Study finds “Association Between Menstrual Cycle Length and COVID-19 Vaccination”

[letmeeatcrisps]

Some news outlets today have briefly covered this…cycle length prolonged by 19 hours on average post vaccination. Is anyone else somewhat alarmed by it or are the results not statistically significant enough to worry about? Does this happen with other vaccines?
TIA mumsnet science heads x
journals.lww.com/green-journal/Fulltext/9900/Association_Between_Menstrual_Cycle_Length_and.357.aspx

@InTheLabyrinth

I wouldnt know if my period was 19 hrs late - I go for "expected some point these 4 days". Are some people so predictable that they know their period is going to start at 10am on Tuesday?

Yup! I'm like clockwork usually, but I was one week early following my first vaccine, and about four days late after I had Covid. So based purely on my own experience I tend to agree that it's immune system changes rather than anything dodgy in the vaccine.

I think people should be more bothered that we're only finding this out a year after it's release to the general population. It's not acceptable.

A) this should have been tested for and reported on in trials before rollout

B) the study was government funded and not pharma led which is irresponsible of pharma companies in my opinion

C) women had to self report in their thousands of menstrual problems for this study to even be commissioned

D) the hypothesis of this being an immune response has not been proven by pharma manufacturers yet, the rollout should be halted until there is enough evidence to support that the change to the menstrual cycle is not harmful and that there is no other mechanism at play

E) your employer has no right to mess with your menstrual cycle. Anyone singing "no jab, no job" should be getting sued to hell right now

I find it alarming that people aren't more worried because it shows a complete negligence regarding women's health in the pharmaceutical industry

@Notyourtypicalvirgo

I think people should be more bothered that we're only finding this out a year after it's release to the general population. It's not acceptable.

A) this should have been tested for and reported on in trials before rollout

B) the study was government funded and not pharma led which is irresponsible of pharma companies in my opinion

C) women had to self report in their thousands of menstrual problems for this study to even be commissioned

D) the hypothesis of this being an immune response has not been proven by pharma manufacturers yet, the rollout should be halted until there is enough evidence to support that the change to the menstrual cycle is not harmful and that there is no other mechanism at play

E) your employer has no right to mess with your menstrual cycle. Anyone singing "no jab, no job" should be getting sued to hell right now

I find it alarming that people aren't more worried because it shows a complete negligence regarding women's health in the pharmaceutical industry

I think people should be more bothered that we're only finding this out a year after it's release to the general population.

What do you mean? This is a rare side effect (you can see this in the prevalence estimated in the study), and so would not be detected in trials.

women had to self report in their thousands of menstrual problems for this study to even be commissioned
Again - this is exactly how rare side effects are detected. For myocarditis & other cardiac complications it was exactly the same protocol - we rely on survellance systems which are dependent on self report.

the hypothesis of this being an immune response has not been proven by pharma manufacturers yet, the rollout should be halted until there is enough evidence to support that the change to the menstrual cycle is not harmful and that there is no other mechanism at play
No - there would be more basis for saying halt the roll out regarding cardiac complications, which still clearly isn't justified.

This side effect isn't "rare" I anecdotally know several women who experienced period delays as a result of the vaccine and it's an issue that can affect 50% of the population. I got the vaccine when I was pregnant so I have no clue how my cycle would have been affected but just a quick look on social media shows globally women have seen menstrual changes, I'm literally scrolling through hundreds of tweets as we speak.

The risk of myocarditis is much smaller than the risk of menstrual changes so your argument doesn't make sense. This is something very basic that should have been looked for in trials and we should all be very alarmed that this isn't being researched in detail before rollout. We shouldn't have to wait a year and for women to self report this in order to know the effect.

The menstrual cycle is very important not just as an indicator for health but a lot of women track their menstrual cycle as a way of contraception. Now that we're only just finding out that the vaccine can delay timings, we can technically start arguing that pharmaceutical companies can take liability for unwanted pregnancies that occur off the back of this because ultimately not informing women of this side effect is negligence and can have consequences.

@Notyourtypicalvirgo

This side effect isn't "rare" I anecdotally know several women who experienced period delays as a result of the vaccine

and it's an issue that can affect 50% of the population.

This isn't how prevalence estimates are derived. You cannot say based on your anecdotes that half of vaccinated women experience menstrual problems, and it shows a real lack of understanding.

As I have said, the study linked in the OP, and others on the thread have estimates prevalence estimates, which demonstrates that it is rare. If half of all women were affected, as you claim, it would have been obvious in trials.

The fact that it is rare does not mean it shouldn't be taken seriously, but there is no need to spread scaremongering figures with no basis in reality. This is an area of active research, which has been reassuring so far in terms of demonstrating how it is short lived with no impact on fertility.

