
  • Eye burns
  • Frostbite
  • Headache
  • Irritation of the eyes, nose, throat, skin and lungs
  • Memory loss
  • Miscarriages
  • Nausea
  • Numbness
  • Reproductive effects
  • Skin burns
  • Seizures
  • Vomiting
  • Weakness

What Cancers Can Ethylene Oxide Exposure Cause?

Because ethylene oxide destroys DNA, it can increase the risk of certain cancers. Studies show that long-term exposure to ethylene oxide can cause cancers of the white blood cells in humans, including non-Hodgkin lymphoma, myeloma and lymphocytic leukemia, according to the EPA. It also increases the risk of breast cancer in women.

Animal studies have shown it can cause brain, lung, connective tissue and uterine tumors.

The EPA hasn’t set limits for exposure, but the agency has said it “considers any exposure, however small, to a carcinogen to create some cancer risk.”

Cancers linked to ethylene oxide include:

  • Blood disorders
  • Brain tumors
  • Kidney cancer
  • Kidney damage
  • Lung cancer
  • Lymphocytic leukemia
  • Myeloma
  • Non-Hodgkin lymphoma
  • Pancreatic cancer
  • Stomach cancer
  • Testicular damage
  • Uterine cancer

Ethylene Oxide Lawsuits

Ethylene Oxide Cancer Lawsuits

Cancers that are a part of the lawsuits are: Breast cancer, lymphoid tumors, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, multiple myeloma and chronic lymphocytic leukemia.

UK Ethylene Oxide Class Action

  • Ethylene Oxide Tainted Foods Recalled Throughout Ireland
    • https://uk.topclassactions.com/lawsuit-settlements/food/ethylene-oxide-tainted-foods-recalled-throughout-ireland/
    • The Food Safety Authority of Ireland (FSAI) has recalled more than 40 food products since September 2020 that were corrupted with ethylene oxide, a chemical used by manufacturers to prevent mold growth and bacteria.
    • Ethylene oxide was banned in the European Union (EU) in 1981 and has been classified as a carcinogen, mutagen, and reproductive toxicant by the European Chemicals Agency (ECA). 
  • July 29, 2021
  • Nestlé Recalls 46 Types of Ice Cream Over Carcinogen Contamination in Spain
  • https://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-settlements/consumer-products/food/nestle-recalls-46-types-of-ice-cream-over-carcinogen-contamination-in-spain/
    • Who: Nestlé is recalling 46 flavors of ice cream sold under brands like Mars, Oreo, and Toblerone.
    • Why: The company’s ice cream manufacturer Froneri discovered cancer-causing ethylene oxide in the stabilizing additive at its Spanish plant.
    • Where: Spain.
  • The recall was issued after the confectionary giant’s ice cream manufacturer Froneri discovered ethylene oxide in the stabilizing additive in its Spain-based plant.
  • According to the National Cancer Institute, ethylene oxide can damage DNA and causes cancers including Lymphoma, leukemia, stomach and breast cancer. (30)

Natcancerinst Eo


Treating and Preventing EO Exposure

There is no antidote to ethylene oxide poisoning, and treatment consists of decontamination as well as respiratory and cardiovascular support. 

Nurse on Ethylene Oxide

“Hi, this is Cassandra Dunn your favourite registered nurse coming to you live from an undisclosed location. I just wanted to let everybody know that not only am I a registered nurse for several decades, almost three, I’m also a certified federal medical investigator. I am bringing you today information about the swab, the swab that is used to test for the current claimed pandemic. Facebook took down my previous video, it just happened to disappear, so I’m bringing you another one.

I’m also going to transfer this video to my website, www.purplelionproject.com, as soon as I’m done so that it’s not disappeared again. So the swabs that are used for testing, I have two of them here made by different manufacturers. The first one is made by Ningbo HLS Medical Products and it’s made in China. On it it says sterile / EO. Keep that in mind cos I’m going to give additional information what the EO stands for.

