Coronavirus

https://twitter.com/jordanschachtel/status/1433469087041130496?s=21

 

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/The-Covid-vaccines-may-affect-periods.-Are-we-allowed-to-talk-about-this/

The Covid vaccines may affect periods. Are we allowed to talk about this?


[iStock]

It’s fashionable to talk about periods. Books on the subject, with glossy red and pink covers, are bestsellers. They have sassy titles like Period Power: A Manifesto for the Menstrual Movement and Period:Twelve Voices Tell the Bloody Truth. The Periodical is a podcast for ‘everyone who bleeds, and their friends’. And this being our ultra-capitalist world, you can obviously buy a T-shirt, notebook or phone cover with a period-related slogan slapped across it. ‘Anything you can do, I can do bleeding’ is one mantra.

I admit to having not engaged much with this world. My period has always seemed to me a private matter, of no interest to anybody else and only vague interest to myself. I feel a little uncomfortable bringing the subject to the pages of The Spectator. I do so because I was interested to read that British women have made 30,304 reports of changes to their periods after having received a Covid vaccine. I realised I am one of them.

I will spare the details but suffice to say that after I had my first jab of Pfizer in late May, my cycle was flung off course. I did consider reporting it to the MHRA’s Yellow Card scheme, through which people can voluntarily report any suspected side effect from the jabs, but confess I felt silly to worry. It wasn’t exactly a blood clot or a heart murmur. When I had my second dose, the man in the booth asked whether I had experienced any side effects. I mentioned the changes to my period. He logged it on my file, said it would be flagged to the MHRA scheme and a minute later a doctor rushed in to reassure me there was ‘no reason to be concerned that the Covid jab would affect my fertility’. I hadn’t asked if there was.

I wanted to ask how he could be so certain, given these vaccines are very new. But I was concerned that would make me sound loopy. Goody two-jabs that I am, I didn’t want a black mark next to my NHS number. So instead we moved the discussion on, landing on London’s best pasta restaurants. ‘Trullo is lovely,’ I said to the two men. ‘Do you know it?’ A minute later, I’d had my second jab and after the obligatory 15-minute please-don’t-faint wait, headed back across Westminster Bridge to the Spectator office.

Millions of British women have been jabbed, so 30,304 reports will be a tiny proportion: a negligible number, you might say. But it doesn’t seem negligible if you’re one of those women. I imagine many will keep a record of their cycle, perhaps in their diary or on an app, and will have noticed a change. In the US, one research survey tracking menstrual changes brought on by the Covid jabs received 140,000 responses. The two biological anthropologists conducting the research said they had expected to receive around 500 when they launched their survey.

The real number of cases in the UK is possibly quite a bit higher than 30,304. But it is awkward talking about what the jab has done to our periods. Friends tell me they’ve also been affected and nope, they didn’t report it either. Nobody wants to be thought of as hysterical. Emotional. A tad neurotic. So instead these conversations are going on discreetly, on WhatsApp chats, on internet threads, in hushed tones. Who wants to be accused of being a dreaded ‘anti-vaxxer’?

Is it ‘anti-vaxx’ to be concerned that these jabs may be having an effect on our menstrual cycles? I message a doctor who specialises in women’s health to ask if it’s normal for vaccines to affect periods in such a way. Not really, she replies. I note that women aged 16 to 29 are one of the groups most likely to refuse the jab. I do not find this statistic hugely surprising.

Friends have also been affected and they didn’t report it either. Nobody wants to be thought of as hysterical
It does not seem surprising, either, that pregnant women are nervous about having the vaccine, despite the Royal College of Midwives and the Prime Minister’s pregnant wife, Carrie Johnson, suggesting there is nothing to worry about. ‘Just had my second jab and feeling great!’ she wrote on her personal Instagram page.

If you vaccinate an entire population, even rare side effects will add up to thousands of people. Is it so wrong to talk about this? And if the jabs are affecting so many women’s periods, who knows what else might be going on. Medical trials on pregnant women were banned following the thalidomide scandal of the 1960s. I suppose we can only hope and trust that Carrie and the midwives are right to advise all pregnant women that the risks of Covid are noticeably greater than the risks of the vaccine.

In another survey run by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists in May, just under 60 per cent of pregnant women said they had declined the vaccine. They may not have been hugely reassured by the RCOG’s own literature on the subject. The official information sheet offers pregnant women two options: ‘Get a Covid-19 vaccine’ or ‘Wait for more information about the vaccine in pregnancy’. Pregnant women do not have oodles of time to wait and see how everything pans out. They could also be forgiven for thinking they are being somewhat strong-armed into taking the jab, given how keen the government is on pushing through vaccine documentation for the double-jabbed. But as the RCOG seems to admit, we could do with a bit more evidence on the vaccine and pregnancy.

