Whoever promoted the nonsensical concept that an intramuscular injection would stay at the site of injection knows nothing about anatomy, physiology, or pharmacology! It was always a patently absurd claim. It is completely unnecessary for the "no aspiration before injection" thing to be in play; any substance injected into a muscle is go…
Whoever promoted the nonsensical concept that an intramuscular injection would stay at the site of injection knows nothing about anatomy, physiology, or pharmacology! It was always a patently absurd claim. It is completely unnecessary for the "no aspiration before injection" thing to be in play; any substance injected into a muscle is going to be absorbed into the systemic circulation, whether or not the person injecting it draws back on the plunger (to check for intravascular needle placement) before injecting. The whole purpose of IM injection is to get the drug into the systemic circulation. I just couldn't fathom how trained medical professionals could have fallen for - and promoted - that nonsense. What fools they took us to be!
Whoever promoted the nonsensical concept that an intramuscular injection would stay at the site of injection knows nothing about anatomy, physiology, or pharmacology! It was always a patently absurd claim. It is completely unnecessary for the "no aspiration before injection" thing to be in play; any substance injected into a muscle is going to be absorbed into the systemic circulation, whether or not the person injecting it draws back on the plunger (to check for intravascular needle placement) before injecting. The whole purpose of IM injection is to get the drug into the systemic circulation. I just couldn't fathom how trained medical professionals could have fallen for - and promoted - that nonsense. What fools they took us to be!