Unexpected vaginal bleeding and Covid-19 vaccination in nonmenstruating women | Hacker News Reader

Unexpected vaginal bleeding and Covid-19 vaccination in nonmenstruating women

science.org

10 pointsbelter20 comments

Open articleView on HN

Couple other links from previous news:

"COVID-19 vaccine recipients report changes in menstrual bleeding"

https://medicalxpress.com/news/2022-07-survey-covid-vaccine-...

"Covid-19 Vaccines Linked to Menstrual Cycle Changes"

https://www.wsj.com/articles/covid-19-vaccines-linked-to-men...

Here are just a couple of discussions related to COVID and menstruation:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32130393 Trends in menstrual bleeding changes after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33005380 Covid-19 vaccination and temporary increase in menstrual cycle length

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32112836 Menstrual changes after Covid vaccines far more common than previously known

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30257691 Covid-19 Vaccines Linked to Menstrual Cycle Changes

And why is a link to a paper from a peer reviewed, apparently well respected journal... flagged?

Why is it flagged? Because HN loves to tout it's intellectual superiority over "Redittors" but can't handle a well researched, peer reviewed, Norwegian research paper...

"...The Norwegian Institute of Public Health followed several cohorts throughout the pandemic and early performed a systematic data collection of self-reported unexpected vaginal bleeding in nonmenstruating women. Among 7725 postmenopausal women, 7148 perimenopausal women, and 7052 premenopausal women, 3.3, 14.1, and 13.1% experienced unexpected vaginal bleeding during a period of 8 to 9 months, respectively. In postmenopausal women, the risk of unexpected vaginal bleeding (i.e., postmenopausal bleeding) in the 4 weeks after COVID-19 vaccination was increased two- to threefold, compared to a prevaccination period. The corresponding risk of unexpected vaginal bleeding after vaccination was increased three- to fivefold in both nonmenstruating peri- and premenopausal women..."

I don't know why this is flagged. I thought it was fairly well established that covid does something to the blood.

Good that people are still researching it and trying to improve our understanding, but not exactly earth shattering news here.

When drug adverts list their possible side effects, why don't the Covid vax adverts mention this? Is it because those promote a free vax? So it's considered a PSA?

Regardless of regulatory requirements, what kind of PSA would fail to mention such a thing? Why the lack of transparency?

Covid vaccine was not studied the way drugs normally are, so they don't know what the side effects are. And it was rammed down everyone's throat so "public health" authorities had to present a unified lie that there was absolutely zero downside.

People happily take and request drugs with long lists of side effects and accept the risk, so there is societal understanding and tolerance of the tradeoff in taking a drug. But because the covid vaccine was forced on people, they were not allowed to make an informed choice so the government had to pretend there were no risks as part of claiming authority to mandate it.

Isn't this how vaccines have always been? I had to take various vaccines in school, and no kid I saw batted an eye.

The whole series of controversy seems like making a mountain out of a molehill. Of course the COVID vaccines have side effects, some of them probably suppressed from the general public and many more too unknown/uncertain to officially label. The vaccine made me sick as stink. But my observation was that people were taking any opportunity, like a supposed 1-in-1 million increased risk of a heart attack, into demonizing a public health resource that protects them from very probable hospitalization, chronic injury, or from killing someone else.

There was never going to be an "informed choice," no matter how maniacally transparent the vaccine testers were. Aside from a handful of people with sensitive conditions, no sane person would turn down the vaccine if every single unsubstantiated side effect was true, but it seems that a majority of the country was prepared to do that.

I get a fever from the vaccine, but I don't care because the real thing would be so much worse.

There's no scientific way, no way based on reality, you can say that. You had a sample size of one, and an unknown.

The point is, there are risks about the vax. Risks that aren't being made public. In fact, the public is assured it's safe.

Your comfort is based on assumptions, and those assumptions are based on info from authorities that have not been transparent.

> no sane person would turn down the vaccine

I'm not sure how a sane person would evaluate the risks between "unknown long term side effects" and "maybe less severe symptoms upon contacting COVID".

I can easily tip the scales of the balance by claiming an unsubstantiated side effect that can't be disproven now: 90% chance of death 8 years after vaccination.

FWIW there are claims (whether substantiated or not) that the risks of the vaccine have been vastly under-represented by analyzing death rates during the periods of peak COVID vaccination. I'm not claiming they are true or valid, but if you give credit to "every single unsubstantiated side effect", I'm not sure how you'd come to the conclusion that a sane person would definitely choose to vaccinate.

Personal disclosure: 3 shots.

Doctors were very clear that you would feel like shit for a few days.

Feeling like shit for a few days can mess with vaginal bleeding. 2-3x hazard ratio sizes for something that doesn’t really matter to one’s health is negligible.

Um. You did see that some of the women were post-menopausal? I'm not sure "feeling like shit" is the reason, at least in those cases.

I did see that. I’m not sure why that changes anything.

Note they are saying the hazard ratio is like 2x. That means if you are only twice as likely as you already were.

That is, if you got vaxxed and had it happen, it was a coin toss that it would have happened anyway.

The less you know, the fewer side effects you have to put on the disclaimer.

Given that this is a recently published paper in a mainstream(?) journal, it's entirely possible that "nobody had evidence" that the vaccines could lead to such outcomes.

This sounds like harmful and misleading information.

Lol, you're experiencing what's called "crimestop" the automatic tendency to stop thinking when anything encroaches on the orthodoxy you've been fed. Why does it "sound harmful"? Because it contradicts the covid propaganda that's been pushed on you, or because there is a real first principles problem with it? If it's the latter, cool, let's hear it. If it's the former, I encourage everyone to try thinking for themselves.

> you're experiencing what's called "crimestop"

I think they were being sarcastic, and that you're experiencing what's called "Poe's law." ;)

Hahaha quite possible, I really didn't think it was satire and it's indistinguishable from a lot of serious comment I see, especially wrt covid.

Edit: looking at the op's recent posts I also found

  If you write critical software or drivers in ‘23 and aren’t using rust you should be sued for negligence.
  Take your “safe” subset/library of C/C++ and put it in the trash already.

So I think this may be a professional pursuit

I wouldn't push your luck... that one might be serious.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com