I believe she has. Newer guidelines tend to say that newer syringes work differently than the old ones. Teaching the same thing for 30 years is good in subjects that don’t change much. Is technical procedures when technology changes a good subject to not change for 30 years?

 I believe she has. Newer guidelines tend to say that newer syringes work differently than the old ones.
Teaching the same thing for 30 years is good in subjects that don’t change much.
Is technical procedures when technology changes a good subject to not change for 30 years?
I’m not saying she’s wrong. I don’t know. I just know, according to the study I looked, it’s a controversy within those who do these things. Old school vs new school, old tech vs new tech, etc.
 I don’t know. I worked in the Pharmaceutical industry for a short time. They do their best to prevent big snafus and attempt to create instructions in the packages the doctors use that are in line with current technology and procedures.
What happens when it arrives to the doctors and nurses?
When it arrives to the medical instruction institutions? To youtube-making medical instructors?
When it hits the academics doing broad studies containing a multitude of other studies analyzed statistically?
Who knows.
When it hits the people, what’s the cause/effect? Are those who give injections poorly trained or well trained?
The needles designed to PREVENT aspiration, are they all wrong? Is the technology fatally flawed? Who knows. But I doubt it would be.
===
It just seems far more likely that one individual with strongly held opinions – strong enough to make a video and put their name on it for others to watch so that they take what they say into Facebook comments into debates with people who didn’t see the video — might be exaggerating a bit for affect.
I say that because: no checks and balances in that situation
It’s not that I believe in institutions > individuals. But I do believe that a lot of error gets caught that we never see when going through institutions vs individuals speaking directly from their own experience in a broadcast medium.
  • Like
  • My statement remains:
    I don’t know.
    All I have is assumptions and I’m presenting them transparently for honesty.
    ===
    To say that most vaccinations are being done incorrectly is an anti-vax statement.
    Maybe this particular person is not anti-vax, but anti-vaxxers have said that statement.
     If there was an institution between what I said (anti-vax and women) they could have caught my error and I would be more correct.
    But, like the youtuber, I spoke directly without a filter.
    ===
    We are more prone to believe an individual talking directly to us over what comes out of institutions. We tend to give equal weight to the opinion of an individual vs the opinion of an institution and then weigh the individual as more true because they have personal affect rather than the clinical affect of institutional writing / output
    • Like

     

     Well, all I know is:
    “the vaccine is being injected incorrectly in most cases because there is no aspiration”
    is a heck of a statement. Billions of injections given incorrectly should have some drastic results somewhere.
    ===
    It’s because I know a lot of female nurses in the USA that are anti-vax and I have heard a series of statements which included “they are all giving the vax wrong because of the needle design and WHO recommendations are wrong” is one of those statements out of many I have heard.
    • Like

     

    Unfortunately, real people are political, not logical. They are looking for points to show the process is flawed in some fashion and they grab ANYTHING that smells of “flaw” and use it to support their case.
    Their conclusions were already reached long ago; they are just looking for evidence to support it.
    • Like

    ===

     

    I’m not arguing against you about statistics.
    Justification for institutional policy varies but it can be anywhere from “tradition” to “it works” to “study shows” to “this is how I feel”
    Right now, I’m just surveying the existence of this controversy that I didn’t even know existed 20 minutes ago.
    It seems to vary from institution to institution (in this case, talking about insulin)
    ===
    The little you’ve told me forms a picture in my head: flim flam artist, brilliant in a few areas but believing he’s brilliant in all areas and justified in everything because of it including horrible opinions and actions
    ===

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


3 + eight =

Leave a Reply