Ergonomic risk is likely to increase the instances of disorders related to

Covid jabs might raise the risk of sudden cardiac deaths in young women, official UK data revealed today.

Government analysts trawled through data from England’s historic roll-out in order to re-check the safety profile of vaccines in under-30s.

No significant increase in deaths among the vaccinated was uncovered, debunking one of the biggest current conspiracy theories surrounding the lockdown-banishing scheme.

Although when the results were broken down further, experts found an elevated risk of cardiac-related deaths in women for one type of jab.

Data collected by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) showed women who got a non-mRNA jab were 3.5 times more likely to die of such ailments within 12 weeks of being vaccinated.

This was compared to after that time-frame, as opposed to the unvaccinated.

Looking at the figures this way allowed the ONS team to spot any noticeable link to vaccination.

Some deaths linked to vaccines might have been missed in official figures, hence the need to look at the data another way.

Non-mRNA jabs include ones made by AstraZeneca and Novavax, which were the only two available during the period the study covered.

Although, no data on specific vaccine brand was included in the analysis. In the US, the Johnson and Johnson was one of the non-mRNA jabs used.

Writing in the journal Nature , the ONS team concluded that 11 cardiac deaths in young women may be attributable to non-mRNA jabs.

However, the study doesn’t directly prove that any deaths were caused by any vaccine.

Fatalities could, for example, have been from an unrelated health condition or even a Covid infection itself given the virus is known to cause similar cardiac effects.

Researchers said young women given non-mRNA jabs in the period studied tended to be classified as clinically vulnerable, hence why they were prioritized for jabs.

This factor may have explained their increased risk of death, the team suggested.

No similar heightened risk was found in men. Academics did not offer a reason as to why, however, as that was beyond the scope of the analysis.

Nor did they uncover any proof that mRNA jabs, such as ones made by Pfizer and Moderna, carried such risk.

That disproves a conspiracy theory beloved by anti-vaxxers that the mRNA shots are responsible for a wave of ‘sudden’ deaths.

In fact, the study, which also examined the general risk of death after testing positive for Covid , found unvaccinated young people had significantly higher chance of dying than the jabbed from ‘all causes’.

Researchers opted to look at the 12 week period post vaccination as this was the original time period set between vaccination doses.

The analysis was based on data from between December 8 2020, when Covid jabs were first rolled out, until May 25 last year.

It included people in England between the ages of 12 and 29, with researchers looking at this group specifically in response to some studies pointing to a risk of cardiac diseases in young people post-Covid vaccination.

While credited with saving the nation from an endless lockdown and thousands of lives, Covid vaccines, like any medical treatment, aren’t risk free.

For example, mRNA vaccines can, in extremely rare cases, cause myocarditis. This inflammation of the heart is particularly a risk for young men and boys.

And the AstraZeneca jab was withdrawn for the under-40s in the UK in April 2021 after it was linked to a rare, but life-threatening, risk of developing blood clots.

Vahé Nafilyan, a senior statistician at the ONS, said overall the study showed mRNA vaccines, which have now been used for the majority of vaccinated young Brits, are generally safe.

‘We find no evidence the risk of cardiac or all cause death is increased in the weeks following vaccination with mRNA vaccines,’ he said.

However, he added they did find that young women given a non-mRNA Covid jab had a 3.52 times higher chance of cardiac death in the 12 weeks after.

While a 3.52 times increase in risk seems large, it should be noted that the actual number of deaths is estimated to be relatively small.

It equates to six cardiac deaths per 100,000 females vaccinated with at least a first dose of a non-mRNA vaccine.

But Mr Nafilyan said the context in which those jabs were given and to whom needed to be considered.

‘Vaccination with the main non-mRNA vaccine used in the UK was stopped for young people following safety concerns in April 2021,’ he said.

‘And most of the young people who received it would have been prioritised due to clinical vulnerability or being healthcare workers.

‘Therefore, these results cannot be generalised to the population as a whole.

