Coming by way of Stan over at Encouraging Angels, this is a piece respectfully submitted questioning the safety of the current Covid-19 testing process. Stan is the owner of Encouraging Angels, a student I had in class, and an incredible human being. -NCS

The Potential Risks  of Nanofiber Swabs In SARS-CoV-2 Detection

by Stan S.

In ‘Ultra-absorptive Nanofiber Swabs for Improved Collection and Test Sensitivity of SARS-CoV-2 and other Biological Specimens’ (McCarthy et. al. ‘Nano Letters’ 1508-1516 Jan. 27, 2021) the authors claim: ‘Implementation of nanofiber swabs in SARS-CoV-2 detection reduces the false negative rates at two viral concentrations and identifies SARS-CoV-2 at a 10× lower viral concentration compared to flocked and cotton swabs. The nanofiber swabs show great promise in improving test sensitivity, potentially leading to timely and accurate diagnosis of many diseases.’

After examination of the materials ( and lack of proper documentation I ask the question ‘At What Risk’?

PCL (Polycaprolactone) is a biodegradable polyester and is the first ingredient in the swabs. PCL is degraded in physiological conditions such as the human body and it is especially interesting for the preparation of long-term implantable devices. A variety of drugs have been encapsulated within PCL beads for controlled release and targeted drug delivery.(Laurence W. McKeen, in Permeability Properties of Plastics and Elastomers (Third Edition), 2012 via

PCL pellets and Fluronic F-127 were dissolved in a solution of 4:1 ratio DCM:DMF. DCM and DFM carry warnings for human exposure. Dichloromethane (DCM) is… ‘Classified as a neurotoxin, dichloromethane has been proven to cause damage to the brain and central nervous system (CNS).The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has classified it as a probable human carcinogen.Regarding DMF: ‘Acute (short-term) exposure to dimethylformamide has been observed to damage the liver in animals and in humans. Symptoms of acute exposure in humans include abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting, jaundice, alcohol intolerance, and rashes.  (’.

This is the stuff that was used to dissolve materials for that swab that will be rubbed into your nasopharyngeal area. Do you like potentially close exposure to carcinogens and neurotoxins?

The authors purchased for use in the study Human Embryonic Kidney cells (HEK293) for ‘Cell Swabbing’ in the study. Why did they have to use the cells of aborted human babies? Couldn’t they have swabbed animal cells for the test? These Nanofiber swabs would -never- be used to swab the kidney of a child…

The company they purchased the HEK293 cells from was ATCC ( The authors did not denote what ATCC catalog number of the HEK293 cells they used. This is important because a search for HEK293 on generates 61 hits. I noticed that one of the choices for HEK293 cells was 293[HEK-293] Cas9 (ATCC® CRL-1573Cas9™ (

My interest in this particular ATCC catalog option in HEK293 cells is that it … is a cell line that constitutively expresses Cas9 protein enables researchers to carry out CRISPR genome editing applications with high efficiency. Just to be clear, we don’t know exactly which of the catalog choices that the authors used in their work; just that it was HEK293 from ATCC. If, by chance it was 293[HEK-293] Cas9 (ATCC® CRL-1573Cas9™) from the ATCC catalog what could that mean? One -might- postulate that tests were being conducted on these novel swabs to see if they -might- be employed in some form of genomic editing/modification since that is what the function of   293[HEK-293] Cas9 (ATCC® CRL-1573Cas9™ cells are. The authors conducted ‘cell swabbing’ tests using the HEK293 cells they purchased but unlike other areas of the study (SARS-CoV-2 detection, Material Characterization, Mass Loss and Protein Detection) they -did not- report the results of the tests of ‘cell swabbing’ the HEK293 cells. Wonder why? If people are cavalier about smearing aborted baby product with a swab what would stop them from experimenting with genetic modification which -could- make it all the way to your nose?

There is another disturbingly interesting fact about the 293[HEK-293] Cas9 (ATCC® CRL-1573Cas9™ cell line. If you go to the ‘Technical Data Sheet ( you can see that the the ‘Tissue/Disease source is listed as ‘Carcinoma’. If (and emphasize that we do not know which ATCC catalog version of the cells they actually used) they used the 293[HEK-293] Cas9 (ATCC® CRL-1573Cas9™ cells, then cells that potentially might be part of a Nanofiber Swab could find its way into your nose and could have carcinogenic HEK293 cells as part of its makeup.

The study states: ‘The nanofiber swabs show great promise in improving test sensitivity, potentially leading to timely and accurate diagnosis of many diseases.’ That may be true, but the authors left out information about the potential health risks of the use of Nanofiber swabs in human beings. Apparently the pharmaceutical companies have had the risk of the ‘vaccines’ legislated away; perhaps the manufacturers of the swab will have no personal risk. After the examination of the information in the McCarthy et. al. study I can only assume that if we allow them to put the swab up our nose, that all the risk is on us.



Stan Szymanski (or Encouraging Angels) is not a medical doctor. This is not medical advice. In all matters pertaining to the health and care of a human being consult a medical doctor. This is not legal or financial advice. Consult appropriate professionals in those fields for that type of advice.

 Save as PDF

Welcome American Partisans!

Sign up to receive articles daily

We don’t spam! Read our privacy policy for more info.

Liked it? Take a second to support us on Patreon!