Covid-19 vaccination and temporary increase in menstrual cycle length(nih.gov)
nih.gov
Covid-19 vaccination and temporary increase in menstrual cycle length
https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/study-confirms-link-between-covid-19-vaccination-temporary-increase-menstrual-cycle-length
10 comments
I am not sure which party I think is worse, the Anti-Vax or the Anti-Anti-Vax crowd. I probably have to lean towards the 5G mind control magnetizing steralization chip crowd as both the most stupid and the most entertaining at the same time.
Either way, taking the lead from many actual medical professionals, I took the policy of not engaging in discussions on the topic.
Either way, taking the lead from many actual medical professionals, I took the policy of not engaging in discussions on the topic.
There's also the Anti Covid Vax crowd which is where most people are. Neighbors aren't bleeding from their eyes and risk is mostly low for healthy adults. If we had an outbreak of something really deadly, then everyone would have received a shot.
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.
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.
Disagreed; most people are in the "Don't care, will get vaccinated" crowd. In real life (not in fringe groups on the internet), most of the people were glad to take it.
I think you’re both right. It wasn’t so long ago that there were mobile morgues and it felt like every covid case meant a horrible near death experience. The original doses of the vaccine were snatched up like hotcakes. There were many people who refused, but basically everyone I know, which includes many very conservative people, at least got one dose of the vaccine in early 2021.
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.
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.
This is a great answer, but perspective is important and it depends heavily on who you spend time with in real life.
> I probably have to lean towards the 5G mind control magnetizing steralization chip crowd as both the most stupid and the most entertaining at the same time.
How large is this crowd? Seems like a useful distraction for certain types of people to discredit an adjacent crowd with grounded concerns...
How large is this crowd? Seems like a useful distraction for certain types of people to discredit an adjacent crowd with grounded concerns...
A nearby installation of a 5G transmitter (added to a cluster of 4G transmitters) was just this last month seen off by a group who were opposed on the basis that it would cause another covid pandemic.
Having doctors in my family, the reports they hear from gynecologist colleagues are quite unambiguous. There are massive side effects from Covid vaccines.
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.
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.
> 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"?
From a quick google, such side effects have been widely reported since early last year, what exactly is "not being admitted"?
It's one thing to report that "some people have side effects". It's another to correctly assess the magnitude of the problem, doing epidemiologist studies on a national scale, making sure all doctors report the problem, understanding why it took so long to surface, why the pharmaceutical studies didn't report them...
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.
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.
Most of these are reported by individuals who are gaslit be being told it’s not related to the vaccine, which is very effective and safe.
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.
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.
Sure, if you look for them, you can find them. But you don't have to look to find the pro-vaccine messaging; it gets thrown in your face everywhere you turn.
Widely reported where? Not on (german) TV. Not in the public discussion either.
I have no idea what's on TV, but german public broadcasters certainly wrote about it, and almost certainly prompted by public discussion and informal polls on social media. Obviously a lot more anecdotally, given the lack of explicit studies, which (like the one here) presumably got kicked of by such reports.
Writing an article which gets buried on a specific news day for future "see, we were honest" references seems like the choice of many.
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"
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"
Media reporting certainly wasn't perfect (and probably wide range between outlets), but in reverse I've seen enough cases over the past years where things which were easily provable news suddenly are claimed to have been "suppressed" just because people don't remember it.
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.
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.
Having doctors in my family, the reports they hear from gynecologist colleagues are quite unambiguous. There are massive side effects from Covid vaccines.
Well who in the absolute fuck is going to the doctor to report “everything is fine, no change here”?
Well who in the absolute fuck is going to the doctor to report “everything is fine, no change here”?
Aren't well patient checkups fairly common?
>The researchers analyzed data on at least three consecutive cycles before vaccination and at least one cycle after.
>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.
>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.
Maybe there are some medical experts here which could resolve some questions I have reading this. Thanks in advance.
> 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.
> 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.
