Could it be this simple? Inadvertant intravenous injections
Dr. Campbell discusses inadvertant intravenous injections of the Covid vaccine as the means of introducing the vaccine into the vascular system and the resulting heart damage in mice. He strongly recommends aspiration of the needle as the first step in vaccination to prevent inadvertant intravenous infection. His frustration that this is not already being routinely done is palpable.
Great find! Simple and elegant!
Definitely an interesting find. Would be great to reduce the negative impacts vaccines could have.
Could be, but to know we’d need to actually keep data and have transparency.
This is why drugs usually go through long in depth trials. This should have been easy to pick up in the trials and add to the administration protocols.
First, it is intended to delivered intramuscularly.
Second, it is well known that without aspiration, injections intended to me intramuscular sometimes end up actually being intravenous.
Third, aspiration is a well known technique to prevent intravenous injection.
Fourth, based on data presented from the trials, the drug companies should have understood that intravenous injection poses significant risks.
Fifth, barring this, the real world experience makes those risks clear.
Hence, my conclusion: incompetence or malfeasance. I would bet on the second possibility.
when discussing myocarditis. It’s very important info because it shows a means by which the effect can be turned on and (mostly) off, at least theoretically (in humans). The injections should stop now just on the weight of this alone….
Conclusions: This study provided in-vivo evidence that inadvertent intravenous injection of COVID-19 mRNA-vaccines may induce myopericarditis. Brief withdrawal of syringe plunger to exclude blood aspiration may be one possible way to reduce such risk.
the lipid containers are nano-particles. they don’t care about veins. and neither does graphene-oxide.
The lipid nanoparticles (and hence the shot itself) is going to biodistribute no matter what, as we saw in the leaked Pfizer biodist data. It’s just a matter of degree I think, and of course one’s underlying sensitivities, which we don’t understand, other than to say prior natural infection is one trigger (for myocarditis).
In this paper, the authors talk about re-engineering the LNP coating so that it’s less hazardous and doesn’t biodist. as much… what the hell does that say about the first gen shot?
Novel lipid nanoparticle provides potent SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine at low dose with low local reactogenicity, high thermostability and limited systemic biodistribution
Suman Alishetty, Manuel Carrasco, Mohamad-Gabriel Alameh, Mikell Paige
At the 13 minute mark he talks about the CDC and WHO contradicting Pfizer and Moderna who say it should only be given intramuscular.
Cambell is at his wits end. He wrote to Nadhim Zahawi who is the Minister for vaccine deployment about this matter and got a reply saying that there are no large blood vessels at the recommended injection sites. Hmmmmmmmmm.
I’d be interested to hear Chris thoughts on this.
Seems like this shot is likely to cause harm even if it’s IM but maybe the IV is really accelerating things.
This is a no brainer – just because it supposed to be IM doesnt mean it cannot get IV. Just the risk of this knowing this, the drugs need to be removed from market. In a normal science world – this is enough. And we know it probably does some damage IM just not as fast or as much. But is that a reason to say its ok? no.