‘Whilst vaccination carries some risks, these need to be assessed in light of its benefits.’

The ONS analysis did not speculate why women seemed to be at greater risk of cardiac death following their first non-mRNA Covid jab compared to men.

While the data did record men had an estimated 1.18 increased risk of cardiac death following their first non-mRNA Covid jab, the ONS said the evidence wasn’t strong enough to establish a link as these few deaths could just be down to chance.

It should also be noted that because young people’s general chance of a cardiac death is so small in the first place, any increase can seem dramatic.

The ONS analysis also included data on risk of death following a positive Covid test for both jabbed and unjabbed young people.

Those without a Covid vaccine had a 2.5 times higher risk of death from any cause, whilst, in comparison, those who were jabbed had only a 1.9 times higher risk of dying.

The ONS did not analyse cardiac deaths specifically among people vaccinated who tested positive due to ‘insufficient data’.

Other studies have shown that Covid vaccines greatly decrease the risk of hospitalisation and death among the general population, particularly for those most at risk, such as the elderly.

As a whole the study tears apart major claims peddled by anti-vaxxers who have wrongly said people who got the mRNA Covid vaccines are dying in droves.

However, a limitation of the study is that some deaths that have occurred in the period analysed might not be included due to ongoing investigations by a coroner.

Professor Adam Finn, an expert in paediatrics at University of Bristol, said the ONS study, ‘raised as many questions as answers’.

‘The findings are somewhat unexpected, as concerns about rare cardiac side-effects – specifically myocarditis and pericarditis – have hitherto been particularly associated with mRNA vaccine second doses in males especially when the dose interval was short, whereas the signal reported here is primarily in non-mRNA first doses in females,’ he said.

However, he said the data also showing the risk disappeared for the second dose was ‘reassuring’.

Professor Finn, a member of the UK’s vaccine advisory the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI), said in the end more detail on the cardiac deaths reported was needed.

‘The next and most pressing issue that needs to be addressed is to gather more detailed information on what the nature of the reported cardiac events actually was, as this would help us begin to understand what is really being seen in these figures and might help guide future policy and vaccine design,’ he said.

While AstraZeneca’s jab was pulled specifically for young people in April in 2021 it has been effectively withdrawn in the UK with the Government not ordering any more doses.

This was based on advice from the JCVI which has not listed AstraZeneca in their recommended jab list for booster campaigns.

There are currently two non-mRNA Covid jabs approved for use in the UK.

These are the Novavax and Sanofi/GSK jab.

UK drug watchdog the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) hasn’t had any safety reports about the Sanofi/GSK jab with it only being approved for use in December last year.

Novavax was approved in February last year and was deployed 1,200 times during the autumn booster campaign, with 57 safety reports.

The ONS said they would continue to monitor data on Covid vaccines outcomes in the future.

S ome 75 deaths have been known to occurred from jab-related side effects in the UK .

Teenagers who live in areas with poor air quality could be at greater risk of experiencing psychosis, researchers have found.

Past studies have shown that people who live in cities are more likely to have symptoms of psychosis, such as hearing voices and paranoia, as well as conditions like schizophrenia—of which psychosis is a symptom. This is an important line of inquiry, as 70 percent of the global population is expected to live in an urban environment by 2050.

In their study, published in the journal JAMA Psychiatry , the authors found that teenagers exposed to nitrogen dioxide (NO2), nitrogen oxides (NOx) and fine particulate matter (PM2.5) had a greater risk of experiencing psychosis. Regularly encountering a combination of NO2 and NOx explained 60 percent of the associations between urbanicity— what scientists call the effects of living in a city—and psychosis in teenagers, the researchers said.

The team studied data on 2,232 children who took part in the Environmental Risk Longitudinal Twin Study and were interviewed periodically from birth until they reached the age of 18. The participants were born between January 1, 1994, and December 4, 1995, in the U.K. nations of England and Wales. Of the total respondents, 2,063 gave information about psychotic experiences at the age of 18. They were asked questions, including whether they had thought they were being watched or spied on; or if they heard voices others couldn’t.

