Menstrual Problems Are Common After Receipt of Pfizer's COVID-19 Inoculation
Women Deserve Answers About the Implications
In breaking news, the results of an important new study were released by the medical journal called International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics. The study underwent peer review and has been accepted for publication. It was posted online ahead of print ~48 hours ago. The paper is entitled “The effect of BNT162b2 SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine on menstrual cycle symptoms in healthy women”. In other words, the effect of Pfizer/BioNTech’s COVID-19 inoculation was studied in menstruating women. You can find the article here. The results are concerning. Here are key quotes from the paper:
“A total of 219 women met the inclusion criteria. Of them, 23.3% (n=51) experienced irregular bleeding following the vaccine. Almost 40% (n=83) of study participants reported any menstrual change following vaccination.”
“Our study shows relatively high rates of irregular bleeding and menstrual changes after receiving the SARS-CoV-2 mRNA BNT162b2 vaccine. Further research is needed to confirm our findings and to better characterize the magnitude of change and any possible long term implications.”
Personally, I started receiving emails related to this topic shortly after the public rollout of COVID-19 ‘vaccines’ began. These were from women around the world who were experiencing unusual vaginal bleeding shortly after being inoculated. They knew that I was open to objectively considering the possibility that the ‘vaccines’ might not be entirely safe. Over the past year-and-a-half these have added up to hundreds of reports. As a scientist, I was frustrated to recognize this as a legitimate potential problem that deserved to be taken seriously, but all I had in-hand was a lot of circumstantial/anectodal evidence. When it comes to side-effects of the COVID-19 inoculations, this had been a common problem since so little active safety monitoring has been done. We have to mainly rely on passive monitoring systems that dramatically underestimate adverse events, but to a difficult-to-define degree. I would refer you to scientists like Dr. Jessica Rose who are experts at pulling legitimate safety signals out of these databases.
I first paid close attention to the potential impact on menstruation when a self-organized group of women in Africa started openly discussing the issue shortly after the ‘vaccine’ rollout began. Kudos to them, because it wouldn’t have been easy and I think they played a key roll in getting the research wheels eventually rolling on this issue. The United States Centers for Disease Control and other organizations decided to start funding research studies to look into well after the rollout began. This is the reverse of how clinical research should be done. A new medical product should never be rolled out to the public, followed by a wait-and-see period to determine if anything seems to be going awry, rely on members of the public to organize themselves sufficiently to get their voices heard, and then conducting the properly controlled research studies to see if the problem is legitimate. These kinds of problems can usually be identified ahead of time if the clinical trial process isn’t accelerated to warp speed.
The authors of the above paper, Naama Lessans, Amihai Rottenstreich, Shira Stern, Adi Gilan, Tal D. Saar, Shay Porat and Uri P. Dior, are to be congratulated on conducting this important study. It is the first of its kind that I have seen and legitimizes the concerns that so many women around the world have known to be true. I know that many women have faced harsh criticism when they tried to have open conversations about this. Many have had to deal with this entirely on their own, even experiencing what some might argue is medical malpractice when physicians either dismissed the issue or did not want to acknowledge it for fear of contradicting the so-called ‘narrative’.
In the study being discussed here, the age range was 18-50 years; women that had healthy, regular menstrual cycles prior to getting inoculated. However, I and many of my international colleagues have received disturbing numbers of anecdotal reports of vaginal bleeding happening in the very young (premenstrual age) and the elderly (post-menstruation; as old as 94 years from the accounts I received). In these demographics, such a problem would not be with menstruation. Rather, this would be suggestive of pathological hemorrhaging. So, I would urge the authors of this paper to extend their research to include the very young and the elderly.
I was recently challenged by a scientist about my concerns regarding Pfizer’s lipid nanoparticles, which are part of their vaccine formulation, accumulating in the ovaries to a concerning concentration. They opined that if this were to result in damage to the ovaries, this should be unveiled in at least some women in the form of unusual vaginal bleeding. As I have often had to do, I had to bite my tongue because the only data I could draw upon would be deemed ‘anecdotal’. This individual also would not accept data derived from things like the United States Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System. The paper discussed here helps alleviate this shortage of so-called ‘acceptable’ data that has been hand-cuffing many of us who have legitimate safety concerns.
Women suffering this problem need to be listened to. Their concerns are valid and physicians need to take them seriously. Knowing that Pfizer’s ‘vaccine’ accumulates in the ovaries combined with the findings of this new peer-reviewed scientific article, and the known impacts on fertility should cause physicians and public health officials to pause and ask what this unusual bleeding means. Bleeding is merely a sign of an underlying pathological process. Where is this blood coming from in the female reproductive tract? Is it be the result of damage to the female reproductive tract that could impact fertility or the ability to maintain a pregnancy? Could it be due to induction of a hormonal imbalance? Could the underlying damage contribute to chronic diseases like reproductive cancers, etc?
Forty percent of women are experiencing unusual menstruation post-inoculation. This means that hundreds of millions of women have been impacted. These kinds of warning signs should not be ignored. Gynecologists and obstetricians need to call for a full stop to any further administration of COVID-19 ‘vaccines’ to women until the science in this area can be settled.
Women of all ages, if you have experienced any unusual vaginal bleeding or other menstrual issues after receipt of a COVID-19 ‘vaccine’, please report this to your physician. They are obligated to submit an adverse event report in the absence of any determination of whether they think it is related to the jab. This helps objective scientists who analyze these databases to identify safety signals. This, in turn, can help inform the design of new research studies to help women who have experienced this problem. I also recommend directly submitting your own report here.
Let’s heed the advice of the authors of this paper and conduct “Further research… to… better characterize… any possible long term implications”.
Dr. Bridle, your observations are entirely consistent with the information Dr. Naomi Wolf and her cadre of 3000 health professionals, statisticians and researchers have gleaned from the Pfizer clinical trial data they (Pfizer) were forced to release. Bear in mind these are the documents they wanted under lock for 75 years so no one could look at it until 2097.
I asked medical exemption for my daughter, who suffered from severe anemia from irregular period a few years ago, but it was denied and I was ridiculed.