Back to fertility. Dr Edward Morris, the RCOG president, has reassured women that there is ‘no biologically plausible mechanism by which current vaccines would cause any impact on women’s fertility’. While I am comforted by that, it is also the case that women associate their periods with their fertility. And there is reason to believe that the Covid jabs are having an effect on some women’s periods. A month after my second jab, I make a note that my latest cycle is messed up, once again.



Sent from my iPhone

 

https://twitter.com/rwmalonemd/status/1433479567105302528?s=21

 

https://happydespitethem.blogspot.com/2021/09/was-ivermectin-considered-mere-horse.html

Was ivermectin considered mere "horse paste" in 2017?
I have a lot of tabs open on various topics, and I plan to do a bunch of posts to comment on them all. But this first one is on just one story: ivermectin.

The disinformation campaign against ivermectin is in high gear. From the government (FDA, CDC) to seemingly independent Twitter users, scorn oozes out of every pixel for idiots who dose themselves with veterinary medicine in the insane hope that they will ward off the deadly Covid virus, when all they have to do is get a jab and their lives will be unicorns and rainbows.

That makes this 2017 article published on nature.com in the Journal of Antibiotics so interesting, because it has nothing but glowing prose and vast footnotes on the promises of that cheap and effective remedy for people: Ivermectin: enigmatic multifaceted ‘wonder’ drug continues to surprise and exceed expectations.

Over the past decade, the global scientific community have begun to recognize the unmatched value of an extraordinary drug, ivermectin, that originates from a single microbe unearthed from soil in Japan. Work on ivermectin has seen its discoverer, Satoshi Ōmura, of Tokyo’s prestigious Kitasato Institute, receive the 2014 Gairdner Global Health Award and the 2015 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, which he shared with a collaborating partner in the discovery and development of the drug, William Campbell of Merck & Co. Incorporated. Today, ivermectin is continuing to surprise and excite scientists, offering more and more promise to help improve global public health by treating a diverse range of diseases, with its unexpected potential as an antibacterial, antiviral and anti-cancer agent being particularly extraordinary.

There are so many benefits to this drug that you have to scroll down the article pretty far to find the overwhelmingly positive report of its anti-viral properties:

Antiviral (e.g. HIV, dengue, encephalitis)

Recent research has confounded the belief, held for most of the past 40 years, that ivermectin was devoid of any antiviral characteristics. Ivermectin has been found to potently inhibit replication of the yellow fever virus, with EC50 values in the sub-nanomolar range. It also inhibits replication in several other flaviviruses, including dengue, Japanese encephalitis and tick-borne encephalitis, probably by targeting non-structural 3 helicase activity.97 Ivermectin inhibits dengue viruses and interrupts virus replication, bestowing protection against infection with all distinct virus serotypes, and has unexplored potential as a dengue antiviral.98

Ivermectin has also been demonstrated to be a potent broad-spectrum specific inhibitor of importin α/β-mediated nuclear transport and demonstrates antiviral activity against several RNA viruses by blocking the nuclear trafficking of viral proteins. It has been shown to have potent antiviral action against HIV-1 and dengue viruses, both of which are dependent on the importin protein superfamily for several key cellular processes. Ivermectin may be of import in disrupting HIV-1 integrase in HIV-1 as well as NS-5 (non-structural protein 5) polymerase in dengue viruses.99, 100

Maybe, just maybe, people have done their own research (with the help of the brave Drs. Kory and Marik and all the others who put treating patients ahead of toeing the government line), and realize that they won't get ivermectin unless they get it themselves. They get that they can read the insert of even the version they buy at the Tractor Supply Company -- unlike the insert of the vaccine, which is blank. So they can see for themselves what the inactive ingredients are and make their own decision -- unlike with the vaccines. And knowing that over a billion human beings have taken ivermectin and that it's safer than tylenol makes this decision a no-brainer.

Looks like Covid changed a lot of things for us. One thing it seems to have changed is the view of this remedy -- which went from wonder-drug, cheap and effective for humans, to poisonous conspiracy potion. I wonder why?





Sent from my iPhone

 

https://www.barnhardt.biz/2021/09/0...-flavor-and-aerosil-fumed-silica-a-thickener/

Q&A: Ann, what are the other ingredients in the Ivermectin horse paste that we are being told is poison? A: Corn Oil, Polysorbate 80, Apple Flavor, and Aerosil (fumed silica, a thickener).
Ann BarnhardtSeptember 2, ARSH 2021
Read up on Aerosil (fumed silica) here. It’s totally safe and widely used as a thickener.

And now since the agitpropagandists are pushing the horse memes, I can play. Here’s the film version of Secretariat’s final leg of the Belmont. The silence as he makes the turn, followed by the explosion of the choir is almost as powerful as the emails I get from people saying that the livestock and equine labeled Ivermectin helped and perhaps saved lives. We’ll find out at the General Judgment. For now, we just do the right, and thank God for the opportunity.

Ivermectin appears to be the Secretariat of human drugs. Antiparasitic, antiviral, anti-inflammatory, and possibly anti-tumoral.