- Joined
- 22 Aug 2006
- Messages
- 5,345
- Reaction score
- 598
- Country
Well it appears that's true.
I'm no medic and I may have something wrong here, but it looks more interesting that most stuff.
It's been questioned for some time, whether the intramuscular injection should be aspirated or not.
The instruction from the producers has been NOT to do so.
However, anyone who has done basic nursing training has had it drummed into them that that aspiration should always be done with i-m injections.
There have been claims and criticisms, eg here https://healthfeedback.org/claimrev...-needed-to-confirm-or-reject-this-hypothesis/
For those who haven't met the term, it's sucking back a bit with the syringe so you check for blood. You're meant to be injecting into muscle, so if you see blood, you've hit a blood vessel. You should see plasma-type stuff.
John Campbell (Youtuber) has been banging on about it since months ago, and now there's more recognition, and some results to show validity.
He says there's a BMJ paper - There's one here
https://www.bmj.com/content/375/bmj-2021-068665/rr
which so far I haven't read - Google found it but it looks to be the one.
He cites this https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.06.29.450356v1 for AZ.
This would apply to Pfizer, Moderna, Astrazenica and other vaccines.
Background - there are three basic injections. Subcutaneous (under the skin), intramuscular (into a muscle) or intravenous. Some of the drivers to determine the choice are the speed at which you want your drug to disperse around the bod, the reaction at the injection site, speed, pain and I daresay more about which I know nothing.
If you use i-m, you're going to be rupturing cells as you go in, and the liquid (particulate drug type for these vaccines) will mostly go into the interstitial spaces between the muscle cells, which is basically lymphatic fluid. From there it follows the lymphatic system and goes through a number of lymph nodes. The biggest is the spleen, but I'd have to look it up... On the way, the idea is that the particles are taken up in dendritic cells which proliferate in the lymphatic fluid - though there are some in blood too. Muscles are well served with fine blood vessels, so you will always get some of your jizzm into the blood.
The issue with injecting straight into a blood vessel, is that the carrying liquid goes around the bloodstream more rapidly, so sensitive anatomies will be presented with a lot of the stuff at once, causing damaging reactions.
What was first seen was an American woman who had "activity" in number sites, shortly after an i-v injection was apparently done. Tests have been done on animals for ages, but the volumes are different, etc etc.
What they've seen is various sorts on inflammation where the vaccine has "arrived" leading to emboli in the lungs, phagocytosis in the liver(dead cells), excess immunological reactions in the spleen, and so on.
We also know for example that the specific adenovirus carrying the DNA in the AZ vaccine happens to be particularly attracted to a platelet factor 4 protein found in lungs, where there are a lot of platelet precursor blood cells. That protein is also part of the cytokine (messaging) system. The platelets aggregate, leading to blood clots and throbocytopaenia ( shortage of platelets for important stuff).
The other sites we've heard them going on about are around the heart (pericardial) and the blood brain barrier.
The big reveal in Campbell's video is that he speaks to a Danish prof who has been looking at trials of aspirated injections in Denmark compared with non-aspirated technique in Norway. They claim they found 3x fewer incidences of myocarditis (inflammation of the heart muscle) and pericarditis(Pericarditis is swelling and irritation of the thin, sacklike tissue surrounding your heart (pericardium)) in the Danish cohort. Being an extremely well published academic he should have his protocols all done correctly. He says his chi-squared test is clear. I haven't seen the numbers to check. There should be a 95% certainty in there.
Many quacks and non quacks have been saying forever that these sorts of inflammatory (and other) direct-contact reactions are going to kill everyone, so they may get all excited now.
The reason for not injecting kids is (I read) that where these extremely rare reactions occur, we don't know how long-lasting the damage is. Adults repair over time, on the whole, it is said.
One of the main reasons given for the mechanism not being significant, was that the distribution of cases falls predictably across the age-range, so it was thought that there wasn't "room" for a significant other factor. 3x sounds significant to me.
I've asked all three of my impalers about aspiration. They all said they'd been instructed not to, and one said the syringe wasn't suitable. Apparently it's a bit slower and there's a small incidence of trouble of some sort - maybe they break the needles sometimes, no idea. It's unreliable in that you don't always see blood if it's too thick to go up the fine needle... and the syringes cost more (that'll be the reason). Loads online like https://www.ciamedical.com/insights/aspirating-syringe/
The world's most jabbed jizzm is the AZ one, and as far as I can understand that's one which would be particularly important to change protocol for.
Buy popcorn.
