[HN Gopher] Trends in menstrual bleeding changes after SARS-CoV-...
___________________________________________________________________
Trends in menstrual bleeding changes after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination
Author : bookofjoe
Score : 90 points
Date : 2022-07-17 19:37 UTC (3 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.science.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.science.org)
| alliao wrote:
| this is a good start
| jjgreen wrote:
| lostlogin wrote:
| It does define the term later, and includes a breakdown.
|
| 'e.g., those on menstrual suppression therapies or
| postmenopausal people'
|
| 'This sample included 35,572 (90.9%) woman-only identifying and
| 3557 (9.1%) gender-diverse respondents'
| baremetal wrote:
| > formerly menstruating people
|
| is that referring to post menopausal women?
| mbg721 wrote:
| jimmygrapes wrote:
| matthewmacleod wrote:
| Among others, but the thing I'd guess the parent was
| referring to is a specific kind of culture warrior who loses
| their absolute shit when anybody uses the term "people" in
| relation to any topic that primarily involves women; some
| trans men may menstruate or have done so in the past, for
| example, so there is a tendency in the field to avoid
| gendered terms unless it's necessary.
| dang wrote:
| " _Please don 't pick the most provocative thing in an article
| or post to complain about in the thread. Find something
| interesting to respond to instead._"
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
| SoftTalker wrote:
| "Vaccine trial protocols do not typically monitor for major
| adverse events for more than 7 days"
|
| I am stunned by this. Seven days? Is there really no reason to
| think that a vaccine candidate might have adverse effects more
| than a week later?
| ellisv wrote:
| Given that the vaccine itself is out of your system within a
| few days, and if effective begin triggering an immune response,
| I don't think there's not much reason to monitor for safety
| beyond that point.
| iratewizard wrote:
| Thalidomide is out of your system by your first grandchild.
| codefreeordie wrote:
| If you studied for more than seven days, you might find
| problems preventing your mass rollout, and then where would you
| be
| PKop wrote:
| Of course there is reason to think that. So what are we left
| with? These organizations do not have your best interest in
| mind. Why is that so hard to believe?
|
| If they tested for longer, they'd be less likely to sell their
| products. Who is going to stop them? Everyone criticizing
| vaccines and those peddling them is a pariah in popular culture
| and among elite institutional leadership in US. This is what
| happens, they have free reign to pull the wool over your eyes.
|
| Do you think because you "believe the science", you or anyone
| else is immune to propaganda?
| Nextgrid wrote:
| I find this hard to believe. It's beneficial for everyone
| including manufacturers for their products to be proven safe.
|
| If we assume manufacturers are intentionally malicious, what
| prevents them from outright submitting a dummy saline shot
| for testing instead of the real thing, guaranteeing
| absolutely zero side-effects?
| dukeofdoom wrote:
| The likely alternative is the people making the decisions knew it
| would harm or even kill some people, and still went ahead with
| it. And just set up a circle of deniability, and legal immunity
| in the event of any future litigation. This includes pfizer.
|
| In Ontario the politicians said they are following the advice of
| chief medical officer in implementing the lockdowns. But there's
| a moment of dark political satire, when on hot mic one of the
| chief medical officers before a press conference say's "I just
| read what they tell me to".
|
| https://toronto.ctvnews.ca/ontario-health-official-responds-...
|
| "The trolley problem is a series of thought experiments in ethics
| and psychology, involving stylized ethical dilemmas of whether to
| sacrifice one person to save a larger number. The series usually
| begins with a scenario in which a runaway tram or trolley is on
| course to collide with and kill a number of people (traditionally
| five) down the track, but a driver or bystander can intervene and
| divert the vehicle to kill just one person on a different track."
| -Wikipedia
| steve76 wrote:
| jl6 wrote:
| > What else should I know about this research?
|
| > The nature of this survey means that we cannot compare the
| incidence of different experiences here with the general
| population (meaning, 40% of this sample having an experience does
| not mean that is the rate of that experience out in the world).
| The associations described here are not causal but provide
| evidence to better study these trends further. We emphasize that
| menstrual bleeding changes of this nature are generally not
| indicative of changes to fertility.
