Thanks for the citation as it explains why aspiration in the case of vaccines is rarely done and why those who do vaccine injections are no longer trained to aspirate to the point of them not knowing what aspiration is. From your citation: >If the drugs to be given have potentially fatal consequences in the event of systemic administration (as in the case of immunotherapy), all possible precautions must be taken. This is even more important in cases where the drug is being administered electively by specialist staff. On the other hand, if there are no serious known sequelae to a drug being injected systemically – as in the case of vaccines – an argument can be made not to aspirate, especially since a huge number of immunizations are performed globally by vaccinators and health workers. What they're saying is that whether to aspirate or not depends on the consequences of systemic (ie bloodstream) administration. According to them, traditional vaccines don't pose a risk even if injected into the bloodstream. The mRNA 'vaccines' are not vaccines in the traditional sense. We don't know the effects of a bloodstream injection because it has not been studied. And we know why it has not been studied--everone involved has a blanket legal immunity. The spike protein causes myocarditis and issues in other organs. This was the point I was making in my initial comment. Given the small downsides to aspiration (potentially more painful injection, some AD needles not being designed for aspiration, potentially wasting doses of the drug) and large potential downsides, we should be aspirating prior to injection for covid vaccines until we know, that is, until we have data, that it's safe to not aspirate.