Periods

What’s Causing Abnormal Periods in Women Post ‘Vaccination’?

This is what the Daily Expose reports:

Thousands of women have been reporting period problems after they received the Covid-19 vaccine and are now being monitored by the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).

4,000 women have reported changes in their menstrual cycle after getting their Covid jab, particularly among those aged 30 to 49.

Figures obtained by The Sunday Times show that 2,734 reports of period problems after the AstraZeneca vaccine was made to the MHRA up to May 17th, a further 1,158 were related to the Pfizer jab, and 66 were linked to the Moderna vaccine.

The period side effects primarily include heavier than normal bleeding and other irregularities, which are believed to have affected more women who have not reported their experience.

Despite over 4,000 women reporting these issues post-vaccination, doctors have said that there is “no increased risk” of period problems after the jab so there is no reason to add it to the growing list of side effects.

June Raine of the MHRA, of course, has dismissed claims of anything unusual happening, despite the fact that 4000 yellow card reports is likely to be just the tip of the iceberg. Something definitely odd appears to be happening though, judging from the nature of many anecdotal reports by women all over the world.

MHRA chief executive Dr June Raine said: ‘Alongside the independent experts of the Commission on Human Medicines and members of its Medicines for Women’s Health Expert Advisory Group, we have reviewed reports of menstrual disorders and unexpected vaginal bleeding, suspected as adverse reactions to vaccination. 

‘The current evidence does not suggest an increased risk, following vaccination, with the UK’s three Covid vaccines.

‘The number of reports is low in relation to the number of women who have had the vaccine to date and the background rate of menstrual disorders generally. 

‘We continue to closely monitor these reports for potential signals.’

Usual dismissive guff from the medical and pharmaceutical regulatory bodies whenever serious side effects to the ‘vaccines’ are mentioned. Many women are reporting highly unusual disruptions to their periods; women who have always had light periods suddenly experiencing very heavy and painful periods, even post menopausal women reporting having a period soon after the jab. Does that come under ‘background rate’ of menstrual disorders? I don’t think so. These women commented in the Daily Mail for instance:

Well I was one of the 4000 who reported it to the yellow card. Post menopausal for 2 years yet had a period 3 weeks after my Pfizer jab. Not a coincidence!

I’m 41 my monthly’s have completely stopped since having the first jab. I’ve had my second and still no period. I had to go for a scan and they can’t see a problem. I think it’s definitely something to do with the vaccine, as I was as regular as clockwork before.

There are thousands of similar comments from other women on social media and elsewhere

Raine, as a woman, should be thoroughly ashamed of herself for being so blatantly and arrogantly dismissive of these real concerns.

So what’s going on? Well, the first clue might be the peer reviewed scientific literature which demonstrates that lipid nanoparticles in the blood stream tend to accumulate in the ovaries and the second clue is the demonstration that Covid ‘vaccine’ lipid nanoparticles and spike proteins do not stay confined to the local injection site and can in fact escape into the blood vessels and thus travel throughout the body. The former has been known about since at least 2013, so Pfizer and Moderna knew, in advance, that if their product did manage to escape into the blood stream, it would accumulate in the female reproductive organs. Here for instance:

Lipidots are original nanoparticulate lipid delivery vectors for drugs and contrast agents made from materials generally regarded as safe. Here, we characterized the in vivo stability, biodistribution, and pharmacokinetics of lipidots.

Radioactive and fluorescent tracers displayed a similar nanoparticle-driven biodistribution, indicative of the lipidots’ integrity during the first hours after injection. Lipidots distributed in the liver and, surprisingly, in the steroid-rich organs adrenals and ovaries, but not in the spleen.

We report the pharmacokinetics and whole-body biodistribution of triply labeled lipidots in mice. Results from organ counting and fluorescence detection were confirmed by live optical imaging and ex vivo histologic examination of target organs. Unexpectedly, lipidots showed specific uptake in steroid organs. Unexpectedly, lipidots showed specific uptake in steroid organs, which to our knowledge has never yet been reported for a lipid nanoparticle.

