This explanation will really help with my nursing friend who has never seen any red upon aspiration after thousands of injections over the years. Thanks.
Thanks Marc. Doctors use ultrasound imaging to guide a needle for say steroid injections. There could be imaging technology to show what happens, in reality, when a needle is injected for vaccination. There would be your physics argument corroborated by imaging.
A trial to confirm the physics might be quite doable. Inject in the deltoid a saline plus tracer that a CT scan picks up , and then take perhaps 3 subsequent scans at intervals. Controls get saline only of course. Presumably even a bolus of tracer would not be transfecting or too cytotoxic ? How many subjects needed ? maybe n=200 or so ? Some simpler studies have recently been crowd funded as citizen science. Eg. this one https://citizensciencefoundation.org We think it would never have received conventional funding because there is no pharma money to be made, and because it contests the reigning paradigm (sound familiar)?
I already found studies with steroids whereby they found with aspiraton 2% going IV. They prove it via coughing, but a bunch idn't even detectable by our lungs.
The problem is detectability, how can you detect 0.1% going places, it's a tiny group of particles active one cycle,
I am not a big fan of CTs. They are for those who don't know what they are doing. The science of fluid dynamics and pressure differential is very clear. This is happening
Well, I was getting pretty closer to this before, but I think now you've nailed it :
Third Chimp
Another-one-bites-the-dust/comments Dec 15, 2022
I'm not understanding why a perfect IM injection doesn't still just rupture the capillaries and cells in the immediate needle tip area and wash into venules almost instantly. Needles might be 150 micron dia or bigger and even a few ml of fluid is huge. Using your city analogy - dumping a cubic kilometer of water onto 4 houses - what happens?
I've been thinking about the pathway of harm of vaccines for over 15 years...since I realized my now 18 year old son had been hit by vaccine injury (relatively mild compared to some).
It seems clear that there are multiple ways they can cause systemic inflammatory reactions, but your bolus theory really pulls it all together. Brett Weinstein actually referenced it in his recent interview with Tucker Carlson.
I think an important piece of the puzzle came around 2006-2008 when they first started using nanoparticle technology in vaccines. The needle opening vascularity within the muscle on the way in had been happening for a hundred years, but the introduction of nanoparticles allowed things to get into the bloodstream at a dramatically higher rate. Larger particles meant that maybe an arteriole had to be opened for higher order harms to occur, but nanoparticles mean that there can be significant harm even if only capillaries are damaged.
I've read some of the back and forth about aluminum and Dr Christopher Exley, and I think both can be true. The aluminum adjuvants were the primary thing nanoparticle tech changed. The bolus can obviously deliver other harms to the system, but a bolus full of aluminum salt nanoparticles draws a very clean line to why vaccine harms in children accelerated so tremendously after 2008. Blood cancers like leukemia, neurological harms, and inflammation autoimmune disorders are all things that would make sense if the blood exposure of aluminum was increased. First by the tremendous increase in total doses starting in 1989, second by the big increase in aluminum adjuvants in the early 2000s (following the removal of mercury thanks to the Wakefield controversy), and third the switch to nanoparticles in many vaccines starting around 2008.
I don't fully understand the disagreement, but it seems fairly obvious that Exley's work on aluminum works hand in hand with the bolus theory...it just needs to be recognized that the bolus can deliver more harm beyond just the actions of aluminum.
Side note: does anyone know if we have ever gotten the full formula or what exactly is in the covid vaccine lipid nanoparticles? In 2020 I read that incorporating aluminum inside the LNP to stimulate the immune response was a possibility, but have never seen the final word on it.
The thing is all vaccines are toxic (attenuated virus vaccine also), but at a manageable dose by the body when it infuses via the lymphatic system.
That is also true for Aluminium. I did the calculation, only via a bolus can it bypass the neutralisation of albumine.
Aluminium as a adjuvant has a very small window by saturation where it could be toxic. But I don't think that's the core of the matter.
Concentrated immune mediated endothelial damage is the key mechanism of harm (T-cell attacking cells penetrated by a attenuated virus, or a virus-line particle,...).