| moistly wrote:
| Hmmm. Is the vaccine, which produces a spike protein for a short
| time that your body then reacts against, more or less dangerous
| than an active virus covered in all sorts of wonderful cell-
| hijacking mechanisms, replicating by the bajillions, and causing
| micro clots and inflammation all over one's sensitive internal
| organs?
|
| A real stumper of a question!
|
| I bet it's the virus that has killed umpteen millions of people,
| not the vaccine that's been administered several billion times
| without causing outrageous levels of death or ill health. Surely!
|
| [rolls eyes]
| in_cahoots wrote:
| As someone who was trying to conceive while the vaccine rolled
| out, this isn't surprising. People were regularly reporting basal
| temperature spikes, delayed ovulation, and delayed periods. This
| is a community that is extremely data-oriented, since with the
| right measurements you're able to predict your fertile (or non-
| fertile) window.
|
| I was disappointed to see how little research there was into
| menstruation at the time. We were told that the vaccine was
| perfectly safe, and even questioning the vaccine made you 'anti-
| vax.' Now over a full year later the scientific community is
| confirming what random message boards have been saying all along.
| It may be safe, but nobody really cared to look at the impact on
| menstruation or pregnancy beyond confirming that the rate of
| miscarriage is unchanged.
| bsaul wrote:
| The problem now is that so many people, in so many fields,
| relayed that "everything's safe, if you disagree or dare
| casting doubts you're an a ti-science sociopath", that it's
| going to be super super hard for them to admit they were wrong.
| peyton wrote:
| I think a similar thing happened with the 1949 Nobel Prize in
| Physiology/Medicine. It remains unvacated.
| nerdponx wrote:
| Ironically the anti-science rhetoric was first pushed as
| propaganda to allow Trump & co. to dodge responsibility for
| mishandling the pandemic.
| skuhn wrote:
| This study began in April 2021 and the paper was published in
| July 2022.
|
| Presuming that the amount of time spent was necessary to
| thoroughly gather, review and document the findings, what would
| you have wanted done differently?
| gjsman-1000 wrote:
| Perhaps we wouldn't have had the news, pretending that there
| was no effect, and if there was, correlation is not
| causation, and then saying as little as 5 months ago that
| there may be an effect but that any effects on menstruation
| only lasted one day at the most [1]. Just be honest -
| dishonesty like this breeds anti-vaxxers.
|
| [1] https://youtu.be/TWk2Z6mzZUU?t=60 (Good Morning America
| and ABC News talking about menstruation side effects 5 months
| ago and basically saying the opposite of this study)
| PKop wrote:
| Not taken the vax if your health and age profile didn't merit
| it, given the unknown unknowns and lack of long term testing,
| which many people highlighted endlessly for the past year or
| so.
|
| Public concessions exactly to your point that long term
| testing _takes time_ , and assertions to the contrary that
| tere are no risks of x, y, z were blatant sophistry intended
| to silence legitimate criticism. These vaccines were mandated
| at threat of loss of careers for crying out loud...people are
| still getting fired for not taking them long after covid is
| any sort threat whatsoever or where there can be plausible
| deniability about claims the vaccines actually prevent
| contracting covid etc.
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29003019
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29004097
|
| (lot of "trust the experts", "you sound like one of the
| ignorant rubes" type of replies at those links, devoid of any
| sort of critical thinking, blindly trusting authorities
| without any acknowledgement to potential downsides
| outweighing limited upside of vax for many cohorts)
| shitpostbot wrote:
| mcronce wrote:
| > long after covid is any sort threat whatsoever
|
| People dying and people with - and still getting- long
| COVID would probably disagree with that statement.
| busymom0 wrote:
| 1. Covid vax does not prevent long covid:
|
| https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2022/05/25/long-
| covid-...
|
| 2. Healthy young people under 50 or even 60 were not
| dying or getting hospitalized. Whatever risk they want to
| take, they should be able to take it without mandates.
| Since the vax does not prevent infection or transmission,
| one is only taking individual risk and not affecting
| others.
| jamroom wrote:
| Specific to the US which states had vaccine mandates?
| busymom0 wrote:
| I live in Canada. Here, unvaxxed weren't even allowed to
| air travel domestically. Nor did they recognize a
| negative PCR test or past infection natural immunity.
|
| Compassionate grounds such as taking care of sick family
| member, funeral etc were also not exempted.
