Covid-19 vaccines and vaccinations

Understood, yet she has never experienced this and it is quite significant, and as I say in her early thirties. Started with first period after booster.

 

Yes, but it also started within a month of a thousand other minor events.
I would have thought she should get it investigated in the usual way and pay no more attention to the booster than what she ate for dinner the Thursday before it started.

 

It's a well-known issue, not just related to the boosters. There has been articles about it in Swedish media for example, with some data and comments from doctors and researchers. (Sorry, I'm unable to look them up at the moment, need to rest.)

 

Quite a few women are reporting this happening to them after having the covid vaccine. It isn't just the booster shot; it can be the first, second, or third vaccine that causes it to happen.

 

A lot of women are reporting this happening to them after having any one of the vaccines; it isn't just the booster shot that is causing it. Women know their bodies and they know what is normal and what isn't.

 

precisely.

 

From what I can see initially there has been a report from the Norwegian Institute of Public Health - which is of course where Larun and Flottorp work. I cannot see from the reports I have seen so far how they could have dealt with the inevitable expectation bias.

 

But the report from Norway indicates that at least half as many women noticed changes before being vaccinated. Women know their bodies but none of us know what the causes of changes in our bodies are unless we have have reliable evidence.

I am always ready to be proved wrong but so far this looks like really bad medical science to me.

 

According to the Royal College of Obs and Gynae 30,000 women have reported changes in periods after vaccination. But about 20 million women have been vaccinated. Maybe only 5 million in the month before periods changed. So that would be less than 1 in 100 with period changes. The Norwegian data indicate that a higher proportion than that note changes in any given month (equivalent to once every 8 years for each woman).

I remain sceptical.

 

"The relative risk of more heavy bleeding than usual during the exposed compared to unexposed period for first dose vaccination was 1.90 (95% CI: 1.69-2.13), while it was 1.84 (1.66-2.03) for the second dose."

That looks pretty consistent with random chance and expectation bias.
Remember that if we don't believe in expectation bias we should probably go back to recommending GET!!

 

I agree but the Norwegian figures suggest that way more woman are noticing period changes all the time anyway - i.e. before vaccination. If this was a real problem identifiable by numbers the RCOG figures should be hugely greater.

The problem we have is that for any individual where n=1 there is no way of knowing whether it is a coincidence. And gathering unbiased data is going to be very tricky without some objective lab measurements.

So as of now there is really no reason to think there is likely to be a problem. Since without vaccination we are likely to have tens of thousands more unnecessary deaths in vulnerable people I think the sensible thing is to go on vaccinating.

 

We can still simply acknowledge that many women are in fact experiencing very heavy bleeding after vaccination, talking about it amongst themselves and on social media, seeking medical care and reporting it to the proper authorities etc -- without us having to draw any conclusions either way, such as "it's just a coincidence" or "it's a problem".

 

In a sense yes, but the word 'many' is potentially confusing. The implication is that it is more than expected and so far I don't think there is evidence for that. Things are going to be loaded one way or another. Unnecessary concerns about vaccines may well kill something like 500,000 people in the USA in the end.

 

Yes.
It seems to be quite common in 25 - 35s
As is breakthrough bleeding
As is cycles being longer/ shorter than normal for up to 6 months (so far)

ETA this is my eldest daughter's work and friend age group and this came up for discussion via a number of WhatsApp groups and work last week.

Within this there are
Those on pill
Those on contraceptive injections
Those trying to get pregnant

Of 11 women within the 25 - 35 age parameters10 had experienced noticeable menstrual changes.
Most were within 1 cycle of booster but one on long term injections took 3 months for any effect to manifest .

Small sample but would suggest an effect.
Boosters varied - I dont think they drilled down into any correlations, more of a moaning session.

 

I hear you, and the points you are making are important. However, I don't agree that "the implication is that it is more than expected". To me "many" is a neutral enough word in this context. Looking at the actual numbers of reports, it doesn't seem to be an awfully rare reaction. Would you feel more comfortable if we use the word "some" instead?

As mentioned already in this thread, there is so much stigma around menstruation and so called "women's health" problems, and a very long history of medical neglect, abuse etc too. That's one of the reasons why it irks me when people are immediately trying to minimise and/or explain away these things, even attempting to shut down discussions about it on some platforms -- in the context of vaccines or not, regardless.

I personally haven't seen anyone use the fact that this is happening to "some" women as a tool to try and discourage others from having the vaccine. The way I've seen it expressed on social media is just a simple agenda-less sharing of personal experiences, and to let others know they are not alone in experiencing the same. It really means a lot to many ("some") of the people affected, to simply know that they are not alone, and to feel free to discuss intimate issues like this openly without being silenced or having their experiences minimised or politicised by others.

The Swedish news stories I've read have been neutral too, simply stating that so far this many reports have been made, and as of yet it's not confirmed whether they are vaccine related reactions or not.

Here's an example of a Danish article on the same.

In the interest of full transparency, this is personal to me, too. I suffered from continuous, very heavy bleeding for more than 6 weeks at one point not long after I came down with ME. I was repeatedly denied medical assessment, and instead offered only CBT to "help manage my worry". It was an horrendous experience to have to go through, and I was completely alone. My ME onset happened to be vaccine associated (not covid).

I'm asking you to please be sensitive to the larger context in which this discussion is happening, and the stigma surrounding so called "women's health". Please.

 

I think this brings home to me that once something is personal, be it specifically yourself or very close to home, then it becomes hugely more difficult to not be "auto-biased". Becomes very hard to believe there is not a correlation with something that happened recently, and that it may well be causation. Becomes hugely difficult to accept that your situation might simply be one of the 1-in-a-1000 chance occurrences, because to you it is very real. Which I think is an interesting perspective on expectation bias, etc., anyway.

I'm still not certain either way, but hopefully it really is nothing more than the stats suggest.

 

But there is nothing in these reports that says this is a reaction. Just an event.

I absolutely sympathise with that. But surely the answer is to get away from loose attributions of problems to vaccines or presumed psychological issues and get on with routine investigation.

 

Women are being seeing by their doctors and are being told that there is a connection to the vaccine. Just as people who develop neuropathy after having the vaccines are being told by neurologists that there is a connection to the vaccine. One person was told by their neurologist that approximately 60% of his new patients in the last year were all complaining of the same thing. Routine investigation is ruling out any other cause.