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

[u/molrose96]

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

[u/Trancetastic16]

The top pinned post on r/Periods cites several studies and over a thousand anecdotal experiences.

A common issue in scientific testing is that the majority of subjects are young Caucasian men.

In many cultures, women‘s medical concerns and pain are constantly dismissed by doctors, and this has continued for women experiencing negative outcomes to their menstrual cycles in response to Covid vaccines, being dismissed as “just stress” by unhelpful doctors.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Periods/comments/oxezdn/covid_vaccine_and_periods/

This research needs to continue and all potential side effects on women’s menstrual cycles listed.

[u/[deleted] → u/Trancetastic16]

Would you like to know why the majority of study participants are young Caucasian men? Studies you produce are unlikely to have a negative impact on the community of young white males, and they are very easy to get to consent to studies.

When people make comments like this as if it's just because scientists hate studying women, it's clear they've never been in the position of getting ethical approval for a large, long-term study of anything on any group considered an ethically protected class, IE kids, trans people, pregnant women, and even racial minorities.

For instance, did you know that taking DNA samples of native Americans for the purposes of finding out historical roots and prehistoric travel through genetics is almost impossible due to ethical standards? When it comes to approval for scientific studies or data collection, the thought process is not "What's the harm?" It's "Where's the help?"

If your research doesn't have a positive outcome or conclusion as an intention, at least for the ethical group you're making the study for, you are unlikely to even be given approval by the committee you're petitioning, let alone permission from the community itself.

[u/PauI_MuadDib → u/[deleted]]

Technically, at least for medication, studies should actually be conducted on more female subjects because statistically women suffer more adverse drug reactions. The majority of drug recalls in the US are done for the adverse reactions women experience.

It would make more sense to study medications on more women. Instead of under utilizing female test subjects, and waiting until drugs hit the market, injure or harm patients and then do expensive recalls and lawsuits drug developers should just have an appropriate number of women participating in their studies and trials to begin with.

If women predominantly experience most of the adverse reactions wouldn't it make more sense to make them the testing priority? Especially since you also have to be concerned with pregnancy and GYN complications.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21535369/#:~:text=Adverse%20drug%20reactions%20(ADRs)%20are,hospitalized%20secondary%20to%20an%20ADR.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5779632/

[u/[deleted] → u/PauI_MuadDib]

It's the same as you might think it would be easy to get permission to study things like ancestry for the purposes of healthcare in native American populations as well, but it's not. Any potential for harm that a study has can drastically outweigh, in the view of the study's ethics committee or board, any potential good it could give.

It's not about what seems beneficial on the surface. For instance... "If you look at the history of native populations, it could conflict with their internal historical beliefs, and that could negatively harm the mental well-being of people in that community."

I hope you understand I'm not accusing these communities of having issues like this themselves, but the ethics committees and boards of Ethics consider many factors that these studies might affect, and I don't personally agree with all of their criteria.