|
| Everyone who were COVID+ despite being vaxxed were
| allowed to fly, go to gym, restaurant etc. Meanwhile, an
| unvaxxed person wasn't allowed to do the same even if
| they could show a negative PCR test.
| fernandotakai wrote:
| i took all three shots and got covid about two weeks ago.
| it was HARSH. no sense of smell, no sense of taste, 3
| days with high-ish fever (39C), the body ache was crazy
| bad and worse of all: brain fog. i managed to avoid going
| to the hospital, but barely.
|
| and that's with 3 shots. i'm almost sure i would be in an
| ICU if i didn't get any shots.
| blumomo wrote:
| > and that's with 3 shots. i'm almost sure i would be in
| an ICU if i didn't get any shots.
|
| How could we prove this hypothesis?
| woodruffw wrote:
| It's an anecdote, not a hypothesis.
| PKop wrote:
| Here again a blatant lack of clarity around the issue.
| Who are dying and at what rate? What are their
| comorbidities? What is the vax status of those that are
| dying, presumably many have taken the vaccine anyways
| yes?
|
| But you do you, is the point. I'm perfectly fine with my
| choice of not taking it: I'm not overweight, I lift
| weights and exercise regularly, have low bodyfat percent,
| I get plenty of sunlight for Vitamin D and immune
| support. I _do not need_ the vaccine.
|
| This mentality of extreme safetyism applied
| indiscriminately even now is insane. Are you going to
| take covid boosters for the rest of your life? The
| disease is going to be continually weakened and become
| just another coronavirus. The rest of us will move on
| with our lives. Quite simply, I'm not worried about Covid
| at all. Can you say the same about the long term
| prospects of endless boosters on your body? I sure
| couldn't.
|
| Tell me now how 100% confident you are there are no side
| effects because the propaganda experts and drug companies
| told you so, so we can come back to it in 6 months when
| more side effects start being discovered and posted here
| on HN...
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29003555
| ccn0p wrote:
| Yes and this insanity is literally keeping large numbers
| of people from engaging in parts of society. Some
| conferences, meetups, and events still require attendees
| to be fully vaccinated with no testing option. I was
| unable to attend an event just last week for this reason.
| It's stunning.
| mlyle wrote:
| > Who are dying and at what rate?
|
| Mostly the very old, at this point; though I'm in my 40s
| where the rate starts to tick up. But beyond that,
| there's the risk of long term morbidity. My niece was
| early 20's, active, in good health, with no comorbidities
| and is now pseudo-disabled. The vaccine only removes
| about 30% of the risk of this type of outcome, but still
| that alone is worth it.
|
| > What is the vax status of those that are dying,
| presumably many have taken the vaccine anyways yes?
|
| Looks like people who have taken the vaccine have about
| 6-10% of the risk of death of those who haven't,
| controlling for comorbidities.
|
| > Are you going to take covid boosters for the rest of
| your life?
|
| A lot of us might-- though I've got a fair bit of hope
| that we come up with something better in the next couple
| of years. I will do my best to avoid infection in the
| meantime.
|
| > The disease is going to be continually weakened and
| become just another coronavirus.
|
| Viral selection is complicated. Yes, in the very long
| term, many viruses end up becoming less virulent, but
| others go in the other direction.
|
| > Can you say the same about the long term prospects of
| endless boosters on your body? I sure couldn't.
|
| I'm pretty dang confident that I can bound the risk from
| the vaccine to be much lower than the risk from COVID
| infection.
| jmcgough wrote:
| > But you do you, is the point
|
| I've never understood this type of selfishness. If you
| get sick you will, on average, infect another 2-3 people.
| It's not just about you.
| busymom0 wrote:
| 1. Covid shots do not prevent infection or transmission.
|
| 2. Since Delta, both vaxxed and unvaxxed cases have the
| same viral load.
|
| 3. Since December at least, boosted and vaxxed have
| higher RATE per 100k of covid infections.
|
| So whatever benefit one gets is individual benefit only
| and not getting others sick in any different way as the
| vaxxed folks do.
| mlyle wrote:
| > 1. Covid shots do not prevent infection or
| transmission.
|
| It does look like there's about a 20-30% reduction of
| infection from random surveys of the population and from
| nucleocapsid seroprevalence assays; transmission-once-
| infected is very difficult to measure, but it would be
| surprising if it did not have some effect.
