By Tea Lynn Moore

Throughout the world, nearly every COVID-19 vaccine is being administered incorrectly.

Most vaccines, including the COVID-19 vaccines, are intramuscular (IM) jabs. Other vaccines may be subcutaneous, oral/nasal, or intradermal, but the intravenous (IV) route isn’t used at all in the vaccine world. The reason against the use of IV administration is simple: while intramuscular injection offers a slow release, in an IV injection, the dose would be toostrong over too-short of a period of time and may lead to vaccine distribution in distant tissues. This may cause rare and serious adverse effects, including autoimmune reactions against distant tissues. Unfortunately, when it comes to the COVID-19 vaccines, IV injections may not be that uncommon.

A peer-reviewed study recently published in the journal of Clinical Infectious Diseases titled “Intravenous injection of COVID-19 mRNA vaccine can induce acute myopericarditis in mouse model” found that intravenous (IV) injections of mRNA vaccines induced myopericarditis in mice (and IM injections did not). Myopericarditis is a serious, life-threatening condition where there is an inflammation of the middle and/or outer layers surrounding the heart. The mice that received the COVID shot intravenously also had extensively damaged liver cells.

This study helps us shed light on why Myopericarditis is appearing in people who have taken the jab, particularly in young people who exhibit stronger immune reactions and who have more turgid blood vessels. On June 23rd, 2021, the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) meeting found that the rate of heart inflammation is 256 times the expected rate for male teens aged 12-17. Another study, titled “SARS-CoV-2 mRNA Vaccination-Associated Myocarditis in Children ages 12-17: A Stratified National Analysis,” found the risk of boys aged 12-15 developing heart inflammation is up to 6.1 times higher than their risk of being hospitalized while testing positive for COVID (and, as 2 new studies published in the journal Hospital Pediatrics found, 40 – 45% of paediatric “COVID hospitalizations’’ counted children hospitalized for clear, unrelated causes, making the true risk of myocarditis closer to 9.6 times higher than being hospitalized with COVID for that group).

In another article that studied intravenous injection, titled “Thrombocytopenia and splenic platelet directed immune responses after intravenous ChAdOx1 nCov19 administration” thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome (TTS), also known as Vaccine-induced prothrombotic immune thrombocytopenia, was triggered by intravenous, not intramuscular, injection of the AstraZeneca vaccine. TTS is entirely an iatrogenic disease (man-made), so when TTS happens, we know it is caused by either a vaccine or a small list of other medications.

Similar studies have been performed with other vaccines, all showing similar results: IV injection of a vaccine is never healthy. These injuries are not unpreventable. It seems that if we were injecting the vaccines that same way we did 15+ years ago, many of these particular vaccine injuries could have been avoided.

There is a method of vaccine administration called “aspiration,” where the medical professional administering the injection pulls backward on the syringe. If nothing happens, all is good -you are likely in the muscle (I say “likely,” because, on a rare occasion, a nerve is hit). If the syringe fills with blood, then that means the needle has entered a blood vessel, and the syringe should be discarded and the needle should be changed.

Very rarely, as a complication of poor injection technique, the syringe will fill with a clear liquid, indicating the needle has entered the shoulder joint capsule. Continuing the injection when in the shoulder joint may result in a very painful group of shoulder disorders known as SIRVA (shoulder injury related to vaccine administration, including bursitis and frozen shoulder), a disorder comedian Jimmy Dore suffers from as a result of the flu shot, as discussed on his November 14, 2020 YouTube video.

Both Pfizer and Moderna have clearly stated that precautions should be performed to ensure that their vaccines are administered intramuscularly.

Aspiration of the needle was part of the vaccination technique used throughout the world for may decades, until a shift towards abandoning the technique began between 2004 to 2014, when the WHO, the CDC, Public Health Agency Canada, UK National Health Service, and other health agencies around the world stopped recommending this precautionary measure. Curiously enough, the World Health Organization actually specifies that you should NOT aspirate the needle. One of the primary reasons given is due to the widespread use of a new type of syringe called auto-disable (AD) syringes (syringes that destroy themselves after single use and cannot be used for a second time). In addition to costing 5 times more than the standard syringe, the uniquely patented designs of AD syringes have another disadvantage -they cannot aspirate. Abandoning aspiration also saves time for both the healthcare professional and the patient, who experiences pain during the injection. A “lack of data” (often code for: “let’s not fund studies on this because we do not want to see the results) was also commonly cited as a reason not to continue aspirating when administering a vaccine.

Nurse lecturer Dr. John Campbell, PhD, estimates that the frequency of inadvertent intravenous injection is about 1 in 3000 to 1 in 6000 (although his personal experience was 1 in 1000). With over 6.6 billion COVID19 vaccinations having already been administered worldwide, 1 in 3000 IV injections = 2.2 million vaccine injuries that could have easily been prevented. Since the rush of the pandemic has allowed for paramedics, veterinarians, physiotherapists, and other less experienced vaccine administrators to inject the vaccine, that number may even be much higher.

Since this information has come out, just one country that we know of has reintroduced aspiration during vaccination: Denmark. Why is North America (and much of the world) not “following the science”? We learn more and more about the jab every day, but nothing seems to change. We’ve learned that the risk the jab poses to young people is more significant than the risk of COVID itself, but we are still vaccinating teenagers and we are moving towards vaccinating young children soon. We’ve learned that natural immunity is far superior and lasts longer than vaccine immunity, but still those who have previously been infected are mandated to get the jab.

And now, we’ve learned that we are injecting the vaccines the wrong way! With no lingering negative side effects of this precautionary technique, why not aspirate? When you do a costs vs benefit analysis -aspiration essentially only has potential benefits. Shouldn’t we examine the science before we push this experimental vaccine into people’s veins at the penalty of losing one’s job?