Exposure to the virus through the vaccine? Do you mean going to the vaccination site near other people and getting infected, or the actual vaccine has the virus in it somehow? Both the vaccine and the virus have the spike protein in them (well, depends on the vaccine, the spike might be there or might be encoded in RNA or DNA, and Russia has a peptide vaccine with no spike and Peter Hotez has a vaccine with just the RBD but whatever). People debate how pathogenic the spike protein is on its own, yes the spike used in the US so far is stabilized with a couple insertions but it's still full length (the whole thing, the CDC is/was wrong when they described it as a fragment), and it's still superantigenic as far as people who research that kind of thing can tell. I can't remember anyone saying the vaccine literally has the virus in it, and I read some pretty crazy stuff. Might be selection bias though, because even the most unhinged rants are boring if the author can't even be bothered to read the WHO's website describing the various vaccines.
Sorry, I wasn't clear. I meant the immune reaction to the virus/spike protein.
That's possible obviously, and a reasonable avenue to pursue. Other possible causes (possibly in conjunction with spike, and/or other things) are the various viral vectors or lipid nanoparticles (a powerful adjuvent, even if it's not described like that by the manufacturers), as well as some less common ingredients for vaccines like polyethylene glycol.
Ooh, I remember when this also was a conspiracy theory that it was a crime to mention.
You misunderstood. The crime is to imply that it means something bad which isn't actually the case. The most common cases can described as "vaccine has effect x" implying that x is bad, or "vaccine has bad effect x" implying that covid doesn't. The crime is a special case of lying by omission.
You whole comment is so much backside covering considering that this is just one in a long line of claims that were literally called conspiracy theories/misinformation/anti-vax and therefore censored into oblivion. And again it turns out to be true.
> "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.
> "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.
If you want to argue that COVID causes widespread menstrual disruption then go ahead. Show the evidence. You would have to show problems with this study, because the unvaccinated cohort (of whom we may presume some caught COVID) had cycle length changes in which the CIs contain zero i.e. they didn't change.
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.
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.
No, I don't want to argue that. Disruption from covid not a bad assumption: The vaccines use small fragments of the virus, after all, so the virus contains every fragment used in a vaccine. But I wouldn't argue it.
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.
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.
I understand why you think that, and it's true enough for most classical vaccines. But, the mRNA vaccines are different in at least five ways from the actual virus:
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.
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.
I don't believe the MRNA vaccines work as you state. The study picked people using 9 different vaccines though so presumably at least one of them is as you state.
The virus does not get injected into your muscle... Generally you get it through mouth or nose, its a totally different receiver mechanism.
2 years in and you don't know how the COVID vaccines work. You want to talk about crimes? I can just laugh.
Seatbelts cause massive bruising when you are in a head on collision at high speed. Airbags can fracture bones in the face, damage eyes or even result in a concussion at suitably high collision speeds.
There is no crime for common discussion. The ethical crime is not disclosing to pharmaceutical recipients the risks they entail. (i.e. pretending they aren't actually the trial subject)
Are you implying that a change in menstrual cycle isn’t “bad”? Because half the population would disagree.
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.
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.
This doesn’t come as a surprise to me at all. Fever, nausea, headaches, exhaustion for a few days is a strong signal to the body that something is wrong. Menstrual cycles are sensitive to that kind of thing.
Women have told me their had longer, heavier, more painful periods after the vaccines came out. This includes those who were not vaccinated, but worked with people who had been vaccinated.
I think there's more to dig up on this subject and it will reflect poorly on the FDA when it comes out.
I think there's more to dig up on this subject and it will reflect poorly on the FDA when it comes out.
Imagine how much more we can trust the science once all of the reported side effects of the vaccines aren't suppressed and censored. Maybe then we can understand why those side effects happened, understand the chemistry and biology around those side effects, and build better vaccines for the next time we have a global pandemic.
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.
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.
I have a theory that (at least) part of the reason this is seen more predominantly in vaccine recipients has to do with the original strain.
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.
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.
I heard the vaccines were not tested on pregnant women, amazing how they could come with new vaccine in few months after the pandemic broke out, normally it takes 10 years before new vaccines are appproved after long trials and testing.
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.