Next, the researchers looked at levels of NO2, NOx and PM2.5 in the areas where the young people lived in 2012, as well as two locations they visited regularly.

The data revealed that 623, or 30 percent, of teenagers had at least one psychotic experience between the ages of 12 and 18. And those in the top quartile of exposure to the three substances were at a greater risk of psychosis.

This suggests pollution could directly affect the brain over a long period of time, the authors said.

Helen Fisher, senior author of the study at the King’s College London Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, told Newsweek the link between pollution and psychosis remained even when the team adjusted for other possible explanatory factors like smoking, using cannabis, alcohol dependence, poverty, other mental disorders, as well as living in poverty or an area of deprivation, high crime and poor social cohesion.

However, she acknowledged that since the study was observational with no randomized control group, it couldn’t draw firm conclusions that air pollution caused psychosis. And as air pollution was measured around the same time as psychotic experiences, the team can’t be certain that exposure to pollution happened before the psychotic experiences emerged. Other factors not assessed, like noise pollution, might also contribute to the risk, she said.

“Our study does add to the existing body of evidence linking air pollution to physical health problems such as cardiovascular and respiratory disease,” Fisher said. “Our study also adds to emerging evidence linking air pollution to the brain and psychiatric conditions such as dementia. However, further research is required before any conclusions can be firmly drawn about the role of air pollution in the development of mental health problems.”

Dr. Marc Weisskopf, a professor of environmental epidemiology and physiology at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health who was not involved in the work, told Newsweek : “The possibility that air pollution may contribute to mental health outcomes like psychotic events is very important and needs to be understood.

“I would certainly expect that if this kind of thing is happening in the U.K., similar things would be found in the U.S.

“I think it is important to avoid excessive air pollution exposures, although at this stage I think there are more established outcomes that make that important.”

Weisskopf also pointed out that the study was limited in some respects. “I remain unsure about how much of the association they [the authors] find with the air pollutants are truly effects of those pollutants, rather than those pollutants being just a marker for some other aspect of urbanicity.”

Sophie Dix, director of research at the charity MQ: Transforming Mental Health, commented: “This study adds important new insight to the discussion on the links between mental health and urban living. The relationship between living in a city and increased mental illness has been something that has been explored for a long time, with many factors considered responsible. This study is significant because it provides a starting point with a possible link between pollution and psychosis, giving future research a platform to build upon. Ruling risk factors in, or out, is helpful in determining how we can best address the issue.”

Like Weisskopf, she also said more work needs to be done to prove causation. “There is no evidence that pollution necessarily causes psychosis or whether this is one of many factors or acting in isolation. There is a bigger picture here, but that does not diminish the importance of these findings and the potential that comes from this.”

This graph, provided by Statista , shows the “greenest” cities in the U.S.

The study is the latest piece of research to suggest air pollution could be harmful to health. Earlier this month, a paper published in the European Heart Journal revealed air pollution, including fine particulate matter, is killing 8.8 million people worldwide each year. That’s almost double the figure previously thought.

Professor Jos Lelieveld of the Max-Plank Institute for Chemistry in Mainz and the Cyprus Institute Nicosia, a co-author of the study, told Newsweek at the time: “We had not anticipated such a large increase.

“We hope to show that it is urgent and important to further reduce fine particulate matter in ambient air. The main message is that PM2.5 air pollution is a health risk factor that is comparable to other main risks such as hypertension, diabetes and tobacco smoking.”

BREASTS get a lot of attention – from discussions around how they look and feeding babies to seeing too much of them.

Many of us will remember being taught a little at school about the changes our bodies will likely go through during puberty.

But very few were taught how to examine our breasts or chest area, or what to do if we have symptoms of breast cancer.

Roughly 55,000 women and 370 men are diagnosed in the UK every year, according to Breast Cancer Now.

But it is not just lumps and bumps that should be on people’s radar.

Knowledge is power, so here is my ultimate guide to boobs, to help see you through every decade of life.

