The mother of all vaccine injury explanations
Marc Girardot's "bolus theory" provides a simple yet compelling explanation for the incidence and variety of harms generated by the COVID-19 mRNA shots
A few weeks ago, I asked my dentist whether she uses aspiration when giving a local anesthesia. Her answer: “Yes, of course!” She explained that the technique is essential in order to avoid injecting the anesthetic into a blood vessel from where it could create serious harm. In fact, she uses a “self-aspirating” needle and goes in so slowly, with pauses, that blood from an accidentally hit vessel would immediately appear in the syringe and she could adjust her position.
Why did I ask that question and why am I writing about it here? Because I had just read Marc Girardot’s Sept 11 post “When and How Can Vaccine Particles Hurt You? - A Visualisation Exercise”, in which he explains the “bolus theory” of vaccine adverse events. A bolus is a concentrated dose of a medication that travels through the human cardio-vascular or lymphatic system. This fast delivery of a drug can be intended and achieved using an intravenous injection. In the remainder of this post, I will summarize Girardot’s theory, which hypothesizes an unintended bolus formation with the COVID-19 vaccines and its devastating consequences.
The COVID shots are given by intramuscular injection. Animal testing has shown that the lipid nanoparticles (LNPs) containing mRNA are rapidly distributed throughout the (animal’s) body. However, early fact checks insisted that the substance remains in the deltoid muscle in the upper arm and they falsely dispelled concerns about the biodistribution of the mRNA. For example, a Reuters piece from 15 June 2021 focuses on the toxicity of the spike protein and cites experts as follows:
Research shows that spike proteins … remain stuck to the cell surface around the injection site and do not travel to other parts of the body via the bloodstream, they added. The 1% of the vaccine that does reach the bloodstream is destroyed by liver enzymes.
Note how the first sentence refers to the spike protein while the second speaks about “the vaccine”. In terms of the spike protein, the LNPs facilitate the introduction of genetic material into healthy body cells (“transfection”) wherever the injected substance travels. When those cells then produce the spike protein based on instructions from the mRNA, the body’s immune system destroys these cells along with the protein. In the second sentence about the vaccine more generally, even this fact check admits that there is some distribution through the cardio-vascular system.
My understanding is that this distribution will normally happen through slow seeping from the muscle at the injection site into small blood vessels or lymph channels. The body may, or may not, be able to cope with such slow exposure. However, the bolus theory stipulates that excessive amounts of LNPs, and thus mRNA, travel to various organs due to the locus and/or speed of injection.
According to Girardot, accidental intravenous injection occurs in 2%, 4%, and up to 11% of injections in different scenarios. I was reminded of a recorded presentation by Germany’s Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg from 13 September 2021. He was invited to provide a risk assessment of the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines. At time stamp 21:15 in the video, Wodarg refers to the leaked Japanese biodistribution data for the Pfizer/BioNTech product that showed accumulation of mRNA across the bodies of lab mice, in particular in their ovaries. Wodarg then reminds the audience that doctors and nurses used to be taught to aspirate before proceeding with an intra-muscular injection. He discusses the greater amount of blood vessels in the muscles of young men, who are known to be much more prone to myo- and pericarditis as a vaccine adverse event than women and older age groups. Wodarg then reports from the literature a likelihood of 5% to 10% of hitting a vein with a needle in a muscle that is well supplied with blood.
While the Reuters fact check outright disputes the relevance of the biodistribution data, another fact check from Health Feedback admits right in the title that “Incorrect vaccine administration is a potential cause of post-vaccine adverse effects”. They assessed claims that the mRNA shots are being administered incorrectly as misleading. These claims were based on a study which, according to the Health Feedback fact check, “examined what could go wrong if mice were injected with an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine intravenously.” Thus, the fact check conveniently picked a claim based on an interpretation of the study results with respect to the administration of the same genetic product in humans. By dispelling this interpretation, they divert attention from the concerning study results themselves.
Whether in a handful of lab rats or billions of human guinea pigs, transfection is the mechanism through which the mRNA shots were meant to train the natural immune system to recognize SARS-CoV-2. However, Girardot explains that the high number and high concentration of injected particles in a bolus can lead to massive damage to the body area or system that is being exposed in such a way. The bolus will in particular affect the interior walls of blood vessels — the smaller the vessel the greater the risk of impact. A quick online search shows that the blood contained in a human body fully circulates more than once per minute. The heart as the engine of this system “sees” all blood and will therefore also be highly susceptible to outsized mRNA transfection as indicated by the widely acknowledged myocarditis adverse event.
Girardot had already written about his theory on Feb 11 and then June 22. In “What happens to those billions of NanoParticles you've become host to?”, he focuses on the “vaccine safety myth” and the mechanisms of harm throughout the body. In “Who in their right mind would play Russian Roulette with a critical organ?”, he discusses the (largely different) quantities of transfecting particles in the different manufacturers’ products and argues for slow injection in order to greatly reduce the risk of a bolus forming. I have to say that I have been surprised by the very fast processing of the vaccinee in many of the virtue-signalling video updates from VIPs and others receiving “their” shot on social media.
Obviously, aspiration would be the other critically important procedural change to increase COVID-19 vaccine safety. Why would such a simple, well-established step not be used? Health Feedback cites an expert stating “as the flashback of blood hardly ever happens, the practice was abandoned by many practitioners”. Hypothetically, I wonder whether say a 1:20 incidence rate would count as “hardly ever” to these practitioners and what to make of an associated risk of 5% of COVID-19 vaccinations worldwide resulting in a serious adverse event?
The Public Health Agency of Canada’s immunization guide recommends against aspiration to reduce pain. While the 54 chapters of the guide discuss all immunizations including those of adults for traveling, the Pan American Health Organization’s immunization newsletter (page 6) turns this into aspiration “making vaccination more painful for babies.” They also spell out what might be the real underlying reason for skipping aspiration during the global COVID-19 vaccine rollout: “Aspiration can result in vaccine wastage.” Looks like we’d rather waste people’s health than the pharma industry’s holy water.
I am late in discovering that nurse practitioner and wildly popular COVID-19 critic Dr. John Campbell attempted to raise the issue of aspiration in videos posted in early 2022 such as “Please send to politicians” on the occasion of a change in the German immunization guide for COVID-19 to include aspiration. Denmark had moved in this direction earlier, but most other countries don’t seem to have followed. A Saskatchewan Health Authority news release from 1 December 2021 steadfastly explains “Why we don’t aspirate when we vaccinate” and has not been updated nor is other pertinent information on aspiration for COVID-19 vaccines to be found on that provincial agency’s web site.
While serious adverse events following immunization are currently estimated in the 1:1,000 to 1:10,000 area, I would not be surprised if these estimates soon had to be revised closer to the single-percent range, right where the risk of intravascular injection lurks and the bolus theory explains the resulting vaccine injuries in various body parts.