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

[JP_]

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/

"A 23-gauge or 25-gauge needle is recommended for intramuscular administration of most vaccines (Plotkin and Orenstein, 2008)."
https://assets.publishing.service.g...ent_data/file/147915/Green-Book-Chapter-4.pdf

That's 0.515mm.

Capillaries are 5 to 10 micrometres (μm) in diameter, or 0.01mm. How would you stick a 0.515mm needle into a 0.01mm blood vessel to inject the contents into the blood stream?

Not all blood vessels are veins or arteries - the ones in muscles are much much smaller.

This is why muscles are used, and not just a random part of the body!

 

[mitch66]

It is possible to load into a blood vessel with a 25g pin. What percentage of the dose who knows but I've done it back in the day. Once in quad, once in delt. Your talking ****e mate. Lay off the google.
The point is it's rare and unlucky. For the purposes of vaxing the public, it don't matter. Saving time and doing more jabs trumps an occasional wasted dose.

 

[Justin Passing]

It is possible to load into a blood vessel with a 25g pin. What percentage of the dose who knows but I've done it back in the day. Once in quad, once in delt. Your talking ****e mate. Lay off the google.
The point is it's rare and unlucky. For the purposes of vaxing the public, it don't matter. Saving time and doing more jabs trumps an occasional wasted dose.

.

 

[Justin Passing]

It is possible to load into a blood vessel with a 25g pin. What percentage of the dose who knows but I've done it back in the day. Once in quad, once in delt. Your talking ****e mate. Lay off the google.
The point is it's rare and unlucky. For the purposes of vaxing the public, it don't matter. Saving time and doing more jabs trumps an occasional wasted dose.

Thank you mitch66.

.

TFFT.

It's pathetic how some people will deny something that's easily findable on google on the basis of theory thet can expound on. You provide a quote (which was very easy to find) say do a search, tell them any practitioner will put them straight and no, it must be impossible because of a drawing they found.

 

[JP_]

Thank you mitch66.

.

TFFT.

It's pathetic how some people will deny something that's easily findable on google on the basis of theory thet can expound on. You provide a quote (which was very easy to find) say do a search, tell them any practitioner will put them straight and no, it must be impossible because of a drawing they found.

So, why doesn't the NHS recommend it? It's a bit more than just a drawing somebody found. NHS policy, along with many other countries, is not to do it, as it is not needed.
But others are adamant it is, because one bloke on YouTube says so, and another person says they hit a vessel once.

 

[Justin Passing]

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.

If you engaged your right thinking bit of brain and didn't let the pompous little ****** part take over, you would realise that this is not an examination room.
I put it up for discussion.
If you can find fault with what Capell & the Dane said, fine.
"You present it with clear and ...." shove it up somewhere dark, YOU don't give anyone effin instructions because you don't matter, you're nobody.

If you can contribute, do so if you want to.
If you want to sit there like a **** and continuously fire off stupid irrelevant nitpicking allegations about the number of papers, it would be better not to hear from you so save yourself the effort - shut your gob.

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.

You don't like mistakes.... who gives a flying **** whether you like mistakes? You don't matter.
The paper to which I had no access doesn't matter to me because I can't read it. If it does to you, get off your backside and look for it instead of being a useless troll .

 

[Justin Passing]

So, why doesn't the NHS recommend it? It's a bit more than just a drawing somebody found. NHS policy, along with many other countries, is not to do it, as it is not needed.
But others are adamant it is, because one bloke on YouTube says so, and another person says they hit a vessel once.

Because with most drugs it doesn't matter. I explained that before - first post I think. Simples.
It depends what you're injecting.
If mitch has had it twice, multiply that up for the number of jabs given to 56% of the worlds population.
Otherwise, just google it. Use some sense, man.

 

[Justin Passing]

Here's another link that some of you can ejaculate all over. It's part of the discussion, okay, I have no idea who Dr. Can Li, Dr. Anna Zhang and Professor Yuen Kwok-Yung are , but the magazine/outlet have published their opinion. I'm not selling a line here.....
https://www.thestandard.com.hk/brea...rns-against-accidental-vaccination-into-veins

“As health authorities have previously advised that there is no need to aspirate a needle before injection, there is a risk that in rare circumstances, the injection may inadvertently be injected intravenously,” the team said.

“We therefore advise that the practice of intramuscular injection should revert to the conventional way. That means a brief withdrawal of syringe plunger to exclude blood aspiration to ensure that the needle is not accidentally located in a vein before the injection is given.”

 

[JP_]

If mitch has had it twice, multiply that up for the number of jabs given to 56% of the worlds population.

I honestly don't understand what you mean by that. Can you explain?

Otherwise, just google it. USe some sense, man.

I did Google it. That seems to be what has got you so upset.

 

[JP_]

"may inadvertently be injected intravenously" - by a blind and drug person who has never given an injection maybe.
But by an NHS trained vaccinator?

OK, how many cases have been reported in the UK of problems from these vaccines due to not aspirating?
130 million doses have been given by NHS trained vaccinators in the UK. If you are right, then there must be millions of people by now with serious problems.

 

[JP_]

Here's another link that some of you can ejaculate all over. It's part of the discussion, okay, I have no idea who Dr. Can Li, Dr. Anna Zhang and Professor Yuen Kwok-Yung are , but the magazine/outlet have published their opinion. I'm not selling a line here.....
https://www.thestandard.com.hk/brea...rns-against-accidental-vaccination-into-veins

That is great. If you thrust a needle into somebody's arm like in that photo, you won't just hit a vein, you'll probably go right through and stab the heart too!

I don't think anybody disagrees that "accidental vaccination into veins" is a bad thing. Our NHS trained vaccinators just know how to give a vaccine.

Here's another picture I found on the Internet. From Nursing Times
https://www.nursingtimes.net/clinic...drugs-via-the-intramuscular-route-23-07-2018/
They mention aspiration too. These nurses know what they are talking about.

anyway, we're going around in circles. You'll call me some names now, say I am reading the wrong bits of the internet, and we're all going to die because the NHS and our nurses are wrong,. but bloke on YT isn't.

Let's just agree to disagree.

 

[IT Minion]

This thread is a perfect example of Betteridges law

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge's_law_of_headlines

 

[ajohn]

Aspiration

It is common practice to draw back on a syringe after the needle is inserted to check whether it is in a blood vessel. While it is important to aspirate if the DG muscle site is used – because of proximity to the gluteal artery – it is not required for other IM injection sites (PHE, 2013; Malkin, 2008).

So in some cases they may in others they wont. Big difference with them and people in general is that as surprising as it may seem they do know what they are doing.

I wonder who PHE is?

 

[IT Minion]

“We therefore advise that the practice of intramuscular injection should revert to the conventional way. That means a brief withdrawal of syringe plunger to exclude blood aspiration to ensure that the needle is not accidentally located in a vein before the injection is given.”

Which is not the conventional way in the UK. Or the US, or Canada, or anywhere that follows WHO guidelines.

I'm not sure where it is the conventional way to give IM vaccines.

 

[ajohn]

Which is not the conventional way in the UK. Or the US, or Canada, or anywhere that follows WHO guidelines.

I'm not sure where it is the conventional way to give IM vaccines.

It depends on where the injection is done. pointless posting that but I did.