Entirely apart from what’s in it, and whether you really need it, perform some basic due diligence on how it’s administered. It appears that Standard of Don’t Care may have struck again (and some years ago at that; this is not just a current epidemic thing).
A retired nurse in the family was shocked to learn that injection aspiration is no longer standard practice for IM & SC injections, and in some regions, they’re now having to re-teach it. Just looking into it, I see that member JannyLite recently mentioned the issue in the COVID shaggy dog thread. But the potential hazards apply to any injectable agent specified for IM or SC administration.
Aspiration is not recommended by the CDC, HC or Norway. It is recommended by Denmark, and there is vigorous debate & dissent on the matter everywhere. Here’s a 2017 paper:
F1000R: Aspiration in injections: should we continue or abandon the practice?
IM is intra-muscular. SC is subcutaneous. Aspiration is the technique of inserting the needle, then attempting to withdraw any fluid at the needle tip. If blood is withdrawn, a vein or artery has been hit, and unless the procedure is re-done, proceeding with the administration is likely to then be IV, and not IM or SC.
If an agent calls for IM or SC, it might be to avoid some hazard of IV, and it seems like it might be more than congenial to have some confidence that a vein dump isn’t about to happen. Else, why bother specify IM or SC for the agent?
So if you’re getting a shot, the due diligence might include:
- Presumably already done: deciding that it’s a net benefit.
- See if the agent is specified for IM or SC.
- Ask the clinic if they do aspiration.
- Verify with the point-of-care provider that they have training in the technique.
Here’s the paper that JannyLite linked. A general search will get you tons of hits on aspiration.
CID: Intravenous Injection of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) mRNA Vaccine Can Induce Acute Myopericarditis in Mouse Model
So if a healthcare worker (used to giving & getting shots) gets
an injection on live TV, promptly passes out, and dies that day, what might explain that?
Well, a number of things, but a possible lack of verifying IM is one of
them. And prompt adverse events of this sort are perhaps
too soon to even qualify for a VAERS report. To be sure, when it’s due to inadvertent IV, it’s really not the fault of the agent, but if VAERS were ballooning with prompt reaction reports, it might cause some reconsideration of the aspiration issue.
Bob Niland [disclosures] [topics] [abbreviations]