A bolus bypasses our natural protections against poison by delivering a very high concentration dose of poison in a small sensitive area.
What do you make of the Danish study that looked at the African girls given dtap had a significantly higher all cause mortality over 10 years, but those given an attenuated vaccine didn't show this pattern. Obviously attenuated have their own dangers (mmr causing brain inflammation due to virus re-activation), but that real world example would seem to point to the adjuvants getting into the bolus make it generally more dangerous to the system. It would seem to make sense that adding a carcinogenic neurotoxin to the bolus would make it more efficient at causing the damage we are seeing 🤔
(1) I don't trust any of these studies (they always find excuses for their mistakes (ADE, virus reactivation,...). I have zero sympathy for these frauds.
(2) As you are stating all the vaccines seem to harm when in Bolus, but are some dosed better, were some expired (and so less dangerous) and couldn't transfect, was there a third factor...? Too many confounders.
This kind of long term real world experiment is one of a kind and offers some interesting data points. The fact that the kids who only got dtp had higher mortality than those who got dtp + opv might suggest that activating the innate immune system via opv blunts the effects of the injected vaccine. No bolus from the orally administered version...no attenuated test here., so my original thought about attenuated vs dead adjuvanted vaccines doesn't apply. The completely unvaxxed kids did the best over time, of course. RFK Jr has referenced this study often.
This explanation will really help with my nursing friend who has never seen any red upon aspiration after thousands of injections over the years. Thanks.
There are many nurses testifying to blood with aspiration.
But still, it's likely 1 in 1000 shots going IV.
Thanks Marc. Doctors use ultrasound imaging to guide a needle for say steroid injections. There could be imaging technology to show what happens, in reality, when a needle is injected for vaccination. There would be your physics argument corroborated by imaging.
We are talking small vessels and partial dose here. Not sure.
I don't think there's a need to prove anything. Laws of physics are pretty clear. The random path of the needle makes the difference.
A trial to confirm the physics might be quite doable. Inject in the deltoid a saline plus tracer that a CT scan picks up , and then take perhaps 3 subsequent scans at intervals. Controls get saline only of course. Presumably even a bolus of tracer would not be transfecting or too cytotoxic ? How many subjects needed ? maybe n=200 or so ? Some simpler studies have recently been crowd funded as citizen science. Eg. this one https://citizensciencefoundation.org We think it would never have received conventional funding because there is no pharma money to be made, and because it contests the reigning paradigm (sound familiar)?
I have thought about it.
I already found studies with steroids whereby they found with aspiraton 2% going IV. They prove it via coughing, but a bunch idn't even detectable by our lungs.
The problem is detectability, how can you detect 0.1% going places, it's a tiny group of particles active one cycle,
I am not a big fan of CTs. They are for those who don't know what they are doing. The science of fluid dynamics and pressure differential is very clear. This is happening
Actually, controls aren't needed. Sorry.
Nothing to be sorry about.
Any proposal coming from a good place is welcome.
May be for perception it could help.
But the science is irrefutable.
Thanks for your active contribution. I appreciate it sincerely
Well, I was getting pretty closer to this before, but I think now you've nailed it :
Third Chimp
Another-one-bites-the-dust/comments Dec 15, 2022
I'm not understanding why a perfect IM injection doesn't still just rupture the capillaries and cells in the immediate needle tip area and wash into venules almost instantly. Needles might be 150 micron dia or bigger and even a few ml of fluid is huge. Using your city analogy - dumping a cubic kilometer of water onto 4 houses - what happens?
Yes. Thanks
The bruise that develops around the injection site is a clear indication that blood vessels have been cut/ damaged/ruptured. That’s what a bruise is.
Yes, and it can also be immune attacks.
I've been thinking about the pathway of harm of vaccines for over 15 years...since I realized my now 18 year old son had been hit by vaccine injury (relatively mild compared to some).
It seems clear that there are multiple ways they can cause systemic inflammatory reactions, but your bolus theory really pulls it all together. Brett Weinstein actually referenced it in his recent interview with Tucker Carlson.
