Covid-19 vaccination and temporary increase in menstrual cycle length
nih.gov
nih.gov
My wife experienced this and had a "friend" so convinced she was an anti vaxxer for it that they are no longer friends.
4 extra days (on average) is a huge side effect that wasn't allowed to be talked about.
Either way, taking the lead from many actual medical professionals, I took the policy of not engaging in discussions on the topic.
The problem with the Anti Covid Vax crowd is the pushing of these vaccines from the government will increase vaccine hesitancy for actually deadly diseases. This will be the most devastating thing to happen from the pandemic, not the 6+ million deaths unfortunately.
Boosters are a different story altogether. Even though the numbers are showing that people are still dying of Covid, it really doesn’t feel very risky anymore, almost everyone I know got infected this year but nobody had to go to the hospital and nobody died. In fact for most people it seems like its a bad cold and there are tons of treatments available now.
It makes the incentive to get a booster low, and totally kills the motivation to wear masks or do other mitigations.
How large is this crowd? Seems like a useful distraction for certain types of people to discredit an adjacent crowd with grounded concerns...
The problem the medical profession has, is that most of them actually recommended the vaccine, even to people who were mostly not in danger from Covid infection.
However, I don't believe they will have the courage (from a personal, but mostly legal standpoint) to face the consequences of admitting the side effects publicly.
From a quick google, such side effects have been widely reported since early last year, what exactly is "not being admitted"?
There was never a "consult your doctor" or anything.
Any defense of how the media handled the vaccine is an example of malice through wilful ignorance.
You know it is bad when people have to sign comments with "-fully vaxxed btw"
Not remembering is to be expected, especially during the phases where there was a few new things about COVID every week (and people quite reasonably were kind of overwhelmed with news - keeping up with everything COVID was hard if you even tried). But that doesn't mean it wasn't reported or that information isn't available if you want to look it up.
And that's not even touching the topic of people just don't liking what was reported, which you'll also find across the entire spectrum. And everyone of course wants their current pet cause to be the thing dominating all the headlines.
Basically, admitting the public recommendation of getting a shot wasn't adequate to a certain public, do a grown up post-mortem of that recommendation, and compensate the victims.
Since effective means: you need this again every 3 months, and it won’t affect whether you contract or receive the illness, one can wonder objectively what it means to be safe.
Well who in the absolute fuck is going to the doctor to report “everything is fine, no change here”?
>After vaccination, cycle length had increased by only .02 days for individuals who received one dose per cycle, and .85 days for individuals who received two doses in one cycle, compared to participants who were not vaccinated.
I don't know how this conclusion has any weight, given the tiny time-scales of the data analysed. Was this data picked from the same period of time across all participants? Otherwise, you could just pick any 4 weeks from each participant and weight the result any way you wanted.
> Researchers analyzed de-identified data from the fertility tracking app, Natural Cycles. Users of the app provided it information on their temperature and their menstrual cycles. They also had the option to consent to the use of their de-identified data for research.
Isn't this inherently vulnerable to create a self-selection bias?
> Of the total, 1,342 participants experienced a change in cycle length of eight or more days, comprising 6.2% of vaccinated individuals and 5.0% of unvaccinated individuals.
Doesn't this hint at some other factor at play? Looking at this, my assumption would be that exposure to the virus either though a vaccine or through infection is a likely culprit for these changes.
My girlfriend has quite a few female friends who reported massive cycle disruptions after their vaccinations - not a day or two but where it disappeared for months on end, or where bleeding became uncontrollably frequent. It's the main reason she opted not to take it (+their general ineffectiveness). These symptoms appeared after vaccination exclusively. At no point did anyone report this happening after COVID even though plenty of them had had it, which given their age range is expected, because COVID was already very mild in that age group.
It's also worth recalling that the very existence of this phenomenon disproves specific claims about the vaccines that were supposedly beyond question (that they stayed at the injection site). The CDC later silently deleted this claim from their website because it became untenable. Clearly, the people who you claim were "lying by omission" were in reality trying to flag that the authorities didn't understand their own experimental tech. Just like with so many other topics.
I also wouldn't argue that it does NOT cause any disruption. If one of those fragments cause menstrual disruption, it's a bit of a stretch to assume that the rest of the virus undoes whatever the fragment does. Not something I'd want to argue and not something one should silently imply.
1. The spike protein it creates is structurally slightly different; they edited its structure to stop it collapsing in the absence of the rest of the virus.
2. The mRNA that codes for the spike is 'optimized' in ways nature either can't or won't do. In theory the optimized versions and viral versions are equivalent except for potency.
3. The mRNA is obfuscated to hide it from the immune system, which would otherwise immediately destroy it as being too dangerous to allow. This involves pseudouridine substitutions. It's a part of what makes the tech experimental.
4. The mRNA is protected by "lipid nanoparticles". This tech is totally different to what the virus does, and has caused unexpected toxicity problems in the past. In fact it's why mRNA based drugs never launched and why the COVID vaccines were the first outing for the tech despite it being under development for many years. They thought the toxicity wouldn't matter because the nanoparticles only become problematic on repeat dosings which, as everyone knows, vaccines don't require (doh).
5. The vaccine enters the body via a very different pathway, one which is far more likely to result in accidental injection straight into the bloodstream. For normal viral replication it often gets stuck in the nose, mouth, throat or lungs and can't reach e.g. the heart or the reproductive organs.
A 4 day late period could for some women suggest an unwanted pregnancy, and in a jurisdiction without access to reproductive services that could be a massive stress event.
> "vaccine has bad effect x" implying that covid doesn't.
This is crazy! First off, everything and the kitchen sink is associated with COVID via Long COVID. Literally, 200+ counting symptoms can so be said to be "caused" by COVID. So according to your principle the COVID vaccines has card blanche to cause massive damage! Vaccines have a good reputation because they used to be the safest medical products available on the market. Their safety profile must be impeccable because we give them to healthy people, even children and doubly so for COVID vaccines that have been mandated by law. The cost/benefit ratio must similarly be overwhelmingly good and that means that a vaccine must protected from disease risks that are magnitudes greater than the risk from the vaccine. Now here you are basically saying "it's okay, COVID does it too". No it isn't. It's a completely different moral question if you get a condition from a naturally spreading virus vs if you get it from a medically product, especially if you were coerced to get it.
I think there's more to dig up on this subject and it will reflect poorly on the FDA when it comes out.
I'm old enough to remember how the only words you can repeat in public, often in private, and certainly online are "you must get the vaccine, it is safe, it is effective." I'm glad to see this trend shifting.
The original strain was a different beast (I saw several severe cases at the hospital early on) and did not spread particularly far. All the vaccines are based on it, even the new ones retain it.
It would be interesting to see a list of common symptoms related to menstrual cycles in original covid patients vs whatever the current/previous strain show.