|
| > 2. Since Delta, both vaxxed and unvaxxed cases have the
| same viral load.
|
| There's a key fallacy here: we're looking at a population
| of cases detected by similar means and then found that
| they have similar viral loads. Not too surprising of a
| finding (survivorship bias, basically).
|
| There's some data indicating that viral copy assays are
| not good proxies for finding true infectious shedding --
| and that vaccinated individuals can be much better in
| this regard despite having higher loads. e.g.
| https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-022-01816-0
|
| > 3. Since December at least, boosted and vaxxed have
| higher RATE per 100k of covid infections.
|
| This is absolutely and completely untrue. There's been a
| couple of times where the vaxxed have been higher in the
| data series, but the overwhelming trend in the data has
| been the opposite. e.g. right now in Santa Clara County,
| where I am, the unvaccinated case rate is approximately
| 268 per 100,000 per week; the fully vaccinated case rate
| is about 46 per 100,000.
|
| Of course, people who elect vaccination don't behave
| exactly the same as those who don't... and so many people
| in S.C.C. are vaccinated that the exact number of
| unvaccinated has some uncertainty (but it's not off by a
| factor of 5).
| [deleted]
| roenxi wrote:
| > It does look like there's about a 20-30% reduction of
| infection from random surveys of the population and from
| nucleocapsid seroprevalence assays; transmission-once-
| infected is very difficult to measure, but it would be
| surprising if it did not have some effect.
|
| You are responding to a practical concern with a
| theoretical counter. But practically speaking the vaccine
| doesn't change the picture at all. The situation pre-
| vaccine was COVID was going to spread like wildfire after
| any lockdown attempt ended and everyone was going to be
| exposed to it. The situation post-vaccine, even with that
| reduction in infection rates, was the same.
|
| Ditto speed, since this is an exponential process that
| reduction won't have an especially material effect on
| when everyone gets COVID.
|
| We ran a natural experiment on this in Australia [0] -
| having a highly vaccinated population didn't appear to
| have any impact at all on COVID transmission rate or
| reach in who gets infected. The numbers are not
| convincing that the vaccine did anything for
| transmissions. The effect of personal protection seems to
| explain all the benefits of the vaccine.
|
| [0] https://chrisbillington.net/COVID_NSW.html
| busymom0 wrote:
| 1. That was only true before Delta. When Delta came, the
| viral load became the same between vaxxed and unvaxxed
| folks and combined with waning immunity of 3-6 months,
| most people were basically "unvaxxed" with respect to
| transmission by fall. Omicron took it even further where
| since December, in Ontario, boosted and vaxxed folks have
| had higher rate per 100k of covid infections.
|
| https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS147
| 3-3...
|
| 3. It is true and the government admits that boosted and
| vaxxed have higher rates. Ontario source:
|
| https://web.archive.org/web/20220228051509/http://covid-1
| 9.o...
|
| https://web.archive.org/web/20220331081902/http://covid-1
| 9.o...
|
| Here's how it looks:
|
| https://imgur.com/a/H4ErmyC
| mlyle wrote:
| > 1. That was only true before Delta.
|
| Posting a disputed study that I criticized to try and
| refute me, when I posted important 2022 followup data to
| viral shedding based on actual infectivity rather than
| just RNA copies indicates you either didn't read my
| comment or didn't understand it.
|
| > 3. It is true and the government admits that boosted
| and vaxxed have higher rates. Ontario source:
|
| I just knew you were going to point to the Ontario data
| from Mar-Apr. This is why I said in a couple places they
| popped above for a couple data points. Are you
| deliberately being obtuse?
|
| Compare to basically any other data series from any other
| time; e.g. my locale:
|
| https://covid19.sccgov.org/dashboard-case-rates-
| vaccination-...
| busymom0 wrote:
| How's that study disputed?
|
| That study is not alone either. NEJM has similar studies
| too.
|
| Your link seems to be an outlier. Denmark, UK, Scotland,
| and other provinces in Canada also show the same higher
| rates in boosted and fully vaxxed than unvaxxed.
| Walgreens data for US also shows this. Look at page 3 of:
|
| https://www.walgreens.com/businesssolutions/covid-19-inde
| x.j...