Here’s the other one. This one is made by Miraclean Technology, and this is also made in China. It also says sterile / EO. So these are two different swabs that are used deep into the nasal cavity, halfway up to your skull to test for the current pandemic. Don’t want to say the name of it because I don’t want to get banned again from Facebook. So what is EO? EO stands for ethylene oxide. So these swabs are saturated with, coated with EO ethylene oxide.

So what is ethylene oxide? Per the United States Environmental Protection Agency? The EPA classified ethylene oxide as a human carcinogen in December 2016. The EPA, as well as the International Agency for Research on Cancer and the National Toxicology Programme, classifies ethylene oxide as a carcinogen to humans. Evidence in humans indicates that exposure to ethylene oxide by inhalation increases the risk of lymphoma cancers, myelomas, and leukaemia’s. And for females, breast cancer. Ethylene oxide is mutagenic, which means it can change the DNA in your cells.

Children may be more susceptible to the harmful effects of mutagenic substances. It also states here that acute inhalation exposure of workers to high levels of ethylene oxide has resulted in nausea, vomiting, neurological disorders, bronchitis, pulmonary oedema, and emphysema. Some evidence exists indicating that inhalation exposure to ethylene oxide can cause an increased rate of miscarriages in female workers. Reproductive effects have been noted in inhalation. Exposure studies include decreased testicular weight and sperm concentration and testicular degeneration. Ethylene oxide has been shown to cause lymphoid cancer and tumours of the brain, lung, connective tissue, uterus, breasts in animals exposed to ethylene oxide by inhalation.

So that’s from the United States Environmental Protection Agency. This is from the Department of Health and Human Services on ethylene oxide. The DNA damaging activity of ethylene oxide explains its effectiveness as a sterilant, and this same property accounts for its carcinogenic risk to humans.

This is from the Canadian version of OSHA. It’s called the Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety. This is their information about ethylene oxide. It states it’s very toxic, causes cancer, changes in your genetics and reproductive toxicity.

It says it’s very toxic, fatal if inhaled, may damage fertility and causes genetic defects. Also states that it’s a carcinogen known to cause reduced fertility. So, again, I just wanted to go over and let people know what is in the swab that’s made in China. Some state workers where I live are having to have this test done daily before they enter their work site. I wonder what the long-term effects of this swabbing is going to be.

So, again, here’s your proof. These nasal swabs that are used to test for this “pandemic” are made in China, dipped in ethylene oxide saturated with it. And this is what they’re putting up deep into your nasal cavity, close to your brain. No, thank you. So, again, this is Cassandra Dunn, registered nurse, certified federal medical investigator, coming to you with information about the swab. If you have any questions or comments, just click below and I’ll be happy to answer any questions.

I’ll be transferring this to my new Web site called www.purplelionproject.com. I don’t know what to say people, this shit’s for real. I can’t make this up. We’re being poisoned in every way, shape and form. And it all stems from China. Anything that comes from China is pretty much garbage. Everything is always contaminated with toxic lead. And toys from China is garbage, garbage. The vitamins that are at Wal-Mart, Nature Valley made in China. Garbage.

It does more harm than any good. Just throw that garbage away. I know it’s cheap, but it doesn’t do the body any good. In fact, it does more harm than any good. So again, this is Cassandra Dunn signing out. Talk to you all later.”

Click to expand
Show less

Unknown ingredient causing the swabs to be bioluminescent:

  • Nasal swabs also become bioluminescent when observed under UV light. The ingredient causing this chemical reaction is undisclosed on product inserts; therefore, rapid antigen test users are not receiving full informed consent when utilizing these medical supplies. The bioluminescent ingredient may possibly be ‘luciferase’. Below are primary examples:
    • Yen Hsu, C. et al. (2013). Bioluminescence resonance energy transfer using luciferase-immobilized quantum dots. Biomaterials. 34(4), 1204-1212. (31)
    • Azad et al. (2021). Luciferase-based biosensors in the Era of the COVID-19 Pandemic. American Chemical Society Nanoscience (32)
    • Barclay RA et al. (2020). Hydrogel particles improve detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA from multiple sample types (33)


3.) COVID-19 rapid antigen test kit ingredients pose significant environmental concerns

The aforementioned ingredients pose an environmental hazard and are classified as ‘biohazardous waste’. Disposing of test kit components in the garbage is considered illegal dumping. COVID-19 rapid antigen test kits must be placed in biohazard containers and taken to a proper disposal facility, as per product insert instructions.