Altogether, uptake was major in gonadosteroid organs (i.e., liver, adrenals, ovaries), suggesting a specific tropism of lipidots for these organs.

But the really shocking thing is that the ovaries accumulated so many lipidots that the researchers could actually see them fluorescing through the skin of the mice!

DiD fluorescence levels in the ovaries were high enough to be observed directly through the skin of live mice 24 h after the injection of DiD-loaded lipidots

The presence of lipids was still quite high even after a week:

Tritium and fluorescence signals persisted also in the adrenals and ovaries: in the ovaries, uptake for 3H maximized at 52 ± 2.3 %ID/g at 16 h after injection and still was 21 ± 4.6 %ID/g at 168 h after injection

I found it interesting that Robert Malone, the inventor of mRNA ‘vaccine’ technology, in his interview with Brett Weinstein, mentioned in passing that the lipids could be ionised. Could this be part of the reason why they are accumulating in specific organs, notably the ovaries, and not others? This study published in 2017 makes it clear that there are genuine concerns about possible toxic effects of nanoparticles on the female reproductive system:

The wide application of nanomaterials in industry, consumer products, and medicine has raised concerns regarding the potential toxicity of nanoparticles in humans. In this review, the effects of nanomaterials on the reproductive system in animal models are discussed. Females are particularly more vulnerable to nanoparticle toxicity, and toxicity in this population may affect reproductivity and fetal development. Moreover, various types of nanoparticles have negative impacts on male germ cells, fetal development, and the female reproductive system. These impacts are associated with nanoparticle modification, composition, concentration, route of administration, and the species of the animal. Therefore, understanding the impacts of nanoparticles on animal growth and reproduction is essential. Many studies have examined the effects of nanoparticles on primary and secondary target organs, with a concentration on the in vivo and in vitro effects of nanoparticles on the male and female reproductive systems at the clinical, cellular, and molecular levels. This review provides important information regarding organism safety and the potential hazards of nanoparticle use and supports the application of nanotechnologies by minimizing the adverse effects of nanoparticles in vulnerable populations.

Fertility, reproduction, and fetal development are essential to sustain a species, highlighting the importance of the growing public awareness of the toxicity of NPs on the reproductive system. Women have only about 400 follicles that reach maturity and undergo ovulation during their lifetime, meaning that there is a limited opportunity for reproduction (Hillier, 1994Song et al., 2009). Moreover, reproductive female organs, including the uterus and ovaries, exhibit periodic growth, and regeneration that is regulated by hormones. The hormonal control system has dynamic functions and is susceptible to the physiological stress caused by foreign particles (Warren and Perlroth, 2001Armenti et al., 2008), and any interruption in female reproduction potentially results in fetal anomalies.

Moreover, it suggests the mechanism whereby ionised nanoparticles might be able to penetrate the specialized barrier of specific human organs:

Other vital organs of the human body that nanoparticles reach include the brain (Elder et al., 2006; Wang et al., 2008), and the testis (Bai et al., 2010), or even the fetus, which are protected by their own specialized barriers. Nevertheless, even these vital organs are not fully protected, since certain nanoparticles can effectively penetrate their barriers (De Jong et al., 2008). The ability of nanoparticles to bypass/penetrate these defensive, protective barriers of the human body depends on their physical (e.g., size, shape, aspect ratio; Meng et al., 2007; Qiu et al., 2010; Ma et al., 2011) and chemical properties (e.g., aggregation, surface chemical, charge status). For example, positively charged nanoparticles can more effectively enter the cell since the cellular membrane (which consists of a double layer of phospholipids) is negatively charged. This has been also confirmed in independent experiments studying the cellular uptake of nanoparticles (e.g., polyethyleneimine-coated mesoporous silica nanoparticles), which are positively charged, demonstrating an increased uptake by cells compared to negatively charged nanoparticles (Xia et al., 2009). Thus, the increased uptake of positively charged (cationic) nanoparticles may result in increased damage of membrane phospholipids as well as increased damage to cellular compartments (e.g., the lysosomes; Xia et al., 2006).

