Bolding is mine. Maybe there was not initially (much) confirmation bias, but there certainly is more of it now. You yourself are saying you have confirmation bias at this point... ? With knowledge that this was a once-in-a-lifetime virus, as well as knowledge that there was a global rush to produce a vaccine, I think people in general were/are being hypervigilant to *anything* that may be/seem/feel different for weeks after being vaccinated. Millions of people get flu vaccinations every year (and they are slightly different every time), but there is never this level of scrutiny of "I noticed these weird things" or "I heard of someone who had these weird effects", etc. So I would argue that there has been *some* confirmation bias all along because people are actively looking for *anything or any report* of a feeling or experience that may be different..., which is then often ascribed as a possible vaccine side-effect (whether true or false). Eta: I would say you can see this in the big vaccination thread where many have expressed worry about the vaccine prior to getting it because they anticipate having side-effects of some sort.

From The Wall Street Journal: Covid-19 Vaccinations of Pregnant Mothers Also Protect Newborns, Studies Suggest One study also found antibodies in the breast milk of vaccinated mothers https://www.wsj.com/articles/covid-19-vaccinations-of-pregnant-mothers-also-protect-newborns-studies-suggest-11617183001 "Pregnant women who get the coronavirus vaccine pass their antibodies on to their newborns, recent studies suggest, a promising sign that babies can acquire from their mothers some protection against Covid-19. At least three studies have found that women who received either the Pfizer Inc. - BioNTech SE vaccine or the Moderna Inc. shots during pregnancy had coronavirus antibodies in their umbilical-cord blood. That indicates the women’s babies got the antibodies, too. One of the studies also found antibodies in the breast milk of mothers who had received the vaccine during pregnancy. The studies didn’t look specifically at the safety of vaccinations, though in one of them, pregnant women who were vaccinated didn’t report more side effects than those who weren’t pregnant. Pregnant women are at higher risk of a severe case of Covid-19 and of preterm delivery if they are infected. The studies’ findings, though preliminary, suggest women could safely protect themselves and their newborns by getting vaccinated. ..." There is more info in the article about these studies these statements are based on, as well as other ongoing studies right now.

Possibly. I think scientists just don't know yet. The sample size here is pretty small compared to millions of women worldwide who have gotten the vaccine. And, even here, with mostly females posting in the vaccine thread, it seems more have not had abnormal bleeding than have.

From that first article I linked (bolding is mine): "Abnormal periods will also happen by chance after people receive the COVID-19 vaccine. That doesn’t necessarily mean the vaccine caused the abnormal period. They could be related, but it’s too soon to say for sure. “It’s not uncommon for women to experience an atypical cycle over the course of a year,” says Dr. Griffin-Miller. “When millions of menstruating women are receiving the vaccine, the timing could certainly be coincidence.”

Fyi, Eric Feigl-Deng's credentials and background: https://fas.org/expert/eric-feigl-ding/ The article he links in his first post has various sources and addresses the misinformation and conspiracy theories.

https://www.nebraskamed.com/COVID/the-covid-19-vaccines-irregular-periods-and-spike-protein-shedding Some quotes: ----- "Right now, there’s no scientific evidence that suggests COVID-19 vaccines are making periods irregular. “Some women have reported on social media that the period after a COVID-19 vaccine was different, or changed in some way from what they usually expect,” says OB-GYN Jennifer Griffin Miller, MD, MPH. “This was not identified in the clinical trials of the vaccines. There’s also no biological mechanism, based on how the vaccines work, that would explain these occurrences.” ----- "Can “vaccine shedding” cause side effects in unvaccinated people? No. There have been rumors of “vaccine shedding” causing side effects to people who have not been vaccinated. The idea is that someone who has been vaccinated is shedding spike protein to those around them who have not been vaccinated. “We have no data to indicate that contact with somebody who has been vaccinated affects menstrual cycles,” says infectious diseases expert James Lawler, MD, MPH. The vaccines can’t give you COVID-19. Vaccines do not contain SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. And the spike protein itself can’t shed. “Spike protein is primarily made locally in muscle where the vaccine is administered and may possibly be seen in low levels in the blood," says Dr. Lawler. "But it should not be shed in significant quantity in respiratory or other secretions.” If someone has tested positive for COVID-19, though, they are shedding virus, including the spike protein, and contagious. “We know that people with COVID-19 shed large amounts of virus from respiratory secretions,” says Dr. Lawler. Shedding can’t happen without a live vaccine. The mRNA vaccines – Pfizer and Moderna – are not live vaccines and do not replicate. The Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca vaccines are considered live vaccines because they both contain adenovirus. (Again, they do NOT contain the coronavirus.) But the adenovirus in both the Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca vaccines can’t replicate, so there’s no way they can shed. Learn more about how adenovirus vaccines work." ----- Fyi, the article is longer and has more info and links to information.