Disposal concerns:

  • Local pharmacies Shopper’s Drug Mart and Pharmasave have confirmed that there are no standardized protocols for the collection and disposal of rapid antigen tests within the community.
  • These test kits are currently being discarded in regular waste management systems.
  • These rapid antigen kits pose a significant environmental harm through a compounding effect.
  • The illegal dumping of rapid antigen test kits-classified as ‘biohazard waste’ directly on product inserts-needs to be halted immediately.

All of the below statements are correct except that these tests CANNOT be thrown into household garbage. Warnings from all other government sites state that used COVID-19 rapid antigen tests need to be taken to designated biohazard waste facilities for proper disposal. Not only have used test kits been contaminated with human specimens, but they are also a source of potential environmental contamination by way of improper disposal of sodium azide, ethylene oxide, ProClin-300, and the undisclosed bioluminescent chemical constituent.

The BCCDC states the following information about all five (5) approved rapid antigen tests. (34)

All rapid antigen tests noted in this section have been approved for use by Health Canada. These kits are safe and effective for self-testing at home – be sure to read the package instructions carefully. As with many medications and at-home care products, please note the following:

  • These kits are to be handled and administered by adults
  • Do not swallow the solutions, and avoid eye and skin contact
  • Wash hands thoroughly after use
  • Please keep the test components out of reach of children and animals
  • Used tests and components can be safely disposed of in household garbage

BC CDC


4.) Limitations of COVID-19 rapid antigen test kits:

ARTRON package insert introduces concerns regarding the legitimacy of test result in these situations:

  • The performance of the device has not been assessed on specimens from individuals who have been infected with emerging variants of SARS-CoV-2 of public health concern.
  • The performance of this device has not been assessed in a population vaccinated against COVID-19. As of April 6, 2022, the B.C. COVID-19 Pandemic Update states that 87.5% of BC 5+ 16 years of age received two doses of a COVID-19 vaccine. (35)
  • The performance of this test has not yet been clinically validated for use in patients without signs and symptoms of respiratory illness.


5.) The Precautionary Principle: Ethics in Health & Environment

The following demonstrates why COVID-19 rapid antigen test kits (and the harmful chemical components within them) should not be introduced into our healthcare system and subsequently our environment, prior to adequate safety testing. The Canadian Environmental Protection Act, chapter 3 (1999) defined the Precautionary Principle as:

“The government’s actions to protect the environment and health are guided by the precautionary principle, which states that “where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation” (CEPA, 1999). (36)

“When an activity raises threats of harm to human health or the environment, precautionary measures should be taken even if some [cause-and-effect] relationships are not fully established scientifically. In this context the proponent of an activity, rather than the public, should bear the burden of proof. The process of applying the precautionary principle must be open, informed and democratic and must include potentially affected parties. It must also involve an examination of the full range of alternatives, including no action.” (Wingspread Statement, 1998) (37)

“The Precautionary Principle encourages, and in some cases may require, transparency of the risk assessment process on health risk of chemicals both for public health and the environment. The best elements of a precautionary approach demand good science and challenge the scientific community to improve methods used for risk assessment.” (38)


