Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- covid-19_vaccines:systemic_risks:fertility [2022/01/05 17:33]
robert [Evidence to the contrary of CDC Claims:]
+++ covid-19_vaccines:systemic_risks:fertility [2022/01/07 16:52] (current)
robert [Evidence to the contrary of CDC Claims:] Added NIH menstruation study
@@ Line 3: / Line 3: @@
 =====Current Research on the Impact of Vaccination during Pregnancy=====
-**Current CDC Guidance**: COVID-19 vaccination is recommended for people who are pregnant, breastfeeding, trying to get pregnant now, or might become pregnant in the future. This recommendation was likely based on a flawed report by Shimabukuro (Shimabukuro TT, Kim SY, Myers TR, et al. 2021. //Preliminary findings of mRNA Covid-19 vaccine safety in pregnant persons.// __New England Journal of Medicine__ 384(24): 2273–82. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2104983
+**Current CDC Guidance**: COVID-19 vaccination is recommended for people who are pregnant, breastfeeding, trying to get pregnant now, or might become pregnant in the future. This recommendation was likely based on a flawed report by Shimabukuro (Shimabukuro TT, Kim SY, Myers TR, et al. 2021. //Preliminary findings of mRNA Covid-19 vaccine safety in pregnant persons.// __New England Journal of Medicine__ 384(24): 2273–82.((https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2104983))
 > Apr 21, 2021 ([[https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2104983|NEJM]]) 14% pregnancy terminations after vaccination. No mention of background rate for comparison? Further reading: relative risk not all that different [so far].
@@ Line 11: / Line 11: @@
 ==== Evidence to the contrary of CDC Claims: ====
->The Shimabukuro claim was recently rebutted via a peer-reviewed blind review process in the November 2021 edition of __Science, Public Health Policy and the Law__: Volume 4:130–143 (Clinical and Translational Research) - //Spontaneous Abortions and Policies on COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine Use During Pregnancy// which states;
+The Shimabukuro claim was recently rebutted via a peer-reviewed blind review process in the November 2021 edition of __Science, Public Health Policy and the Law__: Volume 4:130–143 (Clinical and Translational Research) - //Spontaneous Abortions and Policies on COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine Use During Pregnancy// which states;
 >"Our re-analysis indicates a cumulative incidence of spontaneous abortion 7 to 8 times higher than the original authors’ results (p < 0.001) and the typical average for pregnancy loss during this time period.(([[https://cf5e727d-d02d-4d71-89ff-9fe2d3ad957f.filesusr.com/ugd/adf864_2bd97450072f4364a65e5cf1d7384dd4.pdf | Spontaneous Abortions and Policies on COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine Use During Pregnancy]]))
@@ Line 30: / Line 30: @@
 {{:covid-19_vaccines:systemic_risks:kissinger_depop.jpg?200|}} {{ :covid-19_vaccines:systemic_risks:50-prince-philip-858ivirus.jpg?400|}}
+January 6, 2022: "COVID-19 vaccination associated with a small, temporary increase in menstrual cycle length, suggests NIH-funded study"((https://www.nichd.nih.gov/newsroom/news/010622-COVID-19-vaccine-menstruation))