• Breasts; An Owner’s Guide by Dr Philippa Kaye is published by DK, £14.99.

0-9 years

BREASTS actually begin to develop very early on in pregnancy , while you are still in the womb, at about four to six weeks after conception.

The Y chromosome in males kicks into action at about seven to nine weeks of pregnancy and the testes begin to develop, but by this point the nipples are already in place.

This answers the question, why do all genders have breasts and nipples?

Most babies are born with some breast tissue due to the transfer of hormones from the mother during pregnancy.

In fact, some babies may even produce a milky-coloured fluid from the nipples.

These baby breast buds will tend to go away on their own within a few weeks to months.

10-19 years

THE first major changes to the breasts occur at puberty, which tends to start from around eight years old.

Hormones released by the brain cause the ovaries to produce oestrogen and progesterone, and the breasts begin to change and grow.

This can lead to tenderness, aching, itching and tingling sensations, and the breasts can feel swollen and sore.

They may develop at different speeds, which means some asymmetry is normal.

Time and rate of breast development does not influence size, so if someone develops earlier or later than you, it doesn’t mean they will have smaller or bigger breasts at the end of puberty.

Each month the breasts respond to the hormones of the menstrual cycle, and start to get ready for pregnancy and the possibility of breastfeeding , even if conception does not happen.

In the first half of the menstrual cycle leading up to ovulation, rising levels of oestrogen stimulate the growth of milk ducts in the breast.

In the second half of the cycle, after ovulation, higher levels of progesterone stimulate the formation of milk glands, in readiness for conception and beyond.

Around seven out of ten women will have breast pain at some point, which is often related to the menstrual cycle.

You may notice your breasts are more lumpy, tender and painful in the lead up to your period, and then smaller and softer afterwards.

If you have cyclical breast pain, wearing a supportive bra and rubbing in a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory gel can be useful, or see your doctor as other treatments are available.

20s and 30s

CONTRACEPTION that contains hormones such as the combined oral contraceptive pill, or progesterone-only contraception, can affect the breasts.

Starting hormonal contraception you may notice your breasts look and feel larger, which is due to the effect of the hormones on the breast and fluid retention.

The increase in size related to contraception is not permanent and either returns to normal in a few months or after stopping.

Hormonal contraception can also cause breast tenderness which generally settles down.

If you do get pregnant, your breasts develop in readiness.

The hormone changes in pregnancy change the size of the breasts, can lead to tenderness and heaviness and increased sensitivity.

The nipples can get darker and larger, and you may notice prominent blue veins.

Colostrum can be produced and leak from the nipples during pregnancy and can even be collected in advance.

After delivery, the levels of oestrogen and progesterone fall relatively rapidly while levels of another hormone, prolactin, rises, leading to the production of milk.

This is solely hormone-driven until the baby’s suckling and removal of milk and hormones are involved.

At that point, the more milk used for feeding or pumping, the more milk produced.

There is a lot of pressure put on people to breastfeed.

It is true there are health benefits to breastfeeding, both to the baby which continues later on into childhood, and for yourself.

Breastfed babies have stronger immune systems with fewer coughs and colds, have lower rates of allergies, and breastfeeding lowers the risk of breast cancer.

But it is also important to say breastfeeding is not always easy.

The pressure and stress around feeding can contribute to mental health issues.

We need to support people to be able to breastfeed if they choose, but also respect that it can be difficult to do.

In my opinion, the phrase “breast is best” is outdated and not useful.

Instead, as we are fortunate enough nowadays to have access to formula and can sterilise water, “fed is best”, however it is done.

40s and 50s

DURING perimenopause, a person’s periods can become irregular.

This means your breasts are irregularly exposed to the hormones of the menstrual cycle and so might become tender or sore.

In menopause , falling levels of oestrogen and progesterone affect the entire body, including the breasts.

The glandular tissue involved in milk production shrinks, meaning the breasts become less dense and firm, feeling softer.