|
| Canadian government seroprevalence data also shows that
| between December 2021 and May 2022, there were at least
| 17.5 million infections. This is in a population of 38
| million. This was despite extremely high vax rates.
|
| So, how exactly did the vaccine prevent infection and
| transmission? Vaxxed folks were allowed to enjoy services
| with a false sense of security and spread Covid to others
| while unvaxxed folks were denied from society.
|
| Please don't resolve to ad hominem attacks on hacker
| news.
| StillBored wrote:
| While I sorta tend to agree with you, this is a _RESULT_
| of people refusing to take the vaccines (or do full
| lockdowns/wear masks/etc). Like the original SARs strains
| it should have been possible to eradicate through strong
| public health measures, one of which was vaccination.
|
| So, we can shrug this one off, because in the end it
| _only_ kills a percent or so of people, overwhelmingly
| already infirm or elderly.
|
| We may not be so lucky the next time, and this attitude
| _will_ get us in trouble when that happens.
| gjsman-1000 wrote:
| China literally locked down Shanghai and millions of
| people in their homes, had police everywhere monitoring,
| had almost no exceptions other than for the police, and
| literally boarded people in their homes, engaged every
| spying mechanism they had, did mandatory testing, _for
| more than six weeks_ , and it did not stop COVID - but it
| is increasingly clear it only delayed it from spreading
| inevitably. Even WIRED, pro-vaccine, has written articles
| about all the people who died from the lockdown and
| inability to get medical care due to the restrictions. It
| was the most full, most strict lockdown physically
| possible and it still _did not work_ and China is looking
| at needing to repeat it.
| StillBored wrote:
| After it already went endemic, and the transmissiblity
| went through the roof.
|
| Not sure why that is hard to understand. If this virus
| killed 95% of people would you be arguing against
| lockdowns?
|
| I think most people can agree that its one of those to
| little to late situations in china and they need to
| reconsider at this point, but that doesn't make what they
| are trying to do wrong.
| JohnTHaller wrote:
| My under 40 triathlete friend with no comorbidities who
| wound up in the ICU for a month and needed two surgeries
| to drain his lungs would beg to differ. Or my buddy down
| the block under 40 with no cormorbities who is now on
| beta blockers for long term Covid. As would folks like my
| Dad who the vaccine and first booster didn't work on due
| to his suppressed immune system from receiving my kidney.
| PKop wrote:
| Careful with extreme endurance exercise, it can be immuno
| suppressive [0]
|
| I would advise a balance between weightlifting, moderate
| cardio, lots of sunlight exposure for Vitamin D and
| testosterone support, and a balanced diet.
|
| And yes there are instances of young, non co-morbid
| people dying from covid. Statistically, not that many, so
| I'm not worried about it.
|
| [0] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3475230/
| nradov wrote:
| With billions of cases around the world there will always
| be some outliers, but those are irrelevant for decision
| making. What does the data show?
| anonymouse008 wrote:
| Lance Armstrong had advanced testicular cancer while
| competing and placing 6th in the Olympics in 1996.
|
| Comorbidities are tricky - and triathletes are a weird
| body type to build and maintain.
| PKop wrote:
| Yes extreme endurance can be immuno suppressive.
| woodruffw wrote:
| This kind of skepticism goes both ways: you could get
| COVID next week and discover that you have a latent
| comorbidity that otherwise would never have affected you.
|
| From a public health perspective, universal (or near-
| universal) vaccination is an unequivocal good. Given _the
| sum_ of what we know about both COVID and any side
| effects of vaccination, this remains the case.
| oldgradstudent wrote:
| These side effects are not rare at all. These side effects
| should have been caught in the original vaccine trials.
|
| The fact that it comes out now tells you something went very
| wrong in the trials. In a functioning science, a careful
| postmortem of the vaccine trials would be in order.
| skuhn wrote:
| Perhaps you already know, but initial vaccine trials are
| not performed against menstruation age (aka likely to
| become pregnant) women. It is considered medically
| unethical to do so. That is an obvious double edged sword:
|
| 1. It prevents birth defects from occurring with trial
| participants, because this product has not yet been fully
| studied and approved.
|
| 2. It reduces the initial knowledge of any female-specific
| issues with the product, and particularly limits knowledge
| around pregnancy issues.