Sodium Azide Toxicity

ProClin-300 Toxicity

Ethylene Oxide Toxicity

73 More Ethylene Oxide studies:

  1. Angerer J, Bader M and Krämer A (1998). Ambient and biochemical effect monitoring of workers exposed to ethylene oxide. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 71(1): 14–18. 10.1007/s004200050244.
  2. ATSDR. (2022). Toxicological Profile for Ethylene Oxide. United States Department of Health and Human Services. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp137.pdf.
  3. Bogen KT, Sheehan PJ, Valdez-Flores C and Li AA (2019). Reevaluation of historical exposures to ethylene oxide among U.S. sterilization workers in the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) study cohort. Int J Environ Res Public Health 16(10). 10.3390/ijerph16101738.
  4. Boogaard PJ, Rocchi PSJ and Van Sittert NJ (1999). Biomonitoring of exposure to ethylene oxide and propylene oxide by determination of hemoglobin adducts: Correlations between airborne exposure and adduct levels. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 72(3): 142–150. 10.1007/s004200050353. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s004200050353
  5. Brown CD, Asgharian B, Turner MJ and Fennell TR (1998). Ethylene oxide dosimetry in the mouse. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 148(2): 215–222. 10.1006/taap.1997.8349. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/taap.1997.8349
  6. Brown CD, Wong BA and Fennell TR (1996). In vivo and in vitro kinetics of ethylene oxide metabolism in rats and mice. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 136(1): 8–19. 10.1006/taap.1996.0002. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/taap.1996.0002
  7. Brugnone F, Perbellini L, Faccini G and Pasini F (1985). Concentration of ethylene oxide in the alveolar air of occupationally exposed workers. Am J Ind Med 8(1): 67–10.1002/ajim.4700080109.
  8. Brugnone F, Perbellini L, Faccini GB, Pasini F, Bartolucci GB and Derosa E (1986). Ethylene oxide exposure: Biological monitoring by analysis of alveolar air and blood. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 58(2): 105–112. 10.1007/BF00380761. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00380761; https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/BF00380761.pdf
  9. Bulka C, Nastoupil LJ, Koff JL, Bernal-Mizrachi L, Ward KC, Williams JN, Bayakly AR, Switchenko JM, Waller LA, Flowers CR (2016). Relations between residential proximity to EPA-designated toxic release sites and diffuse large B-cell lymphoma incidence. South Med J. 109(10):606-614.
  10. CDHS. (1987). Part B. Health Effects of Ethylene Oxide. California Department of Health Services (CDHS). https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic/toxics/id/summary/ethylenoxideb.pdf.
  11. Csanády GA, Denk B, Pütz C, Kreuzer PE, Kessler W, Baur C, Gargas ML and Filser JG (2000). A physiological toxicokinetic model for exogenous and endogenous ethylene and ethylene oxide in rat, mouse, and human: Formation of 2-hydroxyethyl adducts with hemoglobin and DNA. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 165(1): 1–26. 10.1006/taap.2000.8918. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/taap.2000.8918
  12. Davis JA, Gift JS and Zhao QJ (2011). Introduction to benchmark dose methods and U.S. EPA’s Benchmark Dose Software (BMDS) version 2.1.1. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 254(2): 181–191. 10.1016/j.taap.2010.10.016.
  13. Dunkelberg H (1982). Carcinogenicity of ethylene oxide and 1,2-propylene oxide upon intragastric administration to rats. Br J Cancer 46(6): 924–933. 10.1038/bjc.1982.303. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/bjc.1982.303; https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2011226/pdf/brjcancer00435-0085.pdf
  14. Duus U, Osterman-Golkar S, Törnqvist M, Mowrer J, Holm S and Ehrenberg L (1989). Studies of Determinants of Tissue Dose and Cancer Risk from Ethylene Oxide Exposure. Proc Symp Management of Risk from Genotoxic Substances in the Environment: 141–153. https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-0011431998&partnerID=40&md5=9561525a90ea442377f02fc8548639f7
