Thursday, April 25, 2024
HomeCOVID-19Is this why researchers dismiss worrying jab results?

Is this why researchers dismiss worrying jab results?


I HAVE previously written about a tendency by medical study authors to downplay their results if they don’t conform with the official narrative regarding the Covid-19 vaccines. A study done in Iceland and published last summer found that double-vaccinated individuals were 42 per cent more likely to become reinfected than others. But in their conclusions the authors mentioned only a ‘slightly higher’ probability.

Now, a new study is out that deals with menstruation problems following vaccination. In their Conclusions section, the authors say: ‘Weak and inconsistent associations were observed between SARS-CoV-2 vaccination and healthcare contacts for bleeding in women who are postmenopausal, and even less evidence was recorded of an association for menstrual disturbance or bleeding in women who were premenopausal. These findings do not provide substantial support for a causal association between SARS-CoV-2 vaccination and healthcare contacts related to menstrual or bleeding disorders.’ Nothing to worry about, according to mainstream media reporting.

Really? Let’s take a look at the Results section:

It says that 2,580,007 (87.6 per cent) of 2,946,448 women received at least one SARS-CoV-2 vaccination and 1,652,472 (64.0 per cent) of the vaccinated women received three doses before the end of follow-up. The highest risks for bleeding in women who were postmenopausal were observed after the third dose, in the one to seven days risk window (hazard ratio 1.28 (95 per cent confidence interval 1.01 to 1.62)) and in the 8-90 days risk window (1.25 (1.04 to 1.50)). The impact of adjustment for covariates was modest. Risk of postmenopausal bleeding suggested a 23-33 per cent increased risk after 8-90 days with BNT162b2 (Pfizer) and mRNA-1273 (Moderna) after the third dose, but the association with ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AstraZeneca) was less clear. For menstrual disturbance or bleeding in women who were premenopausal, adjustment for covariates almost completely removed the weak associations noted in the crude analyses.

So, actually there is significant risk for postmenopausal women even after adjustments, but for premenopausal the ‘weak associations’ are removed after adjustment for covariates. Why those huge adjustments? Anyhow, let’s look at the actual numbers by product for postmenopausal.

First, Pfizer: Adjusted risk 1.41 (41 per cent higher than unvaccinated) after 1-7 days from third-dose and 1.23 (23 per cent higher) after 8-90 days. ‘Weak and inconsistent’: really?

Now for Moderna: Adjusted risk 1.33 (33 per cent higher than unvaccinated) after 1-7 days from first dose and 8-90 days after the third. ‘Weak and inconsistent’: really?

Finally AZ: 1.24 adjusted risk 1-7 days after first does, 1.21 after the second (24 per cent and 21 per cent higher than unvaccinated, respectively). ‘Weak and inconsistent’: really?

Last October, the European Medicines Agency finally recommended adding menstrual problems to the already long list of Covid-19 vaccine side effects. About time, after the many reports from women (well, who listens to women anyway?) The results of the new study strongly underpin those concerns, as clearly demonstrated above.

The question that remains is why the glaring discrepancy between the results and the authors’ stated conclusions?

The authors know full well that most journalists neither read nor understand scientific studies; they know how their highest ideal of verification is appeal to authority (‘the authors say, therefore it is true’). Every scientist knows this. Therefore, it is the authors’ responsibility to correctly portray and highlight their findings. But instead they try to hide them.


Is the answer to be found in the ‘competing interests’ section?

‘Competing interests: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at and declare: MG reports personal fees from AstraZeneca, Gilead, GSK/ViiV, MSD, Biogen, Novocure, Amgen, Novo Nordisk, outside the submitted work. SL reports consulting for Scandinavian Biopharma and is an employee of AstraZeneca since 16 January 2023. The work in this article was performed before this employment commenced. FN reports prior employment at AstraZeneca until 2019, and ownership of some AstraZeneca shares. MB and YX declare no competing interests. AS reported participating in research funded by governmental agencies, universities, Astellas Pharma, Janssen Biotech, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Roche, (then) Abbott Laboratories, (then) Schering-Plough, UCB Nordic, and Sobi, with all funds paid to Karolinska Institutet, outside of the submitted work. RL reported receiving grants from Sanofi Aventis paid to his institution outside the submitted work; and receiving personal fees from Pfizer outside of the submitted work.’

If there are still any real journalists out there, how about picking up the phone or hitting the keyboard and asking? Would be a nice change, wouldn’t it?

If you appreciated this article, perhaps you might consider making a donation to The Conservative Woman. Unlike most other websites, we receive no independent funding. Our editors are unpaid and work entirely voluntarily as do the majority of our contributors but there are inevitable costs associated with running a website. We depend on our readers to help us, either with regular or one-off payments. You can donate here. Thank you.
If you have not already signed up to a daily email alert of new articles please do so. It is here and free! Thank you.

Previous article
Next article
Thorsteinn Siglaugsson
Thorsteinn Siglaugsson
Thorsteinn Siglaugsson is an Icelandic economist, consultant and writer. Author of From Symptoms to Causes - Applying the Logical Thinking Process to an Everyday Problem.

Sign up for TCW Daily

Each morning we send The ConWom Daily with links to our latest news. This is a free service and we will never share your details.