|
| https://www.path.org/articles/why-are-pregnant-people-
| left-o...
| oldgradstudent wrote:
| This also affected postmenopausal women who were included
| in the trials. To quote the paper: "66% of postmenopausal
| people reported breakthrough bleeding."
|
| Then of course, menstruation age and pregnant women
| should not be told the vaccine is safe for them, as it
| was never tested on them. Similar to other
| pharmaceuticals, it should only be recommend after very
| careful consideration.
|
| For example, the Tick-Borne Encephalitis Vaccine has a
| track record of decades, but still, the recommendation in
| pregnancy is [1] "The vaccine appears to be safe during
| pregnancy, but because of insufficient data the vaccine
| is only recommended during pregnancy and breastfeeding
| when it is considered urgent to achieve protection
| against TBE infection and after careful consideration of
| risks versus benefits."
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tick-
| borne_encephalitis_vaccin...
| swimfar wrote:
| That link says trials typically exclude pregnant woman,
| not all woman who menstruate.
| Trumpi wrote:
| > what would you have wanted done differently?
|
| When these problems were first reported, resolve to stick
| with the principle of informed consent rather than impose
| mandates.
| greenthrow wrote:
| Quick Googling shows that the cold and flu can impact
| ovulation. So it is not a surprise that Covid or its vaccines
| can as well, since it often presents as more severe.
|
| It was still the correct choice of action for you to get the
| vaccine and potentially delay conception. It is safer for you
| and the baby if you are vaccinated.
|
| This study is just providing confirmation to something that all
| medical professionals likely assumed is true, based on the
| common knowledge that the flu and cold and other illnesses can
| also affect fertility.
| peyton wrote:
| > correct choice of action
|
| Correct? To... delay conception? According to... you?
|
| I am not comfortable leaving decisions like that to others.
| Nextgrid wrote:
| There's an argument for forcing this decision if it affects
| others.
|
| The prevailing theory, at least at the time, was that
| widespread vaccination would reduce spread and protect
| everyone including the unvaccinated.
|
| In that case, it could make sense to force people to delay
| if it means everyone ends up better off overall.
| throwaway406382 wrote:
| From a throwaway because of the potential backlash...This paper
| is pure bull. They did a survey of 30k people and asked them
| about their experience and then said that the vaccine didn't
| cause anything and that we should trust our institutions. They
| didn't even have a control (unvaccinated) group! Just 30k
| vaccinated folks who responded to a survey about whether they
| perceived more/less bleeding, and such.
|
| I'm actually working (as a computational mathematician) with an
| OBGYN and a few other doctors on a paper on this topic right
| now. We're using real data and a control and doing real
| Bayesian stats and all of that. But the tragic thing is, we
| don't need to get fancy. There's so much signal that the
| vaccine is bad for women's reproductive health that it really
| is obvious. I hope we can find an uncaptured journal to get it
| published in.
|
| This paper is pure propaganda that's toeing the line about
| vaccine safety. It's idea laundering so they can later point to
| an article in "Science" showing that it's safe.
|
| I'm so sad that Science (the journal) as fallen so far and is
| so captured.
| manwe150 wrote:
| How bad is it for health? This paper also notes that the
| virus itself is of great concern foremost, so any conclusion
| must be in comparison to the alternative (aka the control
| group): "Studies and anecdotal reports are already
| demonstrating that menstrual function may be disrupted long
| term [be the virus], particularly in those with long COVID
| (32-35)"
|
| It seems so many commenters here miss that sentence, and live
| in a mental world where viruses are mostly benign but
| healthcare is mostly deadly.
|
| Therefore, a statistical control group for such a trial as
| you describe doing is not an unvaccinated cohort for the same
| time period, but rather for infinite time. Thus your results
| will require substantial adjustment for the eventual rates of
| encountering COVID (and the estimated rates of equivalent
| adverse effects), since your trial will presumably be of
| finite duration.
| jbd28 wrote:
| Pretty strong words and claims while providing no data to
| refute the paper
| fferen wrote:
| Note that this is Science Advances, a much less prestigious
| journal than Science proper.
| belter wrote:
| "Ten thousand report menstrual issues after having corona
| vaccine" (October 2021)
|
| https://www.dutchnews.nl/news/2021/10/ten-thousand-report-
| me...
