An Intramuscular Injection That Enters The Bloodstream

Argument, COVID-19, Free Speech, Healthcare, Journalism, Propaganda, Pseudo-intellectualism, Pseudoscience, Reason, Science

“Covid has separated the medical wheat from the chaff; the healers from the killers.”–ilana mercer

While at the outset of the vaccination campaign in 2020 it was unknown to what extent COVID vaccines entered the bloodstream, human data from 2021 reveal that the spike protein shows up within the circulation on the very day of the injection [15]. Similarly, animal studies submitted by Pfizer to the Japanese government [24] found that the vaccine appears in the circulation within 15 minutes of intramuscular injection, reaching maximum plasma concentration within just two hours. Very high levels have subsequently been recorded in the liver, the spleen, the adrenal glands, and the ovaries. Vaccine components have also been observed in the central nervous system (the brain and the spinal cord), albeit at lower concentrations. Such widespread distribution throughout the body via the bloodstream is a feat that the SARS-CoV-2 virus does not usually achieve.

The two papers referenced in the paragraph above, are linked below:

Circulating Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Vaccine Antigen Detected in the Plasma of mRNA-1273 Vaccine Recipients

https://academic.oup.com/cid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/cid/ciab465/6279075

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) proteins were measured in longitudinal plasma samples collected from 13 participants who received two doses of mRNA-1273 vaccine. Eleven of 13 participants showed detectable levels of SARS-CoV-2 protein as early as day 1 after first vaccine injection. Clearance of detectable SARS-CoV-2 protein correlated with production of immunoglobulin G (IgG) and immunoglobulin A (IgA).

https://archive.org/details/pfizer-confidential-translated

As it stands, there is a debate in the scientific community that’ll never be aired by airheads such as CNN’s Pamela Brown, aforementioned (here). Her ilk, petulant like a big baby—seek safety in unanimity. To that end, they extinguish debate. An open society would air the debate; the airhead gatekeepers refuse to countenance disagreement.

There is no question that the spike proteins from the COVID-19 vaccines leach into the bloodstream, something traditional vaccines do not. Immunologists like Byram Bridle  claim this is dodgy unstudied territory and harmful:

“In short, the conclusion is, we made a big mistake,” Bridle said. “We didn’t realize it until now. We thought the spike protein was a great target antigen. We never knew the spike protein itself was a toxin, and was a pathogenic protein. So, by vaccinating people, we are inadvertently inoculating them with a toxin. Some people, this gets into circulation, and when that happens in some people, they can cause damage, especially in the cardiovascular system. And I have many other legitimate questions about the long-term safety, therefore, of this vaccine.”

Dr. Robert W. Malone, the inventor of the mRNA technology platform, pictured on my post, is unhappy about its use. Need more reason to, at least, question more (were you allowed to so do)?

Galvanizing its fact-checkers, Reuters reports “no evidence that spike proteins from COVID-19 vaccines are toxic.” Other sources have spilled pixels in the same quest, see “Byram Bridle’s claim that COVID-19 vaccines are toxic fails to account for key differences between the spike protein produced during infection and vaccination, misrepresents studies.

In my opinion, and compared to other vaccines (I’ve recently taken the two Shingles shots; fabulous stuff), there is not nearly enough longitudinal data on the COVID vaccine’s safety. A few months of hurried research is not enough. And the fact that vaccine injuries are not openly discussed and quantified is not only a disgrace—it accounts for the current contempt for mainstream medicine.

Moreover, if you as a patient suspect that, should you react to the jab, you would be told categorically that your reaction, however severe, has nothing to do with the vaccine—this makes you less likely to get vaccinated. After all, you want medics to guarantee to treat a reaction seriously, not deny it is related to vaccination.

Correlation is not causation, but when healthy people suddenly erupt in a host of deadly reactions, after receiving the Covid vaccine, and are told to go home, it’s nothing—disgust settles in. You realize you are on your own. Healers have abandoned the Hippocratic Oath in favor of confirmation bias.