And I want to clarify that while there are those who will operate because they are predators, it is the church/group leadership (often patriarchal) that help perpetuate the abuses by continuing to keep things "in house" and based on the sin/repentance model. They are aware there are ongoing problems, yet they continue on the same path for "fixing" things. So, the leadership and the processes they keep in place are aiding and abetting predators.

I think this behavior (in-house counseling/dealing with it internally as long as the predator asks for forgiveness) also attracts predators, across many denominations and groups. In some cases, you have people who are not really into the religious belief part, but know they have easy access and low/no accountability if they get caught. In those cases, it is easy for them to go through counseling like that, ask for forgiveness/confess to being a sinner/pretend to be contrite, and continue being a predator. Basically, the processes for "accountability" make these groups safe havens/attractive places for predators.

You are fortunate, then.

I saw that separate post right after I made my post. I updated my post to link to the separate thread.

A long thread by Rachael Denhollander (former gymnast, first woman to publicly accuse Larry Nassar of sexual assaut, and now a lawyer). https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachael_Denhollander Eta: Oops. I just saw that there is a separate thread for this...

You also forgot to mention the one where you called me mean. Just fyi.

My last paragraph is not mean. I am asking why EKS wants to specifically quote people, then tell them their definition is incorrect. For what purpose? And now you are doing it too. For what purpose? I wasn't aware the you and EKS are the final arbiters of word definitions. And you are being a condescending arbiter of taste on who and who does not properly follow "classical education" rhetoric. Troll, much? MercyA, no, people are not dog-piling on EKS.

Yes.

I wish I could believe this. I think there are plenty of good ole boys (and girls) who are perfectly ok with turning a blind eye to him and to help his dad/"famous" family.

Bingo. The "fear" factor was not that he was doing it right then with his wife. The fear factor is that he has or will do this to others. Especially because he's not reading signals of uncomfortableness or he is, doesn't care, and is doing it anyway. Either way files him as a creep in my book and creepy in general. Arguing the semantics is asinine. As Seasider says, you can't control how someone else receives the message that's sent. It's not up to EKS to interpret for everyone else; I am not sure what EKS' intention is other than to hair-split or distract. Which begs the question... why? Why is EKS trying to argue semantics? Derail the conversation? Convince others that JB is not creepy, just someone who made you blush and be embarrassed (insert eyeroll)? What is the purpose?

I watched the video without the sound on. (Fyi, I have never watched them.) Creepy. I definitely had an unpleasant feeling of unease. Gross adult male who doesn't know how to behave in public. And it's not awkwardness or embarrassment on my part, it's unease in that if I worked with him I would always want to be more than arm's length away from him... because he's a creepy adult male who obviously doesn't know social boundaries. (Yes, that's his wife. No, it does not make his actions socially acceptable.) His behaving like that makes me think he would be the type to "brush" (so there's plausible deniability) you a bit in the wrong place, thinking it's ok and/or funny. One of those type of guys. Sleazy.

This judge was literally just appointed to her post: https://www.arwd.uscourts.gov/news/appointment-judge-comstock "The United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas hereby appoints Christy Comstock as United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Arkansas with her official duty station being in Fayetteville, Arkansas. The appointment will be for an eight-year term beginning on May 1, 2021." Looks like her previous experience was with a legal firm where "her primary practice is the defense of motor carriers in transportation related litigation." https://www.dri.org/docs/default-source/event-brochures/2019/trucking-law/20190216-speaker-list_2.html

Livid. [Photo removed by moderator]

https://twitter.com/C_Stroop/status/1389338775960969223?s=20

https://twitter.com/WesElyMD/status/1389048534071189512?s=20

Ds stuck w/ plain food (& little of it) yesterday. By late evening, he was starting to feel better (not nauseous anymore). Both dc are feeling fine now.

Dd (22) got her 2nd Moderna on Thursday. She felt a little under the weather on Friday but nothing major. Said she was maybe running at 90% instead of 100%. (She has always been stoic.) Ds (20) got his 2nd Moderna yesterday. He is a bit sore at the injection site. Late last night he said he was feeling slightly nauseated. He slept a bit longer this morning and has continued to complain about feeling slightly nauseous today. He napped a bit this afternoon. I'd say he probably feeling about 70% instead of 100%, based on how he looks and is behaving today.

No. My sister actually took mine with her when she was going. I am sure you could send it with your dh. (The worst they would do is say no, so it's worth sending it with him.)