I'm no medic and I may have something wrong here, but it looks more interesting that most stuff.
It's been questioned for some time, whether the intramuscular injection should be aspirated or not.
The instruction from the producers has been NOT to do so.
However, anyone who has done basic nursing training has had it drummed into them that that aspiration should always be done with i-m injections.
There have been claims and criticisms, eg here https://healthfeedback.org/claimrev...-needed-to-confirm-or-reject-this-hypothesis/
For those who haven't met the term, it's sucking back a bit with the syringe so you check for blood. You're meant to be injecting into muscle, so if you see blood, you've hit a blood vessel. You should see plasma-type stuff.
John Campbell (Youtuber) has been banging on about it since months ago, and now there's more recognition, and some results to show validity.
He says there's a BMJ paper - There's one here
https://www.bmj.com/content/375/bmj-2021-068665/rr
which so far I haven't read - Google found it but it looks to be the one.
He cites this https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.06.29.450356v1 for AZ.
This would apply to Pfizer, Moderna, Astrazenica and other vaccines.
Background - there are three basic injections. Subcutaneous (under the skin), intramuscular (into a muscle) or intravenous. Some of the drivers to determine the choice are the speed at which you want your drug to disperse around the bod, the reaction at the injection site, speed, pain and I daresay more about which I know nothing.
If you use i-m, you're going to be rupturing cells as you go in, and the liquid (particulate drug type for these vaccines) will mostly go into the interstitial spaces between the muscle cells, which is basically lymphatic fluid. From there it follows the lymphatic system and goes through a number of lymph nodes. The biggest is the spleen, but I'd have to look it up... On the way, the idea is that the particles are taken up in dendritic cells which proliferate in the lymphatic fluid - though there are some in blood too. Muscles are well served with fine blood vessels, so you will always get some of your jizzm into the blood.
The issue with injecting straight into a blood vessel, is that the carrying liquid goes around the bloodstream more rapidly, so sensitive anatomies will be presented with a lot of the stuff at once, causing damaging reactions.
What was first seen was an American woman who had "activity" in number sites, shortly after an i-v injection was apparently done. Tests have been done on animals for ages, but the volumes are different, etc etc.
What they've seen is various sorts on inflammation where the vaccine has "arrived" leading to emboli in the lungs, phagocytosis in the liver(dead cells), excess immunological reactions in the spleen, and so on.
We also know for example that the specific adenovirus carrying the DNA in the AZ vaccine happens to be particularly attracted to a platelet factor 4 protein found in lungs, where there are a lot of platelet precursor blood cells. That protein is also part of the cytokine (messaging) system. The platelets aggregate, leading to blood clots and throbocytopaenia ( shortage of platelets for important stuff).
The other sites we've heard them going on about are around the heart (pericardial) and the blood brain barrier.
The big reveal in Campbell's video is that he speaks to a Danish prof who has been looking at trials of aspirated injections in Denmark compared with non-aspirated technique in Norway. They claim they found 3x fewer incidences of myocarditis (inflammation of the heart muscle) and pericarditis(Pericarditis is swelling and irritation of the thin, sacklike tissue surrounding your heart (pericardium)) in the Danish cohort. Being an extremely well published academic he should have his protocols all done correctly. He says his chi-squared test is clear. I haven't seen the numbers to check. There should be a 95% certainty in there.
Many quacks and non quacks have been saying forever that these sorts of inflammatory (and other) direct-contact reactions are going to kill everyone, so they may get all excited now.
The reason for not injecting kids is (I read) that where these extremely rare reactions occur, we don't know how long-lasting the damage is. Adults repair over time, on the whole, it is said.
One of the main reasons given for the mechanism not being significant, was that the distribution of cases falls predictably across the age-range, so it was thought that there wasn't "room" for a significant other factor. 3x sounds significant to me.
I've asked all three of my impalers about aspiration. They all said they'd been instructed not to, and one said the syringe wasn't suitable. Apparently it's a bit slower and there's a small incidence of trouble of some sort - maybe they break the needles sometimes, no idea. It's unreliable in that you don't always see blood if it's too thick to go up the fine needle... and the syringes cost more (that'll be the reason). Loads online like https://www.ciamedical.com/insights/aspirating-syringe/
The world's most jabbed jizzm is the AZ one, and as far as I can understand that's one which would be particularly important to change protocol for.
Buy popcorn.
Last edited:
Personally I always clean my upper arm myself before having a jab. That comes from a chat with a nurse when they had just stopped using the wipes.