The fact remains that many women have suffered major impacts to their cycles. Months of missing periods, weeks of bleeding, early periods, late periods, increased pain, heavier, lighter etc. Women are not talking about this because of ‘19 hours’, they’re talking about it because they’ve had significant changes. This report and the minimising for whatever reason by some posters doesn’t change what many women have and are dealing with.

I read the study and it said 5% of women experienced period delays. 5% is not insignificant or "rare" especially when applied at scale. 5% of the global female population is 200 million women, going to guess about >100m women when we factor in fertility age ranges (conversely the myocarditis risk is significantly lower, so false equivalence).

5% absolutely would have been picked up in trials too had the impact on menstrual cycles been tested for. This is a huge issue to do with sexism in the medical industry because it shows that women's health particularly is being ignored. It wasn't a criteria that had to be measured before rollout and this absolutely needs to change especially for mandated vaccines.

And the fact that conclusively a reason as to why the delay in the menstrual cycle hasn't been found is worrying. Not only has this information taken a year to come to light when it affects so many women and can have very severe consequences but the mechanisms for it are still unknown.... unacceptable. And it can't be constituted as informed consent either for women who are getting the jab.

5% is significant enough that we should be being warned about any adjustments we may need to make to contraception following the jab.

This is an odd conclusion. I know some people have menstrual cycles that are to the dot (dm used to say she could even tell you which lesson it would start at school) but the majority of people I know aren't reliable to the day.

It's one of those conclusions that doesn't make sense. If half the people are 2 weeks late and half are 2 weeks early, then on average they'll be perfectly on time, which sounds great until you realise that everyone is significantly early or late. (or the traditional feet in the oven and head in the fridge, on average you'll be perfectly comfortable)
On the basis that I've heard people complaining that they've been very early or very late after the vaccination, then saying "on average" they're pretty much on time doesn't give the whole picture.

The "experts" could have just checked this forum and seen there was a direct correllation between jabbing and periods.

Even post menopausal members were starting again!

@hamstersarse

Cue the minimising posts.

•nothing to see here’

‘It’s mild’

Etc etc

Yes and always by the same posters - yawn 🥱

@TheNoonBell

The "experts" could have just checked this forum and seen there was a direct correllation between jabbing and periods.

Even post menopausal members were starting again!

This isn't how epidemiological research is conducted (or any good quality research)

Reporting bias, confirmation bias, measurement error, lack of generalisability...

Beyond anything else, obviously a thread about menstrual side effects is going to encourage people who have had problems (or report second/third hand anecdotes) to add their opinion, rather than those who have not. I don't pop onto every single side effects thread and declare I didn't experience that side effect, even though I didn't.

Interested as to why you put experts in quotation marks? What are your misigivings regarding the authors or the mansucript?

Yes and always by the same posters - yawn

Haven't seen much of that @Lilifer

It is possible to both take these side effects seriously AND point out that there is unlikely to be long term effects, or that there is no rationale for the scare stories about fertility being affected, given all the research that has been conducted so far, and is continuing.

Using this to say the roll out of vaccination should be halted, as a PP has claimed, is ridiculous.

As I've posted on other threads - there seems to be a strange cognitive dissonance whenever the menstrual effects from COVID itself are mentioned.

My cycle was a week late after Covid (and following other viruses too) and no different after three jabs. I find the outcome reassuring personally.

@ollyollyoxenfree

Yes and always by the same posters - yawn

Haven't seen much of that @Lilifer

It is possible to both take these side effects seriously AND point out that there is unlikely to be long term effects, or that there is no rationale for the scare stories about fertility being affected, given all the research that has been conducted so far, and is continuing.

Using this to say the roll out of vaccination should be halted, as a PP has claimed, is ridiculous.

As I've posted on other threads - there seems to be a strange cognitive dissonance whenever the menstrual effects from COVID itself are mentioned.

If side effects are affecting 5% of women with period delays and the exact reason isn't known why (the immune response is just a hypothesis that needs to be proven) then yes it should be halted until all the necessary investigations have been done.

The amount of bureaucracy that comes with pharma companies is ridiculous (I worked with them for years), the only reason it isn't getting paused for women in their fertile years right now is because governments worldwide have literally given them immunity and no recourse as this is an emergency vaccine.

It's not a conspiracy theory to point out that all side effects normally would be investigated thoroughly before distribution and pharma companies normally would be terrified of consequences playing out legally.

I'm sorry but please want more for yourself and other women. Pfizer turned over billions in profits last year alone, if you think your individual health is really more important than the money they are making from blanket treating the collective then you are mistaken.

m.dw.com/en/opinion-after-covid-vaccine-menstruation-findings-a-sigh-of-relief-and-indignation/a-60406613