A Bloody Good Treatment: The Biases of Menstrual Blood Research

Published by

November 6, 2026

Historically and culturally, menstrual blood (MB) has been treated as waste that women should be ashamed of. However, recent research has found that it could completely transform healthcare for millions of people.

Prior to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Revitalization Act in 1993, women were not required to be included in NIH-funded clinical research in the US (Armstrong 2018). However, there were no details on how many subjects needed to be women. Seven years later, in 1997, Health Canada published guidelines recommending women to be included in clinical trials. This absence of female inclusion in research leads to dangerous complications and side effects for women.

Biases in the medical world have led to women’s self-reports of pain being doubted until objective evidence is found for the cause, resulting in prolonged anguish. In 2026, a study with 6607 participants found that 43.3% of females with autoimmune diseases reported misdiagnoses with a mental health condition as opposed to 32.7% of men (Sloan et al. 2026). The subjective nature of early autoimmune symptoms such as chronic pain, brain fog, and severe fatigue often results in doctors defaulting to historical biases that dismiss women as emotional. Furthermore, US studies found that pregnant Black women had a lower average of iron, so a lower cut-off point for anemia diagnoses was set. However, it was changed in 2021 because it was found that these women were 65% more likely to give birth with anemia, which is a factor in maternal mortality. This highlights the systemic issue in research, where the medical concerns of Black women are frequently dismissed.

Nonetheless, recent research found that menstrual blood, which has long been overlooked, is a promising resource for stem cell research (Feng and He 2025). Early clinical research found that menstrual blood mesenchymal stromal/stem cell research, which looks at cells derived from menstrual blood that can differentiate into other cells. Despite the notable possibilities for innovation, this research is only 0.25% of all mesenchymal cell research, and the majority of first authors are women (Manica et al. 2022) (Figure 1).

Figure 1: A graph showing the difference between the number of male and female authors in menstrual blood stem cell research. In total, 91 females were credited as first authors compared to 69 males.

Furthermore, menstrual blood has been found to have the potential to become a non-invasive diagnostic tool for women’s health. MB is a complex biofluid that contains many unique biomarkers and proteins that can be used to identify different conditions like endometriosis, cervical cancer, and infections of the vaginal tract (Feng and He 2025). A menstrual pad with a microfluidic monitoring platform is currently being developed to detect biomarkers in the menstrual fluid. The test trip in the pad will change colour when detecting proteins like the C-reactive protein, which can identify autoimmune disorders or infections, and the carcinoembryonic antigen, which is associated with cancers (Dosnon et al. 2025).

The shift of menstrual blood being a stigmatized waste product to a vital clinical tool demonstrates the importance of confronting systemic biases in research.

References

Armstrong, Elisabeth. 2018. “The Gender Gap in Pharmaceutical Research.” Voices in Bioethics 4 (September). https://doi.org/10.7916/vib.v4i.6008.

Dosnon, Lucas, Thomas Rduch, Charlotte Meyer, and Inge K. Herrmann. 2025a. “A Wearable In‐Pad Diagnostic for the Detection of Disease Biomarkers in Menstruation Blood.” Advanced Science 12 (32): e05170. https://doi.org/10.1002/advs.202505170.

Feng, Yige, and Yujie He. 2025. “The Secrets of Menstrual Blood: Emerging Frontiers from Diagnostic Tools to Stem Cell Therapies.” Frontiers in Cell and Developmental Biology 13 (August): 1623959. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcell.2025.1623959.

King, Sally. 2025. “Menstrual Myth Busting.” https://books-scholarsportal-info.libaccess.lib.mcmaster.ca/en/read?id=/ebooks/ebooks9/degruyter9/2025-02-14/1/9781447371656#page=10.

Manica, Daniela Tonelli, Karina Dutra Asensi, Gaia Mazzarelli, Bernardo Tura, Germana Barata, and Regina Coeli Santos Goldenberg. 2022. “Gender Bias and Menstrual Blood in Stem Cell Research: A Review of Pubmed Articles (2008–2020).” Frontiers in Genetics 13 (December): 957164. https://doi.org/10.3389/fgene.2022.957164.

Merkatz, Ruth B., Robert Temple, Solomon Sobel, Karyn Feiden, David A. Kessler, and null null. 1993. “Women in Clinical Trials of New Drugs – A Change in Food and Drug Administration Policy.” New England Journal of Medicine 329 (4): 292–96. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM199307223290429.

Shafiq, Shafia Muhammad, Kainat Younis, Maryam Mirza, Sidra Abdullah, and Raghabendra Kumar Mahato. 2025. “Beyond Waste: Menstrual Blood as a Powerful Diagnostic Tool for Women’s Health.” Annals of Medicine and Surgery 88 (2): 2122–23. https://doi.org/10.1097/MS9.0000000000004583.