  15. Ehrenberg L, Hiesche KD, Osterman-Golkar S and Wenneberg I (1974). Evaluation of genetic risks of alkylating agents: Tissue doses in the mouse from air contaminated with ethylene oxide. Mutat Res 24(2): 83–103. 10.1016/0027-5107(74)90123-7.
  16. Fennell TR and Brown CD (2001). A physiologically based pharmacokinetic model for ethylene oxide in mouse, rat, and human. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 173(3): 161–175. 10.1006/taap.2001.9184.
  17. Filser JG and Bolt HM (1984). Inhalation pharmacokinetics based on gas uptake studies. Arch Toxicol 55, 219–223. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00341014
  18. Filser JG, Denk B, Törnqvist M, Kessler W and Ehrenberg L (1992). Pharmacokinetics of ethylene in man; body burden with ethylene oxide and hydroxyethylation of hemoglobin due to endogenous and environmental ethylene. Arch Toxicol 66(3): 157–163. 10.1007/BF01974008. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01974008; https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/BF01974008.pdf
  19. Filser JG, Kessler W, Artati A, Erbach E, Faller T, Kreuzer PE, Li Q, Lichtmannegger J, Numtip W, Klein D, Pütz C, Semder B and Csanády GA (2013). Ethylene oxide in blood of ethylene-exposed B6C3F1 mice, Fischer 344 rats, and humans. Toxicol Sci 136(2): 344–358. 10.1093/toxsci/kft218. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/toxsci/kft218; https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3858200/pdf/kft218.pdf
  20. Filser JG and Klein D (2018). A physiologically based toxicokinetic model for inhaled ethylene and ethylene oxide in mouse, rat, and human. Toxicol Lett 286: 54–79. 10.1016/j.toxlet.2017.07.896.
  21. Garcia E, Hurley S, Nelson DO, Hertz A, Reynolds P (2015). Hazardous air pollutants and breast cancer risk in California teachers: a cohort study. Environ Health 14:14.
  22. Garman RH, Snellings WM and Maronpot RR (1985). Brain tumors in F344 rats associated with chronic inhalation exposure to ethylene oxide. Neurotoxicology 6(1): 117–137.
  23. Greenberg HL, Ott MG and Shore RE (1990). Men assigned to ethylene oxide production or other ethylene oxide related chemical manufacturing: A mortality study. Br J Ind Med 47(4): 221–230. 10.1136/oem.47.4.221. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/oem.47.4.221; https://oem.bmj.com/content/oemed/47/4/221.full.pdf
  24. Hagmar L, Mikoczy Z and Welinder H (1995). Cancer incidence in Swedish sterilant workers exposed to ethylene oxide. Occup Environ Med 52(3): 154–156. 10.1136/oem.52.3.154.
  25. Hagmar L, Welinder H, Lindén K, Attewell R, Osterman-Golkar S and Törnqvist M (1991). An epidemiological study of cancer risk among workers exposed to ethylene oxide using hemoglobin adducts to validate environmental exposure assessments. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 63(4): 271–277. 10.1007/bf00386377.
  26. Hattis D. (1987). Pharmacokinetic/mechanism-based analysis of the carcinogenic risk of ethylene oxide. Research Org. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge (USA). Center for Technology, Policy and Industrial Development. Report Number: PB-88-188784/XAB; CTPID-87-1. https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/7067804
  27. Hill AB (1965). The environment and disease: Association or causation? Proc R Soc Med 58(5): 295–300.
  28. Hornung RW, Greife AL, Stayner LT, Steenland NK, Herrick RF, Elliott LJ, Ringenburg VL and Morawetz J (1994). Statistical model for prediction of retrospective exposure to ethylene oxide in an occupational mortality study. Am J Ind Med 25(6): 825–836. 10.1002/ajim.4700250607.
  29. Howlader N, Noone AM, Krapcho M, Garshell J, Miller D, Altekruse SF, Kosary CI, Yu M, Ruhl J, Tatalovich Z, Mariotto A, Lewis DR, Chen HS, Feuer EJ and Cronin KA (2014). SEER [Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program] Cancer Statistics Review, 1975–2012. National Cancer Institute. https://seer.cancer.gov/archive/csr/1975_2012/.
  30. IARC (1994). Ethylene Oxide. In: IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans. International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). Lyon, France. 60: 73-159.