Doesn’t look too good does it, if, in ‘vaccinated’ women especially, there are millions of ionized lipids floating around in the bloodstream, ready to release their mRNA into cells, forcing them to manufacture what is now known to be a highly cytotoxic spike protein? Ionized lipids which just ‘happen’ to preferentially accumulate in the female reproductive organs. Which brings us back to the enigma of why ‘vaccinated’ women are experiencing highly unusual and alarming irregularities in their normally very stable periods.

An interesting study published in 1998 looked at ionized proteins and their ability to pass unhindered (or not) through the selectively permeable ovarian follicular blood barrier. It’s interesting because it reveals that the permeability of the barrier depends on the ionizing charge of the protein molecule, and whether or not ovulation is taking place:

This report characterizes the permeability and selectivity properties of the ovarian blood-follicle barrier. Proteins of similar size but opposite net charge possess strikingly different permeabilities with respect to this barrier. Inter-α-inhibitor (I α I, 220 kDa, pI ~ 6.2) is excluded from the follicle until an ovulatory stimulus, whereas immunoglobulin G (IgG, 155 kDa, pI ~ 6.5–7.0) passes into the follicle without an ovulatory stimulus. However, cationization of I α I results in its influx into the follicle in the absence of an ovulatory signal. Conversely, anionization of IgG results in its exclusion from the follicle unless an ovulatory stimulus (hCG administration) is provided. Molecular size also plays a role in blood-follicle barrier selectivity. For example, cationization of 2-macroglobulin (pI ~ 8.5; 700 kDa) fails to facilitate its entry into unstimulated follicles. Conversely, negatively charged BSA (pl ~ 4.5; 66 kDa) passes freely into unstimulated follicles. These studies support the hypothesis that the blood-follicle barrier is size-selective but that charge sign and density play a role in the permeability of this barrier to proteins within an intermediate size range.

Earlier studies provided evidence that the blood-follicle barrier was located at the level of the ovarian microvasculature and demonstrated that it was freely permeable to most molecules below 70-300 kDa [1-5]. Surprisingly, however, it was also shown that molecules of the IaI family could enter the follicular fluid only after an ovulatory surge of gonadotropin [4, 5]. Thus, the trans-barrier flux of these negatively charged proteins was regulated differently from neutral or positively charged proteins of similar size, suggesting that charge might also play a role in permeability of the blood-follicle barrier. A test of this hypothesis was carried out by cationizing IotI and demonstrating that this positively charged molecule crossed the barrier in the absence of gonadotropic stimulation. Studies involving another serum protein, IgG, also supported this hypothesis. IgG carries a net neutral to slightly positive charge and is similar in size to IoI but is characterized by a strikingly different
follicular distribution. No ovulatory stimulus was needed for native IgG to cross the barrier and enter the follicle. At an appropriate level of anionization, however, regulation of its trans-barrier flux was similar to that of IaI.

Basically, what this study found is that negatively charged proteins could only pass across the ovarian blood-follicle during an ovulatory surge. The egg during ovulation starts to develop in the follicle and is released into the uterus some days later and if it is not fertilized, the uterine lining breaks down and a woman passes blood from the vagina.

Now this is just pure speculation on my part but could these disruptions to women’s periods have anything to do with maybe negatively charged lipid nanoparticles or even negatively charged soluble spike proteins passing preferentially into the the follicle during ovulation, contaminating the developing egg therein, the same egg which is later released directly into the uterus, stimulating the breakdown of the uterine lining and consequent loss of blood if it is infertile? Could the contamination of the egg with toxic spike proteins and/or lipid nanoparticles be resulting in these irregularities in women’s periods? It’s an unsettling thought and as I say it is pure layperson speculation on my part. I have no idea what ionising charge the lipids may have, whether positive or negative, whether that charge varies, and the same for the spike proteins, but I believe it should at least be looked at. The heavier periods may of course be as a consequence of the presence of the lipids/spike proteins in the blood vessels which feed the uterine lining and have nothing to do with the egg. However, if the egg itself is being contaminated with these products of the ‘vaccine’, then I would think this definitely has implications for fertility.

Update: July 4th 2021

Robert Malone has tweeted this: