PCR test for operation workaround?

I know someone who is scheduled for a serious hospital operation but hospital is insisting on a PCR test.
We know that the PCR contains toxic ethylene oxide.
The LFT contains sodium azide which is a rapidly acting, potentially deadly chemical.
Is there a template for this situation or what would be the best way of not having to test and still get the op done?

mitch wrote:We know that the PCR contains toxic ethylene oxide.

It doesn't.  Sterilised with does not mean contains. Presumably something blindly parroted on Youtube and Facebook. Ethylene Oxide is used to sterilise a lot of medical and surgical items, things that wouldn't survive an autoclave.

flyingfish wrote:
It doesn't.  Sterilised with does not mean contains. Presumably something blindly parroted on Youtube and Facebook. Ethylene Oxide is used to sterilise a lot of medical and surgical items, things that wouldn't survive an autoclave.

Seems your purpose on this forum is to shill for the demonstrably false narrative, which seeks to remove our ability to function as sovereign individuals and to derail threads; whilst throwing in a few smug ad hominems.

The CDC warns that ethylene oxide is carcinogenic and teratogenic, and that ‘inhalation of ethylene oxide has been linked to neurologic dysfunction and may cause other harmful effects to the wearer’.
https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/81-130/default.html

The EPA has concluded that ethylene oxide is carcinogenic to humans by the inhalation route of exposure. Evidence in humans indicates that exposure to ethylene oxide increases the risk of lymphoid cancer and, for females, breast cancer.
https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-09/documents/ethylene-oxide.pdf

Washington State Nurses Association: “Reprocessing masks using toxic chemicals is not a solution”
https://www.wsna.org/union/kadlec-medical-center/update/reprocessing-mask-using-toxic-chemicals-is-not-a-solution

“Nurses are reporting that respirators and face masks at WSNA repre-sented Providence facilities are being collected for reprocessing using ethylene oxide to decontaminate. The EPA has concluded that ethylene oxide is carcinogenic to humans and that exposure to ethylene oxide increases the risk of lymphoid cancer and, for females, breast cancer.”

“WSNA sent a cease and desist demand to Providence facilities where our members work, demanding an immediate halt to the reusing of any face masks, including N 95 and other respirators, that have been decontaminated by the ethylene oxide cleaning process. In addition, WSNA is preparing complaints to be filed with the Washington State Department of Occupational Safety and Health, highlighting this workplace hazard.”

“WSNA believes that the reuse of face masks or respirators cleaned with ethylene oxide violates the employer’s legal duty to ensure that nurses and other health care workers are afforded a safe and healthful working environment. While hospitals have long used ethylene oxide to clean certain surgical equipment, it should not be used to decontami-nate face masks or respirators, through which nurses and other health care workers must breathe for many hours at a time.”

“…The CDC warns that ethylene oxide is carcinogenic and teratogenic, and that ‘inhalation of ethylene oxide has been linked to neurologic dysfunction and may cause other harmful effects to the wearer’.”

“Prolonged exposure to ethylene oxide can hurt eyes and LUNGS, harm the brain and nervous system, and potentially cause lymphomas, leukemia, and breast cancer. This extremely hazardous toxic chemical poses a severe risk to human health.” [CAPS are mine.]

Is the use of toxic ethylene oxide to treat masks widespread? According to the Chicago Tribune, way back in March, Medline Industries was reprocessing 100,000 medical masks a day. They applied to the FDA for permission to use ethylene oxide. But wasn’t the horse already out of the barn? Weren’t they already using the chemical? I’ve queried Medline to find out whether the FDA has approved their application.

And finally, I have a lone report about a person from the region of Piedmont, Italy, who checked out his medical mask, which he’d received in the mail from the Department of Civil Protection. He discovered it contained zinc pyrithione.

If true, this is ominous. Consulting a simple safety data sheet on the chemical, from Cayman Chemical, I found a succinct statement: “Toxic if inhaled.”
But of course, medical masks must be worn. The lockdown authorities tell us so. They know. They must know because, well, they’re on television.

