An important article on the impact of C19 on menses - somewhat tainted by leading with mis-information and dis-information

From here:

COVID-19 vaccination and menstruation | Science

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.ade1051

This is the headline: COVID-19 vaccination and menstruation - COVID-19 vaccination causes small changes to menstruation that quickly resolve

Right off - what is the definition of “resolve”. There is an old expression used as a selling technique “never mind the quality, feel the width”. It is used to get a buyer to prefer quantity to quality. In this case, there is no attempt to examine the presence of the toxic spike protein in menses after one, two or ten cycles, that might indicate ongoing “issues” (sic).

You get the first hit of lies from the opening sentence “The rapid development of safe and effective vaccines against COVID-19 has been a triumph of medical science, but vaccines only work if people take them.” Replace “work” with kill and maim and you come closer to the truth.

It odes not stop there. Despite mounting evidence of falling birth rates in many countries the article states “extensive evidence that COVID-19 vaccination does not affect fertility”. Incredible.

Check out how out of date the article is. I will make a side point for this statement:

“By April 2022, the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) in the United States had received more than 11,000 reports of menstrual changes and unexpected vaginal bleeding after COVID-19 vaccination (1). Yellow Card, the equivalent scheme in the United Kingdom, had received more than 50,000 reports (1).”

April 2022? Really? More than 6 months ago?

The UK’s population of round 68 million is around one fifth that of the US’ 335 million. So, you might expect that 50,000 UK reports would equate to 250,000 similar reports to VAERS, rather than just 11,000. Women in the UK reported 23 times more menstrual changes and unexpected vaginal bleeding than women in the US. How many women in both countries did not report changes and surprises?

No acknowledgement of any under-reporting or reference to V-Safe data survey of 10 million Americans - presumably a roughly even gender split, that is discussed here:

Menstrual irregularities and vaginal bleeding after COVID-19 vaccination reported to v-safe active surveillance, USA in December, 2020–January, 2022: an observational cohort study - The Lancet Digital Health

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/landig/article/PIIS2589-7500(22)00125-X/fulltext

“Findings

63 815 respondents reported on menstrual irregularities or vaginal bleeding, which included 62 679 female respondents (1·0% of 5 975 363 female respondents aged ≥18 years). Common themes identified included timing of menstruation (70 981 [83·6%] responses) and severity of menstrual symptoms (56 890 [67·0%] responses). Other themes included menopausal bleeding (3439 [4·0%] responses) and resumption of menses (2378 [2·8%] responses).”

If there were 5 million women out of ten million in the V-Safe survey, 63,816 reports represents 1.3%. Not an insignificant number. How many didn’t bother reporting such an issue to V-Safe and just “walked it off”? Two thirds of these reported severe symptoms.

The Lancet interpreted these Findings to “offer promise in the initial evaluation of unexpected adverse events potentially associated with use of newly authorised or licensed vaccines.” Really? Ok.

The Science article references many prospective and observational studies to make the point that changes to cycle length are less than a day and are resolved within one or two cycles post injection after a first or second dose.

Note that the FDA/CDC trashed prospective and observational studies using IVM and HCQ treatment protocols (like the eradication of C19 amongst 240 million people in the Indian State of Uttar Pradesh).

No reference is made to the presence or absence of toxic spike proteins in menses during this time or after many cycles - which might indicate key issues with general and reproductive health and which you would have though would have lent themselves easy for seroprevalence studies. T

his statement is made “.the effect is a result of the immune response to vaccination rather than a specific vaccine component.” So, no reaction to PEG coatings, lipid nano particles or the spike proteins that the mRNA instructs the body to produce. I wonder how they figured that out?

Two causes of menstrual changes are extracted from the papers reviewed in the Science article.

“Innate immune responses could transiently interfere with the hormones that drive the menstrual cycle, or they could affect macrophages and natural killer cells in the lining of the uterus, which control the breakdown and regeneration of this tissue through the cycle.”

But nothing to see here, simply temporary effects - no possible similarities with conditions like myocarditis at all.

There is this statement on the impact of the SARS-COV2 virus itself, not the impact of the C19 injection.

“In studies early in the pandemic, between 15 and 25% of individuals reported changes to their periods after SARS-CoV-2 infection..”

Since the C19 injections cause the body to manufacture the toxic spike protein (but not the SARS-COV2 virus, I can’t recall) there is no discussion on why and whether this 15-25% also applies to C19 mRNA injections.

One good point in the articles is this “..data about effects on menstruation are rarely collected in vaccine trials. This must change”. It is incredible that this obvious point is not part of established procedures already. Especially since, in general, NO injections are advised during pregnancy and fertility, menstruation and pregnancy are so intertwined.

STOP PRESS: Dr Mobeen discusses the difference between Vaccine Spike and SARS-COV2 spike

Vaccine Spike vs. SARS-COV-2 Spike - YouTube

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XCmZSu1GrjY