    IARC (2008). IARC Monogr Eval cCarcinog Risks Hum. 97:3-471. [IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans] 1,3-butadiene, ethylene oxide and vinyl halides (vinyl fluoride, vinyl chloride and vinyl bromide). Volume 97. International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). Lyon, France. IARC (2012). Chemical Agents and Related Occupations: Ethylene Oxide. IARC Monogr Eval Carcinog Risks Hum 100(Pt F). International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). Lyon, France. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK304417/
  31. INED (2023). Standardized mortality ratio. Institut National d’Études Démographiques [French Institute for Demographic Studies; INED]. Retrieved February 22, 2023, from https://www.ined.fr/en/glossary/standardized-mortalityrate/#:~:text=The%20standardized%20mortality%20rate%20(SMR,rates%20as%20th
    e%20standard%20population
  32. Jain RB (2020). Associations between observed concentrations of ethylene oxide in whole blood and smoking, exposure to environmental tobacco smoke, and cancers including breast cancer: Data for US children, adolescents, and adults. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int 27(17): 20912–20919. 10.1007/s11356-020-08564-z.
  33. Jones RR, Fisher JA, Medgyesi DN, Buller ID, Liao LM, Gierach G, Ward MH and Silverman DT (2023). Ethylene oxide emissions and incident breast cancer and nonHodgkin lymphoma in a U.S. Cohort. J Natl Cancer Inst. 10.1093/jnci/djad004.
  34. Kirman CR, Li AA, Sheehan PJ, Bus JS, Lewis RC and Hays SM (2021). Ethylene oxide review: Characterization of total exposure via endogenous and exogenous pathways and their implications to risk assessment and risk management. J Toxicol Environ Health, Part B 24(1): 1–29. 10.1080/10937404.2020.1852988. https://doi.org/10.1080/10937404.2020.1852988
  35. Kroll ME, Murphy F, Pirie K, Reeves GK, Green J, Beral V; Million Women Study Collaborators (2012). Alcohol drinking, tobacco smoking and subtypes of haematological malignancy in the UK Million Women Study. Br J Cancer. 107(5):879–87. doi: 10.1038/bjc.2012.333. Epub 2012 Aug 9.
  36. Langholz B and Richardson DB (2010). Fitting general relative risk models for survival time and matched case-control analysis. Am J Epidem 171(3): 377–383. 10.1093/aje/kwp403. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwp403; https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3291085/pdf/kwp403.pdf
  37. Lash TL, VanderWeele TJ, Haneause S and Rothman KJ (2021). Modern epidemiology (Fourth). Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Lewalter J (1996). N-alkylvaline levels in globin as a new type of biomarker in risk assessment of alkylating agents. Int Arch Occup Environ Health. 68: 519–530.
  38. Lipfert FW and Wyzga RE (2019). Longitudinal relationships between lung cancer mortality rates, smoking, and ambient air quality: A comprehensive review and analysis. Crit Rev Toxicol 49(9): 790–818. 10.1080/10408444.2019.1700210.
  39. Lynch DW, Lewis TR, Moorman WJ, Burg JR, Groth DH, Khan A, Ackerman LJ and Cockrell BY (1984). Carcinogenic and toxicologic effects of inhaled ethylene oxide and propylene oxide in F344 rats. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 76(1): 69–84. 10.1016/0041-008X(84)90030-9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0041-008X(84)90030-9
  40. Manjanatha MG, Shelton SD, Chen Y, Parsons BL, Myers MB, McKim KL, Gollapudi BB, Moore NP, Haber LT, Allen B and Moore MM (2017). Dose and temporal evaluation of ethylene oxide-induced mutagenicity in the lungs of male Big Blue mice following inhalation exposure to carcinogenic concentrations. Environ Mol Mutagen 58(3): 122–134. 10.1002/em.22080. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/em.22080
  41. Marsh GM, Keeton KA, Riordan AS, Best EA and Benson SM (2019). Ethylene oxide and risk of lympho-hematopoietic cancer and breast cancer: A systematic literature review and meta-analysis. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 92(7): 919–939. 10.1007/s00420-019-01438-z.
  42. Marshall G, Ferreccio C, Yuan Y, Bates MN, Steinmaus C, Selvin S, Liaw J and Smith AH (2007). Fifty-year study of lung and bladder cancer mortality in Chile related to arsenic in drinking water. J Natl Cancer Inst 99(12): 920–928. 10.1093/jnci/djm004.