Reduced levels of collagen and elastin means the skin is less able to support the breasts, so they will start to look different.

They may look smaller, lower on the chest or flattened.

As you get older, the risk of developing cysts and other growths also increases.

Get any breast changes checked.

50s, 60s and beyond

BREAST screening starts from age 50, and you will be invited every three years until 69.

After 70 you are still eligible to have breast screening every three years, though you won’t automatically be sent an invitation.

Contact your local screening unit directly.

It is estimated the programme prevents 1,300 deaths from breast cancer each year.

Screening involves a mammogram, which is a low dose X-ray.

On the day of your appointment, do not use spray deodorant or talcum powder as these can show up on a mammogram and make it harder to read.

The breasts are positioned between two X-ray plates and images are taken.

There may be some brief discomfort or tight squeezing sensation during the mammogram.

Irrespective of your age or gender, everyone should be examining their chest area once a month.

If you have periods, try to examine after your period as the breasts are least likely to be tender at that point.

If you don’t have periods to remind you, put a reminder on your phone or calendar to “feel on the first”.

Don’t wait for your screening appointment.

If you notice a change, get it checked by your GP.

The perfect-fitting bra

WHETHER or not you wear a bra is entirely up to you, your body, your breasts and your choices.

But if you do wear one, it should be supportive and well-fitting – and most are not.

Breasts are heavy and move a lot – up to almost 20cm during exercise – and wearing a bra can help with pains in your upper back, neck and chest.

One in five people report their breasts are a barrier to exercise , and this number is higher in adolescent girls aged 11-18.

More breast education can help, especially around wearing a well-fitting sports bra.

There is no standardisation in bra sizing.

A 36C in one bra may not be the same as a 36C in another style, even from the same manufacturer.

And most of us do not understand what the combination of letters and numbers even mean.

If your bra fits well, the underband is snug (you can get one finger underneath it comfortably but not much more) and the band is parallel all the way around, so it does not rise up at the back.

Straps should be adjustable and set up so they neither slip off nor are too tight and dig in.

The breasts should fill the cups so there is not gaping or wrinkling in them, and the breast should not spill over the top.

The centre of the bra between the two cups should sit flat against the chest.

With sports bras, a higher neckline will give more support.

Most of us would take a little walk in a new pair of shoes before buying them to see if they fit.

So when you buy a sports bra, do a few jumping jacks in the changing room and see how it feels.

How to check, whatever your age

BREAST or chest self-examination should be part of your routine self care, and something you do every month.

Yet nearly eight out of ten British women are not checking their breasts regularly – and one in three never do.

Think of it as a non-negotiable in your life, rather like you might think about brushing your teeth.

An easy way to remember is to give your breasts some TLC when you self examine – Touch, Look and Check Changes with a doctor.

1. STAND in front of a mirror with your hands by your sides, then above your head and place your hands on your hips and push in on your hips slightly.
2. In each position, look for any changes in breast size or shape, and any new asymmetry, lumps or changes in outline.
3. Look to see if your nipple is pointing in a different direction or has turned inwards (if you have always had inverted nipples, this is normal for you and not of concern).
4. Check if there is any nipple discharge or crusting, any rashes, darker or red patches, or other changes such as the appearance of cellulite or if the skin is like orange peel. Then feel the whole of the chest area as the breast tissue extends up to the collarbone and into the armpit. Use the flat of your fingers to feel for changes such as a lump, thickening or bumpy area.
   It does not matter exactly how you examine your breasts, be it in sections like a quarter at a time, or starting from the nipple and working outwards in circular motions, just that you examine the whole area.
5. If you do notice any changes, please see your GP.

Breast cancer signs and symptoms to watch out for when you examine your boobs each month:

• Change in nipple direction.
• New nipple inversion.
• Change in size, shape or outline of breast.
• New lumps or thickening (Dimpling or puckering.)
• Nipple discharge.
• Rashes, redness, darker patches or nipple crusting.
• Orange-peel like skin, or appearance of cellulite.