|
| [Dutch Reference]: https://www.lareb.nl/news/veel-meldingen-
| menstruatiestoornis...
| poorbutdebtfree wrote:
| There were several posters on HN pointing out menstrual cycles
| anecdotes last year and they were largely down voted and
| possibly shadowbanned. You don't even need censors anymore when
| the majority decides what is acceptable thought.
| airza wrote:
| The problem is that _most_ vaccines affect menstruation; for
| obvious reasons the uterus is a hotbed of immune activity in
| the human body.
| bamboozled wrote:
| I think the warning on the packet should've said that?
| abathur wrote:
| I think (at least) three big problems intersect here:
|
| 1. the sci/med establishment seems to have some ongoing ~bias
| issues that I don't fully understand when it comes to listening
| to and taking lay people seriously (especially women)
|
| 2. it's hard to do complex synthesis of relative risks and
| rewards across different studies measuring different things for
| different reasons
|
| 3. we've had a lot of uninformed and malicious actors splashing
| about in the information ecosystem
|
| It's a two-way street. Researchers and public health officials
| both need to take women seriously _and_ they need to have faith
| that they can research or discuss details like this frankly
| through their normal semi-public publication channels without
| being afraid that people who don 't grok or don't care about
| the nuance of their research will use it as an info-cudgel to
| induce FUD that ruins lives.
|
| To toss in the requisite anecdata, my sister got pregnant this
| past fall. She was due for a booster but FUD about it hurting
| the baby swayed her mind. She got omicron in late December,
| post-covid complications nearly took her and the baby in late
| February, and she had to live in the hospital until she
| delivered in June.
| gjsman-1000 wrote:
| > To toss in the requisite anecdata, my sister got pregnant
| this past fall. She was due for a booster but FUD about it
| hurting the baby swayed her mind. She got omicron in late
| December, post-covid complications nearly took her and the
| baby in late February, and she had to live in the hospital
| until she delivered in June.
|
| The tricky thing with this though is that, _what if_ there is
| an unknown side effect due to lack of research that _could
| have_ hurt the baby (how many years of research have boosters
| had?), and she didn 't experience that side effect but
| unwittingly chose a different evil?
| c7DJTLrn wrote:
| Many people had concerns about the vaccine rollout. Not because
| we were worried about some 5G nanoparticle Bill Gates
| conspiracy nonsense but because of the potential unknown side
| effects. Doing a trial on a few hundred thousand and then
| rolling out to billions is like testing your changes locally
| and then pushing them straight to production.
|
| "But human bodies are not anything like software dev" I hear
| you say. You're right. Biology is way more complicated and we
| know less about the mechanics of our own bodies than the
| computers we designed.
|
| If we go forward assuming everything we do is infallible and
| silencing anybody with concerns, someday we will have a real
| disaster.
| planarhobbit wrote:
| > Biology is way more complicated and we know less about the
| mechanics of our own bodies than the computers we designed.
|
| We don't know much about that either, to be fair.
| [deleted]
| slg wrote:
| This lack of foresight is not something specific to this
| vaccine. It is the male bias ingrained in most western
| medicine. Due to fear of how experimental medicines will impact
| fertility and pregnancy, males are usually overrepresented in
| clinical trials which makes female specific side effects much
| harder to detect.
| brightball wrote:
| I'd accept the male bias approach for almost anything except
| the Covid vax.
|
| There was a huge segment of society angrily screaming at
| everyone that everything was perfectly safe, if you didn't
| take it you were anti-vax and wanted to kill grandma. It was
| absolutely insanity on every social media channel. I'm sure
| some nuanced bits were lost in the noise, but it was
| virtually impossible to openly discuss even hesitation to
| vaccinate, much less complications.
|
| We've heard from 2 local people in our small community who
| had family members die within 24 hours of vaccination. They
| were afraid to talk about it because of the blow back that
| came from anyone mentioning complications. A scary side of a
| lot of people came out and it's permanently affected my
| perception of a great many.
|
| Maybe there was a male bias in the clinical trials, but I
| have a hard time believing any information about
| complications would have been released or accepted at that
| time.
| planarhobbit wrote:
| In my social circle it was women that were the most vocal on
| both sides of the issue. The men were mostly quiet and going
| along with whatever the wife or whoever wanted.
| jelliclesfarm wrote:
| I agree. This is something that needs discussion.
| enqk wrote:
| When people first talked about it, I was hearing scientists
| saying that both other viruses and vaccines often change periods,
| and thus it wasn't surprising/alarming
| sschueller wrote:
| Since the intent of the vaccination is to trigger an immune
| response very similar to the virus I think we should assume
| that all side effects the virus can cause could also be seen in
| vaccine trials.
|
| The only symptom that I have yet to hear from the vaccination
| is loss of smell/taste.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > Since the intent of the vaccination is to trigger an immune
| response very similar to the virus I think we should assume
| that all side effects the virus can cause could also be seen
| in vaccine trials.
|
| If you define "side effects the virus can cause" (a term that
| usually is meaningless, "side effects" are unintended effects
| of a therapy, and thus deoebd on both the therapy and what it
| is intentionally used for) to mean "effects associated with
| the immune response to the virus" this is true by definition,
| but if you mean "symptoms of infection" it seems improbable.
|
| > The only symptom that I have yet to hear from the
| vaccination is loss of smell/taste.
|
| A lot of what you hear is reports of events _after_
| vaccination that have very little effective filtering for
| whether they are caused by the vaccination or some other
| cause (including COVID infection.)
| mk81 wrote:
| ETH_start wrote:
| Is the reference to "people" instead of "women", in "currently
| and formerly menstruating people", a new trend in academia?
| magneticnorth wrote:
| In this study in particular, the fact that there was
| breakthrough menstrual bleeding for trans men and others who
| have been hormonally preventing their periods for years was one
| of the particularly interesting findings, imo.
| christkv wrote:
| It's the anglo-sphere they've lost the plot. It's hard to take
| a study that splits data into white and the rest seriously as a
| scientific study. I was unaware that africans, South Americans
| and Asians were significantly different to "white" people to
| make a difference needed to be pointed out.
|
| What exactly are they suggesting. That the vaccine was
| engineered to have a more negative effect on non-white women?
| nerdponx wrote:
| Medical outcomes are substantially and consistently different
| for different racial groups in the USA. It's in part a proxy
| for economic status. It makes sense to control for it.
| throwaway406382 wrote:
| The lead author is in women's studies, not real science.
|
| I quote from their abstract: "...among a convenience
| sample...39% of people on gender-affirming hormones"
|
| convenience sample means "I asked my friends on social media"
|
| And 39% on gender-affirming hormones! Yes, I know trans is all
| the rage now, but it's not 39% of the population! It's a highly
| biased sample.
| christkv wrote:
| I have to wonder that the insistence of boosting so often might
| lead to the inverse effect desensitising the body to the proteins
| just like what happens when you vaccinate against allergies,
| possibly leading to worse illness than if you did not boost.
|
| The weird insistence on anti-body levels is another weird thing,
| just plainly ignoring immune memory.
|
| I suspect that we are not seeing grave illness anymore in most of
| the population due to the immune naive population being very low
| and the few people dying now are in the traditional old age and
| immune compromised categories that also die by other respiratory
| viruses under similar circumstances.
|
| Reading the science so much is fumbling in the blind (over 2
| years into this). They are still pushing for under 5s to be
| vaccinated in some countries even though at the efficacy of the
| vaccine is less than 40% something that would be considered a
| failure in any other vaccine development and knowing the groups
| it he lowest risk group there is.
|
| And before you call me anti-vaxer I had two doses of Pfizer and
| have had covid 3 times.
| manwe150 wrote:
| Presumably that has not been a primary concern, since other
| vaccines also have historically had regular boosters and
| haven't seen that happen (referring to Tdap, rabies, or flu
| shots)
|
| Flu vaccine has historically also been around 25-50% effective,
| and is still recommended and paid for by insurance, since the
| benefit is measured positively to you. So there is some
| precedent for disappointing numbers still being promoted for
| their small estimated benefits in net.
| christkv wrote:
| Sure once a year for flu shots with different strains. This
| is the exact same protein again and again. Nothing like this
| has been done before outside of allergy vaccines from what my
| allergist told me who is to say at the very least skeptical
| about it.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-07-17 23:00 UTC)