Evidence found - they've been doing the vaccine injections wrongly?

[Justin Passing]

I really suspect any poster who puts the onus on the reader to find the evidence to support the proponent's theories, of skulduggery.

Then **** off from a discussion forum. You would find a non-reason to criticise , even when I said I hadn't read it at the time and hadn't found the numbers. What you choose to infer, is your problem, your mistake when you're wrong, not the person you misunderstood. You keep doing it. I didn't present a scientific paper, I commented on what the bloke said, with a question mark. I found the errant paper (without the numbers).

You suspect the poster of being underhand and obscure even when you can't deal with a crossword clue which says "knight"(3) and the answer is 'sir'. You can get therapy for that.

 

[Justin Passing]

No, you said "remember, they aren't trained nursed giving the boosters"

"showed a drawing with blood vessels in from Gray's anatomy" - while Gray's anatomy was ground-breaking in medicine at the time, I am not sure using a 1858 text (and diagrams) is really sensible in 2021, is it?

I was correct. You can't say they are trained nurses giving the booster, because a lot are nothing near a nurse.
I daresay you or I could jab someone with a few minutes' demo.

They still use GA in med school, or did when I were a lad. If it were wrong to show a vein in a muscle, I expect someone would have pointed it out in the last 160 years?? It remains for you to prove that there are no veins in a deltoid muscle, ever, despite what it says in the nurses' book. You can't, because it's not true.

 

[AngleEyes]

Then **** off from a discussion forum.

There is a certain etiquette in intelligent rational arguments. You either abide by that etiquette or not, as you please.
But to not abide by that etiquette leaves you open to suspicion of skulduggery.
Now then, about resorting to a tirade of abuse in rational intelligent discussion.............

 

[Justin Passing]

I suggest you learn what a discussion is. Read the first couple of lines of post #1.
You're the one making bloody stupid accusations.
"Skulduggery".
So either it was me being intentionally underhand, deceitful, out to deceive; or you being daft. Like when you go counting publications/papers to say you found six which didn't count because you don't count them in the same way as Researchgate so I musn't know what a paper is. You're wasting your life arguing the toss on an irrelevant nitpick of no possible value just to have a go.
That is not "rational intelligent discussion.............".

 

[AngleEyes]

I suggest you learn what a discussion is. Read the first couple of lines of post #1.
You're the one making bloody stupid accusations.
"Skulduggery".
So either it was me being intentionally underhand, deceitful, out to deceive; or you being daft. Like when you go counting publications/papers to say you found six which didn't count because you don't count them in the same way as Researchgate. You're wasting your life arguing the toss on an irrelevant nitpick of no possible value.
That is not "rational intelligent discussion.............".

As I said, there is a well-known and accepted etiquette in rational intelligent discussions. If you have found evidence to support your proposition, you present it with clear and precise references on how a reader can see such evidence. It is not the responsibility of the reader to find such evidence.
Such behaviour would see you fail any academic examination worth sitting.
You either observe that etiquette or leave yourself open to such allegations of behaviour that appears appropriate.
You're not the only poster who relies on such pernicious tactics as referring to in-depth technical or legal documents, without presenting the precise evidence purported to be in such documents, and inviting the reader to go find that evidence.

 

[IT Minion]

I found a link to the paper with the numbers in - but as I said not open. Can't find it now but I started at the BMJ.
782 or 287 is immaterial. He's a pro who has published a lot, It simply doesn't matter what the actual number is and it's silly to say it does.

I don't like mistakes, they undermine everything someone says. Especially when you made a big deal about it. But I think we've probably spent long enough on this particular aspect.

I also don't like the 'i found a paper but lost it' argument but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. But if you can't find it then it's going to be helpful for future discussion either.

 

[JP_]

It remains for you to prove that there are no veins in a deltoid muscle, ever, despite what it says in the nurses' book. You can't, because it's not true.

I already showed the image. Here are some more. As I said, so long as the needle is not so long that it can pass through the muscle into the veins, there is no risk.

This one even has a needle shown, it shows nerves too (which the puncturing of is likely to cause more problems then veins)

This is a good detailed one of the veins - note, none in the lump of muscle used for injections

Maybe this is Grays? Certainly similar style. Again, big muscle, no veins in the injection zone

As I said before - this is WHY intramuscular injections are given in the deltoid. It's because it is so hard to hit a vein.
More injections used to be given in the buttocks, (there's a big nerve which if hit can paralyse - I nurse told me that, just before injecting by buttock once!) but this is probably only needed if your muscle mass in your arm is very low - maybe why I had one as a child.

Anyway, if there are untrained people out there giving vaccines, I stand corrected. In Essex, their training was top notch, judging by how good at it they were.
For every person giving the vaccine, there was an admin person doing all the paperwork (computer) - maybe in some NHS locations they do it differently, with everybody trying to do everything? I really don't know, I have not see any vaccination centres other than the ones in Essex I have been to.

As for ...

I daresay you or I could jab someone with a few minutes' demo.

These are the requirements:

"Legislation allows a wider group of staff to undertake training to deliver vaccines. This includes many allied health professionals, healthcare scientists and dental staff, as well as other individuals with appropriate first aid training, who are able to undertake additional comprehensive training; so opportunities for flexible, paid roles are open to a huge variety of people." https://www.england.nhs.uk/coronavirus/join-the-nhs-covid-19-vaccine-team/

That does not sound "untrained" with a "few minutes demo" to me.

Maybe your vaccinator was just teasing.

