It has been two years, two months, and twelve days (or 804 total days) since the administration of my employer, the University of Guelph, banned me from accessing my office and laboratory.
- B. Bridle -
Starting two years ago, I began voicing concerns on behalf of women who were experiencing changes to their menstrual cycle following receipt of modified RNA shots for COVID-19. It was a group of brave women in Africa that first brought this issue to my attention. They formed a Facebook group that grew to thousands, only to be censored. Over time I also accumulated numerous emails from concerned women asking if I had heard of this problem that they were experiencing; they knew that I was open to the concept that the shots might not be 100% safe. There were also reports accumulating in the United States’ Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System. My concerns really began to grow when I learned of cases of elderly women and young girls getting vaginal bleeding. This took the issue beyond unusual menstruation changes into the realm of pathological bleeding. Bleeding of this nature is not supposed to happen and is indicative that something is wrong in the reproductive tract.
My early messaging was an acknowledgement that much of the data were anecdotal but certainly worthy of serious research investigations. I am not one to assume that many unrelated random people are lying to me. In response, many of my colleagues declared ‘misinformation’ and ‘nothing to see here’.
Well, fortunately for the health of women, some studies have now progressed in this area (too little being done too late). In my opinion, the research done to date remains far too superficial and a well-designed, large-scale prospective study (acquiring data in real-time moving forward, as opposed to ‘retrospective’, which uses historical data) is still much-needed. Otherwise, the deniers of scientific reality will try to use the excuse of studies being ‘too preliminary’ at the ongoing expense of the health of women.
Here is the latest published peer-reviewed scientific article on the subject, and one that finally looked at non-menstruating women (suggesting that bleeding in these individuals is pathological and not just a minor disruption of a cycle that can be prone to variation)…
Unexpected Vaginal Bleeding and COVID-19 Vaccination in Nonmenstruating Women
Here is the full citation:
Blix K, Laake I, Juvet L, Robertson AH, Caspersen IH, Mjaaland S, Skodvin SN, Magnus P, Feiring B, Trogstad L. Unexpected vaginal bleeding and COVID-19 vaccination in nonmenstruating women. Science Advances. 2023 Sep 22;9(38):eadg1391. doi: 10.1126/sciadv.adg1391. Epub 2023 Sep 22. PMID: 37738335; PMCID: PMC10516485.
Here are the key take-home messages from the paper…
“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.“
“Together with current knowledge, it seems probable that both pre- and postmenopausal women are at increased risk of unexpected vaginal bleeding after COVID-19 vaccination.“
It is important to note that this research only included women who had received one or two shots. I hypothesize that things might get worse as the number of shots increase. Also, girls were not included in this study and this is a very important demographic to look at. Any harm to their reproductive tract could have life-long consequences. Finally, the study looked at non-menstruating women. But I suspect that this might have relevance for menstruating women as well; the changes in vaginal bleeding in this demographic might also be pathological, rather than just a perturbation of the natural cycle.
Personally, I know of one 95-year-old woman and one six-year-old girl that experienced vaginal bleeding post-inoculation, among many others in between those ages. This represents a massive age range. I also know of a twelve-year-old girl that is now on chronic iron supplementation because her vaginal bleeding is so bad since taking two shots (started after the first; dramatically worsened after the second).
Obviously, very young girls and elderly women should not have vaginal bleeding. I am disgusted that this has been allowed to happen. All because the precautionary principle was replaced with the concept of ‘no evidence of harm = proof of safety’, and ‘if you suspect there may be harm, the onus is on you to prove it before we’ll consider investigating’.
Here is another important conclusion by the authors…
“Our findings must be confirmed by well-designed prospective studies and such events should be addressed in clinical trials of future vaccines.“
In other words, the authors are indicating two things:
Funders of health care research need to prioritize this current problem and enable proper studies to be done; ignoring the problem will not make it go away.
Clinical trials of vaccines cannot cut corners, as was done with the COVID-19 shots.
Good on these authors for ‘calling a spade a spade’.
And good on the women who fought hard to have their health issues finally recognized and investigated. Your ‘anecdotes’ are becoming firmly established scientific facts.
And shame on my colleagues who showed utter disregard for the health of women.
This is terrible and scary.
Now I know the answer to: “Where is the outcry??!!”
It’s been muffled and suppressed.
I saw a video earlier this year with an early 40's woman claiming that she was very regular all her life. The day after she got the Covid jab she began bleeding again and it continued both heavy and light bleeding EVERY day for almost a year. Neither her doctor or his nurse would submit a VAERS report on her experience.