A shout-out to wonderful healers like Peter McCullough:

Peter McCullough On The Greatest Failure In American Medicine: COVID-19

Of interest:

Institutional Rot: Post-Vaccination Myopericarditis Could Be Linked To Fauci-Recommended, Rotten Injection Technique

UPDATE III (11/27/021): Institutional Rot: Post-Vaccination Myopericarditis Could Be Linked To Fauci-Recommended, Rotten Injection Technique

Affirmative Action, COVID-19, Gender, Healthcare, Intelligence, Science, The State, The Therapuetic State

Idiot anchors like Pamela Brown of CNN, who speaks with a childish lisp and is unable to pronounce her “ings” (as in, “We’re not goin’ to question Fauci ‘science’, I’m just sayin’), are naturally incurious. Worse: They do not brook any questioning of received “wisdom” or authority.

To the aura of a petulant, lisping baby, Brown and her feminist network colleagues at CNN and MSNBC add an authoritarian aura. So, don’t expect these news gatekeepers to delve into any area that might empower their viewers to control some aspect of their vaccine experience, should they opt to succumb to pressure and get the Covid-19 jab.

In particular, don’t expect petulant Pamela or the CNN Covid doctors to bring to your awareness a credible hypothesis that post-vaccination myopericarditis could be a consequence of shoddy injection technique, in the Age of The Idiot, whereby a jab aimed at the  muscle hits a blood vessel.

Some old-timer, solid, primary care practitioners are warning that a tried-and-true injection technique, aspiration, well-within your control to demand, is being flouted:

A paper, “Intravenous Injection of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) mRNA Vaccine Can Induce Acute Myopericarditis in Mouse Model,” hypothesizes quite credibly that post-vaccination myopericarditis could be exacerbated because,

“… current CDC … and WHO guidelines … no longer recommend precautionary measures during intra-muscular vaccine administration. Brief aspiration for blood return during intramuscular injection of medication as a preventive measure against accidental IV injection.”

The reason the Idioicrats recommend against a life-saving, old, precautionary technique?

PAIN!!!! “The CDC Pink Book 2020 and WHO 2015 position paper have recommended against aspiration prior to vaccine injection so as to minimize pain”!!!

Aspiration: “An important part of injecting medicine is aspirating a needle prior to releasing the fluid. Doing this properly will protect you from unwanted side effects and infection.”

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.

Via “Intravenous Injection of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) mRNA Vaccine Can Induce Acute Myopericarditis in Mouse Model“:

Both Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna have clearly stated
that their vaccines should only be given via IM route [30, 31].
However, current CDC [6] and WHO guidelines [5] no longer
recommend precautionary measures during IM vaccine administration.
Brief aspiration for blood return during intramuscular
injection of medication as a preventive measure against accidental
IV injection was previously present in most guidelines
[32]. This practice becomes controversial as scientific evidence
of the perceived benefit of this procedure is lacking for IM injection
of vaccine. The CDC Pink Book 2020 [6] and WHO
2015 position paper [5] have recommended against aspiration
prior to vaccine injection so as to minimize pain [33]. The veins
and arteries within the reach of a syringe needle in the deltoid
region are considered too small to allow a rapid IV injection of
vaccine without blowing out the vessel [6]. However, this speculation
also lacks supportive scientific evidence. Another possibility
of getting a high blood mRNA vaccine level is the rapid
movement of the vaccine through the lymphatic system into
the venous circulation. Thus changing the vaccine injection site
from deltoid to the vastus lateralis muscle of lateral mid-thigh
may reduce the amount of vaccine lipid nanoparticles reaching
the venous circulation due to enhanced uptake by the dendritic
cells and macrophages at the regional inguinal, iliac and paraaortic
lymph nodes.

Our study indicates that IV injection of vaccines might partially contribute to this clinical phenotype, thus warranting a reconsideration of the practice of IM injection without aspiration, which carries the risk of inadvertent IV injection. Increasing the size of mRNA-vaccine lipid-nanoparticle or decreasing the vaccine dose in normal adolescents to reduce  risks of myopericarditis warrant further investigations.

