Bethany Black (@BethanyBlack@mastodon.social)
mastodon.social
After all these years I’m rarely surprised by medical misogyny, but finding out that the research from the first ever tests on period products using blood instead of water were published LAST WEEK is one of those surprises.

Archive link to story here: https://archive.ph/HVNLH

Posted here because there is no community for Absolutely Infuriating (that I know of).

  • Moonrise2473@feddit.itEnglish
    49·
    1 year ago

    When I read that news I was shocked too.

    How possibly nobody tested with even animal blood?

    Water and blood have different consistency and fluidity

    • TheWheelMustGoOn@feddit.deEnglish
      940·
      1 year ago

      Why kill animals? It’s not like menstrual products don’t work. just keep buying the stuff that works more than others if the little difference between the testing fluids and blood are really existent.

      And it’s not like the products would be better with blood testing. That’s not how capitalism works. It needs to work good enough to be bought with the biggest profit margin possible. So using blood for testing just creates suffering for animals for no reason other than you can put “tested with animal blood” on the box. I wouldn’t see that as a plus

        • Donjuanme@lemmy.worldEnglish
          10·
          1 year ago

          Water is comparable to blood in very very few ways. Outside of cleaning purposes I don’t want water where my blood is.

          Also menstrual fluid isn’t water.

          I want you to taste test this hamburger for me, you’re going to eat it 3 times a day 60 days a year, and you’re eating the beta version, which is actually a slice of pizza. Enjoy your hamburgers!

            • Donjuanme@lemmy.worldEnglish
              101·
              1 year ago

              I’m sitting between my hplc and gcms, if you think pH and acidity (both carefully controlled for by the body) have nothing to do with absorption you might have very little experience with lab sciences.

              It’s about much more than viscosity, it’s about evaporation rate, chemical balance, and yes some absorbency. I would say just using generic human blood isn’t enough, the chemistry within the vagina is self regulated like no other part of the human body, it’s kinda the key organ to life’s continuance.

                • Donjuanme@lemmy.worldEnglish
                  31·
                  1 year ago

                  Yes I actually work in a lab, recycling/waste disposal is something we work into our budget. You think they aren’t funded well enough to afford those expenses?

                  Question my credentials again, please, it amuses me.

      • Sneezycat@sopuli.xyzEnglish
        272·
        1 year ago

        We already kill thousands of animals a day, would it be so hard to save some blood instead of throwing it away?

        I think the bigger problem is it may be unsanitary/a biohazard.

      • Moonrise2473@feddit.itEnglish
        351·
        1 year ago

        Who said to kill animals just for this purpose? That would be irresponsible and incredibly asshole

        The industry is already dumping too much animal blood as a waste, just take a small drop from something that otherwise goes in wastewater anyway

        • TheWheelMustGoOn@feddit.deEnglish
          534·
          1 year ago

          We need to stop using animals. Not extend it. I mean I really don’t get what’s so hard about testing if a product works on humans in the real scenario.

          • Risk@feddit.ukEnglish
            27·
            1 year ago

            Because testing things in laboratories for healthcare requires stringent and rigorous controls. It’s a lot easier to standardise animal blood than human blood, and as the comment above highlighted - animal blood is already a waste product, whereas human blood is highly valuable for directly saving lives.

            Arguing for less animal usage is a nobler cause, but this is not the fight to pick for it.