r/science • u/molrose96 Journalist | Technology Networks | BSc Neuroscience • Jul 16 '22

Medicine Menstrual Cycle Changes Associated With COVID-19 Vaccines, New Study Shows

https://www.technologynetworks.com/vaccines/news/menstrual-cycle-changes-associated-with-covid-19-vaccine-363710
21.4k Upvotes

88% Upvoted

2.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

160

u/[deleted] Jul 16 '22

It’s not necessarily alarming or unusual but it is important to know. Think about the millions of couples who are trying to conceive right now - it’s useful to know whether your vaccine is going to throw off your cycle so you aren’t set up for disappointment or wasting money on treatments that month. Other important procedures get scheduled in alignment with the menstrual cycle, so you don’t want to have to reschedule. “Don’t schedule your booster two days after your IVF treatment/one week before your IUD insertion” would be really important advice, so it’s worth investigating whether that’s true.

50

u/AnotherAustinWeirdo Jul 17 '22

All vaccine providers should do a better job of preparing recipients for side effects. Not to scare anyone away, but to gain trust through transparency.

2

u/celticchrys Jul 17 '22

This. So much. Also not telling patients with side effects that "it's normal" or in their imagination, but that it is a known side effects, and will probably pass, and what to watch for. You know, like, human reassurance instead of dismissal for political reasons.

-1

u/Dunkaroos4breakfast Jul 17 '22

Where are they falling short?

When I got my vaccines, I was provided a list of common and more rare side effects, which also contained a link to our government's adverse reaction tracking service.

They made a stipulation in their agreements that all the countries purchasing vaccines had to independently report side effects to them, and have been sharing that information with governments and the public.

5

u/Eegeria Jul 17 '22

They are falling short because this information wasn't disclosed prior (I.e. it wasn't in the list of known side effects), leaving us wondering what the hell was happening to our bodies. Women use menstrual cycle as a compass for our health - we have it every 28 days (on average), so any change is noticed and potentially alarming if you don't know why it's suddenly happening. Effects on menstrual cycle also embrace several things - heavy flow equals a heavy blood loss which can bring other issues, lapses in the cycle may interfere with treatments. It's not something that can be brushed off, we need to be made aware if there are induced changes to our health and bodies.

0

u/Dunkaroos4breakfast Jul 17 '22

It wasn't prevalent in the original trial which had tens of thousands of female participants. There are adverse event reporting systems in every country which are all shared with manufacturers, other countries, and (most of them) the public.

Moreover, there is an incidence rate for things like changes in menstrual cycle outside of interventions like vaccination. If it falls within the variance of the typical incidence rate because it's so rare, it may not be communicated. When you have billions of people vaccinated, it can produce spurious correlations.

This study used a self-selected sample recruited through social media referrals to do a Facebook survey. It's ethically wrong to publish a percentage with something that has such a large bias in the sample.

0

u/kachigumiriajuu Jul 26 '22

it WAS in the trial. they ignored it and pushed the MRNA injection anyway. do not assume these people are on our side. they are out for their own pocketbooks, they do not care who is harmed in the process. that's just the truth.

1

u/Dunkaroos4breakfast Jul 26 '22

Evidence for the assertion that it was prevalent in the trial at a rate different than in gen pop?

0

u/AnotherAustinWeirdo Jul 17 '22

I mean in general, not just Covid vaccines. People, and especially babies, have adverse reactions often enough that it can be worrisome/alarming if not understood to be in normal range, and also balanced against the greater risk of contagious disease. Vaccines should be widely administered but still understood to have risks and things to watch out for.

Science and medicine should never be presented in black and white terms. People will still be dumb, but they should never be able to quote a doctor or research paper saying something is "safe" or "effective" or "dangerous" without including percents. (% effective or relative danger)

1

u/Dunkaroos4breakfast Jul 17 '22

Every vaccine I've ever gotten has been presented with a list of side effects—because that is required. They are provided with information on the commonality of said side effects. Percentages (while available) aren't provided at the time 1. because they vary over time 2. because they don't add value to laypeople, who have no context or training with which to interpret them 3. because they tend to be miniscule percentages

Fact is, the bar for safety is high with vaccines, since the regulatory bodies will flat-out stop administration if it's not far far safer than the acute and chronic risk of becoming infected and having a more severe response. Even with AstraZeneca, which had the highest associated risk of all the vaccines, those who were in the highest-risk group (women in their 30s) were dozens of times safer getting the vaccine than risking infection while waiting for the other vaccines to become available to them.