Sloan, Melanie, Sydnae Taylor, Benjamin Cox, et al. 2026. “Sex and Disease Differences in Patients’ Diagnostic Experiences in Autoimmune Diseases: An International Cross-Sectional Study.” eClinicalMedicine 0 (0). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eclinm.2026.104259.

Comments

4 Responses to “A Bloody Good Treatment: The Biases of Menstrual Blood Research”

7 November 2026

Cohwyn Grubb

Hey Sophia!

I really enjoyed the direction you took with this topic. I thought the progression from historical biases in medical research to the potential applications of menstrual blood was particularly interesting. I did notice a few places where I think some additional clarification would strengthen the post:

– In P2, you mention that women were not required to be included in federally funded clinical research before the NIH Revitalization Act of 1993. I think it would be worth specifying that this legislation applied to NIH-funded clinical research, rather than all federally funded research. The NIH had also introduced policies encouraging the inclusion of women before 1993, so the Act made this a legal requirement rather than introducing the expectation for the first time.

– In P3, I think the wording around the Sloan et al. study could be a little more precise. The study found that 43.3% of female participants, compared to 32.7% of male participants, reported that their autoimmune disease had been attributed to psychiatric causes. This was based on participants’ reported diagnostic experiences, rather than an assessment of how many were formally misdiagnosed. I think making that distinction would help avoid overstating what the study actually measured.

– In P4, you mention that menstrual blood-derived stem cells have been found effective at treating conditions such as neurological diseases and fertility issues. Since much of this research is still at the experimental or early clinical stage, I think it would be worth emphasizing their potential rather than presenting these treatments as already established. This would also help readers distinguish between promising research and therapies that are currently available.

– Similarly, in P5, the in-pad diagnostic platform is described as detecting biomarkers associated with several conditions. You could maybe clarify that the device demonstrated semi-quantitative detection of these biomarkers, rather than providing definitive diagnoses. For example, CRP is a general marker of inflammation, so its detection alone wouldn’t identify a specific autoimmune disorder or infection.

– One small formatting thing: the caption for Figure 1 should use “Figure 1:” rather than “Figure 1 –”. Also, you have the Dosnon et al. (2025) paper listed twice in your references as 2025a and 2025b, even though both entries have the same title and DOI. You only need one entry for that source.

– Don’t forget to add the obligatory “Hey iSci!” comment!

I think this is a great example of how research can challenge long-standing assumptions about something that has historically been overlooked. The diagnostic applications in particular were a really interesting part of the post. Well done!

– Cohwyn.

Log in to Reply
7 November 2026

Asyah Zalmai

Hi Sophia,

I really enjoyed reading your blog post! I think its amazing how you’re bringing attention to an important topic as well as connecting it to women’s health. Here are some recommendations:

1. in your first paragraph, I would suggest adding a sentence connecting the stigma around menstrual blood and how its often overlooked in research. I think this would make the transition into the rest of your blog a lot more smoother.

2. in paragraph 4, when you introduced mesenchymal stem cells, I would briefly explain what they are before jumping into their potential uses.

overall, I thought this was an interesting read! can’t wait for the final post!

– Asyah

Log in to Reply
7 November 2026

Maya Knight

Hey Sophia
I really liked your post. The discrepancy in men’s and women’s health care is definitely a major issue, one that needs more light shed on it. As well as the sham surrounding the conversion of menstruation.

I found P4, S2 a little wordy and confusing. I thought instead of saying “Early clinical research found that menstrual blood mesenchymal stromal/stem cell research, which looks at cells derived from menstrual blood that can differentiate into other cells.” You could maybe split it into two paragraphs. “Mesenchymal stromal/stem cell research looks at cells derived from menstrual blood” and “Early clinical research found some of these cells can differentiate into other cells.”

As well, when referring to menstrual blood, you may want to pick either the acronym MB or the full spelling of both words to keep more consistency throughout the post; right now you flip-flop between the two a lot.

Happy editing, looking to reading the finished product!
Maya

Log in to Reply
7 November 2026

Ella Watson

Hi Sophia,

I really liked reading your blog!
I do have a few things that you might consider altering:
-In P4 S2, the sentence structure could benefit from some minor rewording.
For example, “Early clinical research found that some menstrual blood cells can differentiate into other cells.” rather than “Early clinical research found that menstrual blood mesenchymal stromal/stem cell research, which looks at cells derived from menstrual blood that can differentiate into other cells.”or something to that effect to make the sentence topic a bit clearer.
-If you have space to elaborate more about what the figure means in relation to the biases in research that you discuss, that could help strengthen your point as well.

As a whole I enjoyed reading your post and look forward to the final product!
Ella

Log in to Reply