  43. Mikoczy Z, Tinnerberg H, Björk J and Albin M (2011). Cancer incidence and mortality in Swedish sterilant workers exposed to ethylene oxide: Updated cohort study findings 1972–2006. Int J Environ Res Public Health 8(6): 2009–2019. 10.3390/ijerph8062009.
  44. NCBI (2023). PubChem Compound Summary for CID 6354, Ethylene Oxide. National Library of Medicine (NLM), National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI). https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/Ethylene-Oxide.
  45. NOAA (2023). CAMEO Chemicals Chemical Data Sheet. Ethylene Oxide. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). https://cameochemicals.noaa.gov/chemical/694.
  46. NTP (1987). Toxicology and Carcinogenesis Studies of Ethylene Oxide (CAS no 75-21-8) in B6C3F1 mice (Inhalation Studies). National Toxicology Program (NTP) Technical Report Series 326: 1–114.
    https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/htdocs/lt_rpts/tr326.pdf
  47. NTP (2021). 15th Report on Carcinogens. Ethylene Oxide, CAS No. 75-21-8. National Toxicology Program (NTP). https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/roc/content/profiles/ethyleneoxide.pdf; https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/whatwestudy/assessments/cancer/roc/index.html#E
  48. NYDH (2023). Confidence Intervals – Statistics Teaching Tools. New York State Department of Health (NYDH). https://www.health.ny.gov/diseases/chronic/confint.htm
  49. OEHHA (2009). Technical Support Document for cancer Potency Factors. Methodologies for Derivation, Listing of Available Values, and Adjustments to Allow for Early Life Stage Exposures. Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA). https://oehha.ca.gov/air/crnr/technical-support-document-cancer-potencyfactors-2009; https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/tsdcancerpotency.pdf.
  50. OEHHA (2023). The Proposition 65 List. Chemicals Known to the State to Cause Cancer or Reproductive Toxicity. Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA). https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/proposition65//p65chemicalslistsinglelisttable2021p.pdf.
  51. Orsini N, Bellocco R and Greenland S (2006). Generalized least squares for trend estimation of summarized dose-response data. Stata J 6(1): 40–57. 10.1177/1536867X0600600103. https://doi.org/10.1177/1536867X0600600103
  52. Park RM (2020). Associations between exposure to ethylene oxide, job termination, and cause-specific mortality risk. Am J Ind Med 63(7): 577–588. 10.1002/ajim.23115.
  53. Parsons BL, Manjanatha MG, Myers MB, McKim KL, Shelton SD, Wang Y, Gollapudi BB, Moore NP, Haber LT and Moore MM (2013). Temporal changes in K-ras mutant fraction in lung tissue of Big Blue B6C3F1 mice exposed to ethylene oxide. Toxicol Sci 136(1): 26–38. 10.1093/toxsci/kft190. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/toxsci/kft190
  54. Rietjens I, Michael A, Bolt HM, Siméon B, Andrea H, Nils H, Christine K, Angela M, Gloria P, Daniel R, Natalie T and Gerhard E (2022). The role of endogenous versus exogenous sources in the exposome of putative genotoxins and consequences for risk assessment. Arch Toxicol 96(5): 1297–1352. 10.1007/s00204-022-03242-0.
  55. Ross D (2022) California Grapples with Regulation of Known Carcinogen Ethylene Oxide. Capital & Main, Los Angeles, CA. https://capitalandmain.com/california-grapples-with-regulation-of-known-carcinogenethylene-oxide
  56. SCAQMD (2023a). Sterigenics Emissions Investigation in Ontario. Updated 2023. https://www.aqmd.gov/home/newsevents/community-investigations/sterigenics-ontario.
  57. SCAQMD (2023b). Sterigenics Emissions Investigation in Vernon. Updated 2023.
    https://www.aqmd.gov/home/newsevents/community-investigations/sterigenics.
  58. Snellings WM, Weil CS and Maronpot RR. (1981). Ethylene oxide: Two-year Inhalation Study on Rats [Final report with cover letter dated October 25, 1991].
  59. Snellings WM, Weil CS and Maronpot RR (1984). A two-year inhalation study of the carcinogenic potential of ethylene oxide in Fischer 344 rats. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 75(1): 105–117. 10.1016/0041-008x(84)90081-4. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6464016
