@ollyollyoxenfree
I don't see anyone dismissing the menstrual symptoms reported by women.
The MHRA said: “The current evidence does not suggest an increased risk of either menstrual disorders or unexpected vaginal bleeding following the vaccines.”
It added: “The number of reports of menstrual disorders and vaginal bleeding is low in relation to both the number of females who have received Covid-19 vaccines to date and how common menstrual disorders are generally.
“The MHRA will continue to closely monitor reports of menstrual disorders and vaginal bleeding with Covid-19 vaccines.”
I think you certainly have a fair point but I believe this is one of these things where the general "numbers are the same or lower than in background population" statement can sound more dismissive than it usually does.
The statement makes more sense in the case of heart palpitations or onset of tremors or DVTs for example. 15 people reported a DVT but we would expect between 14 and 20 to have a DVT event in any random sample population during that timeframe anyway. Makes logical sense that this will just be monitored closely and not actively investigated.
Whereas (say) 10 million women who menstruate are included in the data. 4,000 report menstrual disorders. They are saying this is low because (say) 100,000 in a pop of 10mil have menstrual disorders generally. But why would that 100,000 who experience this generally ever record it as a vaccine side effect? They experience it every month (or at least often enough to be counted in the number that have menstrual disorders generally). It's nothing new for them. If your cycle is affected by stress, or in any way unpredictable, you'd be less likely to report than if you were regular as clockwork and suddenly bleeding unexpectedly or taking pregnancy tests.
That's what makes it sound like it could be dismissive to me. If 4,000 people experience a 'common disorder' that is abnormal for them, then I do believe this warrants a statement that they are going to look into the data further (actively investigate) and will produce findings on X date. Not that they will merely monitor.
OR they need to state clearly that in a random population of X women who menstruate, they would expect Y number to develop a new to them disorder over this time period, and Y is higher than the number of reports by Z factor (to account for the fact that a lot of women were not told they should be reporting, or even aware they could report and where to do it, as evidenced on lots of threads here).
Hope that reasoning makes some sense.