 

[IT Minion]

The staff giving the vaccines range from highly trained nurses to less thoroughly trained healthcare professionals who've had a short course on vaccination. But they're all trained. In the normal course of life in the NHS you can have 'healthcare assistants' who are qualified to perform blood draws, which is much more highly skilled than a vaccine injection.

I don't believe anyone is trained to aspirate IM Vaccine injections in the UK anymore, it's explicitly not required as part of Chapter 4 of the green book

 

[ajohn]

less thoroughly trained healthcare professionals

I know some one who is doing covid jabs with no experience of any medical aspects at all other than a training course to allow her to give covid jabs, Sadly I wont see her till next month as I would ask what she has been told to do. None i have had involved farting about with a syringe and needle and would expect her instructions to be much the same. What needle size etc I would suspect is outside her remit.

All this subject is about really is yet another smoking gun where people are assuming that people who are doing what ever do not know what they are doing,

Bit odd really in this case given the number of jabs done. The video poster in question - I have found some of them interesting but this one really does make me wonder what he is actually about.

 

[Harry Bloomfield]

maybe in some NHS locations they do it differently, with everybody trying to do everything? I really don't know, I have not see any vaccination centres other than the ones in Essex I have been to.

Similar system here too, all a very slick operation indeed.

 

[AngleEyes]

None i have had involved farting

Nor me.

 

[ajohn]

Well I listened to the video. No results posted other than on one person in germany and some animals that mentions these can not relate directly to humans.

The problem - injecting a significant quantity of the vaccine into a vein. Patient did not die immediately and had problems for a number of days before seeing anyone. Nothing like a typical movie with an air injection which can also happen and on movies kills in seconds.

It will be impossible to miss these - couldn't find one on the upper arm. What goes one way must go back the other some how to the lung.
https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/comments/8nyriy/the_blood_vessels_in_your_armhand/

Any injection anywhere can result in infections, another problem or is it? It happens but extremely infrequently far less than people killed in various traffic related deaths.

Same with the jabs themselves and many medications. I know some one went went rather quickly to hospital due to taking very little ibuprofen. Less than some one may be directed to use on the bottle. Does that mean everybody shouldn't take it?

 

[mattylad]

If you consider that aspiration takes time and multiply that by the number of people getting the vaccine per day then aspiration is going to mean that several people do not get vaccinated.

 

[mitch66]

If you consider that aspiration takes time and multiply that by the number of people getting the vaccine per day then aspiration is going to mean that several people do not get vaccinated.

Spot on. This is a numbers game. It's not about worrying if one or two peeps lose there dose in a blood vessel.

 

[ajohn]

One thing that struck me was that if checked and oh blood came back - what to do amputate the arm perhaps? Anyone that has had an injection into their bloodstream probably knows how long it takes to get everywhere. Extremely quickly.

I'd suspect it has largely been dropped as little point and can cause other problems. It was used for another reason as well

Why Aspirate a Needle?

Aspiration means to draw breath, or air from a needle. This simple process can make a big impact though. It protects you from hitting a blood vessel or artery and accidentally injecting fluid into one, which can result in a variety of different side effects.

How to Aspirate a Needle

Once you have found your injection site, sanitized it, and prepped it, you can slowly insert your needle as normal. Do not release any fluid into the injection site though. Slowly pull back on the syringe for about three seconds to aspirate the needle. If any blood comes into the syringe, you will need to remove the needle and find a new injection site. Blood is a sign that you have hit a blood vessel or artery, and should not proceed with an injection. Do not reuse the same needle, as this can lead to infection.

From a syringe manufacturer especially aimed at people doing it at home. How far to pull back?

Some more
Immunization: Vaccinations form an important subset of all injections given worldwide. Most government programs worldwide follow UNICEF/WHO recommendation in their Expanded Program on Immunization (EPI) programs. At present, the WHO does not recommend aspiration prior to administering a vaccine 7, 56. Current guidelines published by the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) 57 recommend that aspiration prior to IM vaccinations may not be necessary, while similar Canadian guidelines continue to recommend aspiration 58. The US Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) 59 does not make any recommendations on aspiration at the time of vaccine administration. Without data indicating the need for aspiration during vaccination, ACIP is basically leaving this decision to the person giving the vaccine. A similar stance is taken by the US Immunization Action Coalition guideline 40 where aspiration is not mentioned in its recommendations for SC and IM injections in adults, and it states that there are “no data to document the necessity of aspiration” in children.

A different approach to this issue was taken by Ipp et al. 2 through a survey where the actual practice of end users was evaluated. This survey established that 74% of respondents aspirated prior to IM vaccine administration. However, of these only 3% aspirated for the recommended 5–10 seconds; the remaining applied negative pressure for <5 seconds. The same group went on to conduct a randomized controlled trial in which they compared two injection techniques: the standard approach, which included aspiration for 5–10 seconds, and the pragmatic approach, which excluded aspiration entirely 50. They concluded that IM vaccinations using the pragmatic approach were less painful and there were no benefits to following the standard approach. Jablecki 60 has suggested a technique for choosing a site for administering IM injection that is relatively pain free by understanding the anatomy of cutaneous innervation at the selected site. This may mitigate the effect of increased pain in the standard approach. Similarly, Philippe Duclos, WHO/Vaccines and Biologicals, has recommended against aspiration prior to injection with a view to minimizing pain 61. More recently, a 2007 study of 113 infant vaccinations compared rapid IM injection without aspiration with slow IM injection with aspiration, and found the non-aspiration method to be associated with less pain based on behavioral pain ratings 41, 62. Similarly, in 2009, a systematic review of 19 randomized controlled trials involving 2,814 infants and children found that immunization pain can be decreased by performing a rapid IM injection without aspiration

Rest here
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5333604/#