Entangled evidence: epistemic injustice, and systemic neglect in the assessment of menstrual disorders following COVID-19 vaccines
In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, pharmacovigilance activities detected and assessed symptoms, such as rare blood clotting disorders, myocarditis, and erythema multiforme, potentially linked to some adenovirus-based and mRNA-based vaccines. While some presumed side effects were swiftly assess...
Saved in:
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Taylor & Francis Group
2025-12-01
|
| Series: | Critical Public Health |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/10.1080/09581596.2024.2446763 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1832593524942438400 |
|---|---|
| author | Maurizia Mezza |
| author_facet | Maurizia Mezza |
| author_sort | Maurizia Mezza |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, pharmacovigilance activities detected and assessed symptoms, such as rare blood clotting disorders, myocarditis, and erythema multiforme, potentially linked to some adenovirus-based and mRNA-based vaccines. While some presumed side effects were swiftly assessed, others, such as menstrual disorders following mRNA vaccination, were subjected to prolonged debates. This paper explores the EMA’s assessment process of menstrual disorders, which initially resisted but eventually acknowledged a possible connection between Heavy Menstrual Bleeding (HMB) and the mRNA COVID-19 vaccine Comirnaty (also known as Pfizer). Through an analysis of the PRAC evaluation process, I suggest that epistemic injustice and the systemic neglect of menstruation contributed to the challenges in this assessment. This paper emphasizes that structural bias in healthcare, health research, and policy accumulates at different stages of pharmacovigilance, shaping the evidence about vaccine safety. Although vaccines are generally safe, they may, in fact, be safer – or at least known to be safer – for some groups. To address these issues, a pluralist and transdisciplinary approach to knowledge should play a crucial role, questioning how evidence is produced and acknowledging potential intersectional biases. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-1d87c7d2642345cfafd1a5d2e0b97918 |
| institution | Kabale University |
| issn | 0958-1596 1469-3682 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2025-12-01 |
| publisher | Taylor & Francis Group |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Critical Public Health |
| spelling | doaj-art-1d87c7d2642345cfafd1a5d2e0b979182025-01-20T11:21:56ZengTaylor & Francis GroupCritical Public Health0958-15961469-36822025-12-0135110.1080/09581596.2024.2446763Entangled evidence: epistemic injustice, and systemic neglect in the assessment of menstrual disorders following COVID-19 vaccinesMaurizia Mezza0Anthropology, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, NetherlandsIn the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, pharmacovigilance activities detected and assessed symptoms, such as rare blood clotting disorders, myocarditis, and erythema multiforme, potentially linked to some adenovirus-based and mRNA-based vaccines. While some presumed side effects were swiftly assessed, others, such as menstrual disorders following mRNA vaccination, were subjected to prolonged debates. This paper explores the EMA’s assessment process of menstrual disorders, which initially resisted but eventually acknowledged a possible connection between Heavy Menstrual Bleeding (HMB) and the mRNA COVID-19 vaccine Comirnaty (also known as Pfizer). Through an analysis of the PRAC evaluation process, I suggest that epistemic injustice and the systemic neglect of menstruation contributed to the challenges in this assessment. This paper emphasizes that structural bias in healthcare, health research, and policy accumulates at different stages of pharmacovigilance, shaping the evidence about vaccine safety. Although vaccines are generally safe, they may, in fact, be safer – or at least known to be safer – for some groups. To address these issues, a pluralist and transdisciplinary approach to knowledge should play a crucial role, questioning how evidence is produced and acknowledging potential intersectional biases.https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/10.1080/09581596.2024.2446763pharmacovigilancegenderepistemic injusticecovid‑19heavy menstrual bleedingvaccination |
| spellingShingle | Maurizia Mezza Entangled evidence: epistemic injustice, and systemic neglect in the assessment of menstrual disorders following COVID-19 vaccines Critical Public Health pharmacovigilance gender epistemic injustice covid‑19 heavy menstrual bleeding vaccination |
| title | Entangled evidence: epistemic injustice, and systemic neglect in the assessment of menstrual disorders following COVID-19 vaccines |
| title_full | Entangled evidence: epistemic injustice, and systemic neglect in the assessment of menstrual disorders following COVID-19 vaccines |
| title_fullStr | Entangled evidence: epistemic injustice, and systemic neglect in the assessment of menstrual disorders following COVID-19 vaccines |
| title_full_unstemmed | Entangled evidence: epistemic injustice, and systemic neglect in the assessment of menstrual disorders following COVID-19 vaccines |
| title_short | Entangled evidence: epistemic injustice, and systemic neglect in the assessment of menstrual disorders following COVID-19 vaccines |
| title_sort | entangled evidence epistemic injustice and systemic neglect in the assessment of menstrual disorders following covid 19 vaccines |
| topic | pharmacovigilance gender epistemic injustice covid‑19 heavy menstrual bleeding vaccination |
| url | https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/10.1080/09581596.2024.2446763 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT mauriziamezza entangledevidenceepistemicinjusticeandsystemicneglectintheassessmentofmenstrualdisordersfollowingcovid19vaccines |