MORE.

UPDATED I (10/5): Indian press is more open to inquiry than the American presstitutes. Reporters are asking questions:

Is faulty injection technique behind rare clot disorder reported post Covid vaccination?

UPDATE II (10/26/021):

UPDATE III (11/27/021):
Injection technique: The first South African injector does NOT aspirate the needle. The second is commendably careful and DOES aspirate. If you get jabbed, insist on aspiration, which ensures a jab aimed at muscle doesn’t hit a blood vessel.

NEW COLUMN: ‘Whip Or Rein’ Was Never The Question

Argument, Democrats, Hebrew Testament, Homeland Security, IMMIGRATION, Left-Liberalism And Progressivisim, Nationhood, Republicans

NEW COLUMN is “In Praise Of Whipping Horsemen: ‘Whip Or Rein’ Was Never The Question.” It’s now on WND.COM, The Unz Review, CNSNews.com,
The New American, and American Greatness.

Excerpt:

Let’s see: Heroic horsemen rode to the rescue at Del Rio, Texas, along the U.S.-Mexico border. Republicans could’ve whipped the open-border Democrat degenerates with a first-principles case for sovereignty and self-defense, the thing Border Patrol horsemen were exercising so instinctively. Instead, the Right chose to beat around the bush, sweating the redundant details:

“Was it a whip or a rein?”

Who cares, when our border-patrol heroes—the last of the He-Men—were doing the work of the Lord! And, what on earth is wrong with the whip, in this context?

Did not the Lord teach—in The Book of Proverbs, through his emissaries—that, “He who spares his rod hates his son”? I believe Proverbs has a broader and deeper meaning: Libertine formative figures who fail to teach the young and the lawless right from wrong hate both their disciples and the society upon which they unleash them.

Let’s rewind: The reference is, as CNN put it, to “recent images that appear to show U.S. Border Patrol agents on horseback confronting migrants along the Rio Grande.”

“Videos taken by Al Jazeera and Reuters … show law enforcement officers on horseback using aggressive tactics when confronting migrants, who [were] largely Haitian, to prevent them from crossing into the US.”

So far so good.

“The Biden administration expressed horror,” promising to proceed aggressively against the poor horseback officers, who work in near-impossible conditions, without institutional support and for meager wages.

How does the Right respond? Republicans responded with a weak refrain: “Was it a whip or a rein?” they bickered. The horse-riding Border Patrol agents were wielding a rein, not a whip, was the sum of our side’s “case” in defense of our guardian agents.

That’s the anatomy of a typical Republican retort. It’s also why Democrats are the perennial winners.

There is only one winning—and correct—answer, in the case of the whip versus the rein, and it is this:

If it was not a whip, it ought to have been one, and if our Guardian Angel of the border used a rein as whip—then hooray for him. The End….

… READ THE REST of  “In Praise Of Whipping Horsemen: ‘Whip Or Rein’ Was Never The Question” on WND.COM, The Unz Review, CNSNews.com,
The New American and American Greatness.

 

WATCH/LISTEN: HARD TRUTH Comes Out In Praise Of Whipping Horsemen

Homeland Security, IMMIGRATION, Left-Liberalism And Progressivisim, Nationhood, Race, Racism, Republicans

HARD TRUTH: David and ilana bring Hard Truth to the border, and come out “In Praise Of Whipping Horsemen: To Whip Or To Rein Is Not The Question.

Heroic horsemen rode to the rescue at Del Rio, Texas, along the US-Mexico border. Republicans could’ve whipped open-border degenerate Democrats with a principled case for sovereignty and self-defense, such as border-patrol horsemen were exercising. Instead, the Right chose to beat around the bush, sweating the redundant details: “Was it a whip or a rein?” Who cares, when our border-patrol heroes were doing the work of the Lord!

LISTEN TO AND DOWNLOADIn Praise Of Whipping Horsemen: To Whip Or To Rein Is Not The Question