Dr John Campbell and blood clots

There's a difference between advocating something we can do for ourselves and undermining a government decision while setting yourself up as an authority on the subject.

I'm not saying we ignore him completely, we should just be aware that he's not in a unique position of special knowledge in all of this.

If you have earned a doctorate you have every right to use it, especially if it is relevant to what you do. I think your implications are distasteful Alegrais.

There has been much inconclusive discussion on the subject but this is the most up to date medical paper I could find. It has been peer-reviewed and all sources seem properly referenced. This paragraph seemed most relevant to our conversation. It was published in 2017 so you may be able to find papers that supersede this one.

Aspiration prior to injection of medication through the IM route remains a part of most guidelines 4, 35, 38– 40. Nursing curricula and guidelines 4, 38, 39 clearly recommend aspiration as an essential step in IM injection technique. Guidelines originating in the UK recommend aspiration prior to IM injection of medications 35, as well as specifically as part of the Z-track technique of administering IM injections. Training curricula for community health workers in Nigeria recommend aspiration prior to IM, SC and intradermal [ID] injections 40.

This seems to be where we were before the Covid 19 vaccines. I can find nowhere that says this has changed. There may be reasons for the change in this instance; speed is probably one. However, this means the current vaccines are being given against previous directives.

We are where we are but it is the possibility of the blood clots that make the vaccination for younger people and children more questionable. No one is saying anything other than that this should be looked into and we should know why they are not moving to aspiration for these groups.

I've never said he's not entitled to use it. Of course he is. I always refer to him always as Dr Campbell because that's his name. I also know that his specialism is Nurse Education, though many others seem to disregard that.

My specialism isn't methods of vaccination so I won't be discussing aspiration.

Won’t children have less muscle as well?

Trials are starting now for an oral vaccine dose that would offer a much better option for children PippaZ. Aspiration is painful, and that will put many children and their parents off. I say this advisedly, my 91 year old father initially refused to have a covid vaccine, and has never had a flu vaccine, because of his childhood memories of big and painful needles when he was a child - my sister had to go with him to the Covid vaccination centre.

That is good to hear Casdon.

The needles and systems such as the one to take phials of blood (often seems to be enough to keep your local vampire going for quite a while I feel) seem to have greatly improved since my childhood and I am nowhere near your father's age. With a good operator, you hardly feel them.

I think the problem is because the vaccination programme has been rolled out so quickly there weren’t enough really experienced people to do the vaccinating.

The perils of reading a paper when its not in your area of expertise....this extract is from the very same paper you quoted PippaZ. I'll be leaving it to the professionals.

A different approach to this issue was taken by Ipp et al. 2 through a survey where the actual practice of end users was evaluated. This survey established that 74% of respondents aspirated prior to IM vaccine administration. However, of these only 3% aspirated for the recommended 5–10 seconds; the remaining applied negative pressure for <5 seconds. The same group went on to conduct a randomized controlled trial in which they compared two injection techniques: the standard approach, which included aspiration for 5–10 seconds, and the pragmatic approach, which excluded aspiration entirely. They concluded that IM vaccinations using the pragmatic approach were less painful and there were no benefits to following the standard approach.

So it was less painful. But does that prove that aspirating the needle would definitely not prevent blood clots in a small amount of cases if the aspiration is done properly?

They concluded that IM vaccinations using the pragmatic approach were less painful and there were no benefits to following the standard approach.

Like I said above, this is not my area of expertise but several posters above who do have experience have posted knowledgeably. Let's just get on with it.

I suppose, Alegrias1 we can all agree that the paper should really say there are no known benefits.

I'm not bothered about some pain to be honest.

Should pragmatism be used as an excuse when something could be life threatening?

I suppose we can all agree that this is one paper that doesn't seem to come down on one side or tbe other, and that the WHO, CDC etc are probably looking at a wider range of sources, being as how they are professionals and all.

Why do you think they're don't recommend aspirating in general, not just for Covid vaccines? Just to annoy Dr Campbell?