  60. Stayner L, Steenland K, Greife A, Hornung R, Hayes RB, Nowlin S, Morawetz J, Ringenburg V, Elliot L and Halperin W (1993). Exposure-response analysis of cancer mortality in a cohort of workers exposed to ethylene oxide. Am J Epidemiol 138(10): 787–798. 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a116782.
  61. Steenland K, Stayner L and Deddens J (2004). Mortality analyses in a cohort of 18235 ethylene oxide exposed workers: Follow up extended from 1987 to 1998. Occup Environ Med 61(1): 2–7.
  62. Steenland K, Whelan E, Deddens J, Stayner L and Ward E (2003). Ethylene oxide and breast cancer incidence in a cohort study of 7576 women (United States). Cancer Causes Control 14(6): 531–539. 10.1023/a:1024891529592.
  63. Swaen GM, Burns C, Teta JM, Bodner K, Keenan D and Bodnar CM (2009). Mortality study update of ethylene oxide workers in chemical manufacturing: A 15 year update. J Occup Environ Med 51(6): 714–723. 10.1097/JOM.0b013e3181a2ca20.
  64. TCEQ. (2020). Ethylene Oxide Carcinogenic Dose-Response Assessment, CAS Registry Number: 75-21-8. Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ). https://www.tceq.texas.gov/toxicology/ethylene-oxide
  65. Tenny S and Hoffman MR (2022). Relative Risk. In: StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing. Updated March 26, 2022. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK430824/
  66. Teta MJ, Benson LO and Vitale JN (1993). Mortality study of ethylene oxide workers in chemical manufacturing: A 10 year update. Br J Ind Med 50(8): 704–709. 10.1136/oem.50.8.704.
  67. UNC (2023). Eric Notebook. Risk and Rate Measures in Cohort Studies (Second Edition No. 7). University of North Carolina (UNC) Gillings School of Global Public Health. https://sph.unc.edu/wpcontent/uploads/sites/112/2015/07/nciph-ERIC7-17-08.pdf;
    https://sph.unc.edu/epid/eric/
  68. US EPA (2012). Benchmark Dose Technical Guidance. EPA/100/R-12/001. United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA), Risk Assessment Forum. Washington, DC
  69. US EPA (2016a). Evaluation of the Inhalation Carcinogenicity of Ethylene Oxide (CASRN 75-21-8): In Support of Summary Information on the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). EPA/635/R-16/350Fa. United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA), Office of Research and Development, National Center for Environmental Assessment. Washington, DC. https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/iris_drafts/recordisplay.cfm?deid=329730
  70. US EPA. (2016b). Evaluation of the Inhalation Carcinogenicity of Ethylene Oxide: Appendics (CASRN 75-21-8). In Support of Summary Information on the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_file_download.cfm?p_download_id=529971&Lab=
    NCEA.
  71. Vincent MJ, Kozal JS, Thompson WJ, Maier A, Dotson GS, Best EA and Mundt KA (2019). Ethylene oxide: Cancer evidence integration and dose-response implications. Dose Response 17(4): 1559325819888317. 10.1177/1559325819888317. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1559325819888317
  72. Yong LC, Schulte PA, Wiencke JK, Boeniger MF, Connally LB, Walker JT, Whelan EA and Ward EM (2001). Hemoglobin adducts and sister chromatid exchanges in hospital workers exposed to ethylene oxide: Effects of glutathione S-transferase T1 and M1 genotypes. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 10(5): 539–550.
  73. Zeljezic D, Mladinic M, Kopjar N and Radulovic AH (2016). Evaluation of genome damage in subjects occupationally exposed to possible carcinogens. Toxicol Ind Health 32(9): 1570–1580. 10.1177/0748233714568478

Click to expand
Show less

Stop sticking Ethylene Oxide up your Children’s Nose:


Useful Links:

See also:

References[+]

Penny... on Health
Penny... on Health

Truth-seeker, ever-questioning, ever-learning, ever-researching, ever delving further and deeper, ever trying to 'figure it out'. This site is a legacy of sorts, a place to collect thoughts, notes, book summaries, & random points of interests.

DISCLAIMER: The information on this website is not medical science or medical advice. I do not have any medical training aside from my own research and interest in this area. The information I publish is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease, disorder, pain, injury, deformity, or physical or mental condition. I just report my own results, understanding & research.

View my other posts