Keep breathing through that mask. It’s “safe and effective.”
https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2020/06/09/citizens-wearing-masks-whacko-conspiracy-theorists/

mitch wrote:

flyingfish wrote:
It doesn't.  Sterilised with does not mean contains. Presumably something blindly parroted on Youtube and Facebook. Ethylene Oxide is used to sterilise a lot of medical and surgical items, things that wouldn't survive an autoclave.

Seems your purpose on this forum is to shill for the demonstrably false narrative, which seeks to remove our ability to function as sovereign individuals and to derail threads; whilst throwing in a few smug ad hominems.

FF please read this post,   https://goodf.forumotion.com/t5373p25-a-i-d-s#37493 is it of interest? please comment on what you think?

LionsShare wrote:FF please read this post,   https://goodf.forumotion.com/t5373p25-a-i-d-s#37493 is it of interest? please comment on what you think?

I thought I'd already replied on that subject. As far as I can see that web site just keeps repeating the same story, with only their timeline changing. It used to be everyone who's been vaccinated will be goosed by Christmas. Now it's by the end of February.

And as I wrote before there's nothing in the document that refers to the immune system in general rather than specifically with respect to Covid immunity. Unless you can point it out?

flyingfish wrote:

But I thought your post was about not wanting a PCR test wasn't it? My point is that when dealing with a hospital, it's unlikely that you're going to persuade them that someone on Youtube or Facebook knows more about the test than they do.

Are you not aware of the official documentation showing PCR is dangerous and worthless?

Sodium Azide;

https://emergency.cdc.gov/agent/sodiumazide/basics/facts.asp

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/medicine-and-dentistry/sodium-azide

https://jdfor2020.com/2021/12/warning-lethal-sodium-azide-contained-in-diy-c0vd-test-kits/

https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/Sodium-azide

Ethylene Oxide;

https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/substances/ethylene-oxide

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/614329/Ethylene_oxide_general_information.pdf

https://www.foodwatch.org/en/news/2021/toxic-ethylene-oxide-in-foods/?cookieLevel=not-set

I cant see Mitch, why you would not want this in your body,what could
possibly go wrong.

mitch wrote:Are you not aware of the official documentation showing PCR is dangerous and worthless?

I haven't seen it, do you know where it was published?

If it really exists that might cut some ice with the hospital, but remember that the staff there have probably all taken plenty of PCR tests themselves, and are used to their patients having taken them as a matter of routine. You're asking them to change their whole policy.

In general as far as I can see you can only get an exemption from testing on medical grounds.  Both these and the process are very poorly documented, and I suspect probably differ between trusts and hospitals. I have seen an example where exemption from testing can be applied for using the same form as exemption from vaccination.

By the way, you're going in for an operation, are you aware there's a good chance the surgical instruments and equipment were sterilised with Ethylene Oxide?

On looking around their is even more info out there to get then to Stop doing all this BULL SH*T , interesting if you can think

https://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2022/01/pcr-test-kit-proven-to-be-radio-active-with-geiger-countertest-shows-the-radiation-levels-of-the-pcr-test-3765075.html

And
https://tapnewswire.com/2022/01/the-so-called-covid-pandemic-is-a-total-fraud/

You all need to do some critical thinking.
badvoc, lol !!! proof!

Lopsum , WOW

flyingfish wrote:

mitch wrote:Are you not aware of the official documentation showing PCR is dangerous and worthless?

I haven't seen it, do you know where it was published?

If it really exists that might cut some ice with the hospital, but remember that the staff there have probably all taken plenty of PCR tests themselves, and are used to their patients having taken them as a matter of routine. You're asking them to change their whole policy.

In general as far as I can see you can only get an exemption from testing on medical grounds.  Both these and the process are very poorly documented, and I suspect probably differ between trusts and hospitals. I have seen an example where exemption from testing can be applied for using the same form as exemption from vaccination.

By the way, you're going in for an operation, are you aware there's a good chance the surgical instruments and equipment were sterilised with Ethylene Oxide?

Sterlised surgical intruments is quite a different matter to inserting Ethylene Oxide into the blood-brain barrier via the nasal passage. As a tax paying customer it should be his lawful right in choosing exemption from PCR which is based on false science as stated on record by the invenetor of the PCR. This test is ran at 35+ cycles so that it picks up random genetic matter as a false-postives. Not to mention the fact that the entire charade we're living in is predicated on deception and lies.