"Fact Checkers" have denounced as "misleading" a claim recently aired by Jimmy Dore (self-styled 'jag-off comedian in a garage' somewhere in the US, and usually on the right side of history). Dore was presenting a warning given by John Campbell (seasoned British nurse practitioner whose YouTube channel has been a source of careful comment on all things Covid for his million plus subscribers since the start of the outbreak). The warning is based on peer-reviewed research showing that 'inadvertent intravenous injection of COVID-19 mRNA vaccines may induce myopericarditis'.
The concern is that because Covid injections must be intra-muscular, not intra-venous, an injection inadvertently going into a blood vessel risks causing blood clots and potentially serious heart problems. It may be relatively rare that a needle tip hits a vein, but it happens.
The good news is that this risk is easily avoided by a simple expedient: after inserting the needle but before injecting, withdraw the plunger enough to check no blood is coming up – it's called aspirating before injecting.
That simple precaution seems like common sense, and you'd think it would be standard practice. But you'd be wrong.
The simple precaution is NOT currently recommended by the CDC, the WHO or the UK's Green Book on vaccinations.
So why have the "Fact Checkers" been brought in? Would that recommendation be a mistake? They don't say that. So what is their objective? Is it anything other than to defend what Campbell goes so far as to call negligence on behalf of those governing organisations?
If any reader wants to read the "Fact Check", it is here. To me, it looks like an egregious affront to the public interest in its nitpicking about Jimmy Dore's presentation – he's a comedian, ffs! – instead of honestly affirming the fact that is at the centre of concern. The "Fact Checkers" appear to be concerned to gloss over the current inadequacy of CDC and WHO recommended practice rather than accept the need, which scientific findings suggest there is, for its review.
They do not even address the simple professional and ethical recommendation that John Campbell sets forth. The usually quiet, measured peruser of detailed data himself appears incandescent at the gross lack of professionalism and basic ethical standards of our public health custodians not recommending such a simple precaution.
I now consider it to be completely unethical that our governing bodies do not advise all of our vaccinators to take precautions against inadvertent intravascular, intravenous administration.
Of course, it would be fair to check whether the matter is as simple as presented. But what the "fact checkers" have sought to do is shut down the debate. Their "fact check" dwells on the need for further research which would discover more about the role played by intravenous injection compared to other factors in causing the observed adverse reactions. Nobody disputes that.
What the "fact checkers" irresponsibly ignore is the compelling case for health organisations to take a precautionary approach and recommend an appropriate standard of practice.