I think an important piece of the puzzle came around 2006-2008 when they first started using nanoparticle technology in vaccines. The needle opening vascularity within the muscle on the way in had been happening for a hundred years, but the introduction of nanoparticles allowed things to get into the bloodstream at a dramatically higher rate. Larger particles meant that maybe an arteriole had to be opened for higher order harms to occur, but nanoparticles mean that there can be significant harm even if only capillaries are damaged.
I've read some of the back and forth about aluminum and Dr Christopher Exley, and I think both can be true. The aluminum adjuvants were the primary thing nanoparticle tech changed. The bolus can obviously deliver other harms to the system, but a bolus full of aluminum salt nanoparticles draws a very clean line to why vaccine harms in children accelerated so tremendously after 2008. Blood cancers like leukemia, neurological harms, and inflammation autoimmune disorders are all things that would make sense if the blood exposure of aluminum was increased. First by the tremendous increase in total doses starting in 1989, second by the big increase in aluminum adjuvants in the early 2000s (following the removal of mercury thanks to the Wakefield controversy), and third the switch to nanoparticles in many vaccines starting around 2008.
I don't fully understand the disagreement, but it seems fairly obvious that Exley's work on aluminum works hand in hand with the bolus theory...it just needs to be recognized that the bolus can deliver more harm beyond just the actions of aluminum.
Side note: does anyone know if we have ever gotten the full formula or what exactly is in the covid vaccine lipid nanoparticles? In 2020 I read that incorporating aluminum inside the LNP to stimulate the immune response was a possibility, but have never seen the final word on it.
The thing is all vaccines are toxic (attenuated virus vaccine also), but at a manageable dose by the body when it infuses via the lymphatic system.
That is also true for Aluminium. I did the calculation, only via a bolus can it bypass the neutralisation of albumine.
Aluminium as a adjuvant has a very small window by saturation where it could be toxic. But I don't think that's the core of the matter.
Concentrated immune mediated endothelial damage is the key mechanism of harm (T-cell attacking cells penetrated by a attenuated virus, or a virus-line particle,...).
A bolus bypasses our natural protections against poison by delivering a very high concentration dose of poison in a small sensitive area.
What do you make of the Danish study that looked at the African girls given dtap had a significantly higher all cause mortality over 10 years, but those given an attenuated vaccine didn't show this pattern. Obviously attenuated have their own dangers (mmr causing brain inflammation due to virus re-activation), but that real world example would seem to point to the adjuvants getting into the bolus make it generally more dangerous to the system. It would seem to make sense that adding a carcinogenic neurotoxin to the bolus would make it more efficient at causing the damage we are seeing 🤔
It's hard to provide any insight because:
(1) I don't trust any of these studies (they always find excuses for their mistakes (ADE, virus reactivation,...). I have zero sympathy for these frauds.
(2) As you are stating all the vaccines seem to harm when in Bolus, but are some dosed better, were some expired (and so less dangerous) and couldn't transfect, was there a third factor...? Too many confounders.
...
Here's the study:
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/ebiom/article/PIIS2352-3964(17)30046-4/fulltext
Here's an Epoch Times review of the results.
https://www.theepochtimes.com/health/vaccines-can-impact-long-term-survival-from-other-diseases-study-5559895?utm_source=Goodevening&src_src=Goodevening&utm_campaign=gv-2024-01-08&src_cmp=gv-2024-01-08&utm_medium=email&est=0xPJN0%2BSM7fjXo9Op24ZldZT%2B63QW6sOsXl5lEMFB%2BcxNHIQhIl8S8IDKQz7VNqMzU3wbg%3D%3D
This kind of long term real world experiment is one of a kind and offers some interesting data points. The fact that the kids who only got dtp had higher mortality than those who got dtp + opv might suggest that activating the innate immune system via opv blunts the effects of the injected vaccine. No bolus from the orally administered version...no attenuated test here., so my original thought about attenuated vs dead adjuvanted vaccines doesn't apply. The completely unvaxxed kids did the best over time, of course. RFK Jr has referenced this study often.