Dozens of women have claimed online that Always sanitary towels caused painful burns, prompting a response from the Procter & Gamble-owned brand.

Several TikTok users have posted videos describing reactions to the company’s products in recent days.

The clips, which have gained thousands of views, include complaints of itching, rashes and what users describe as chemical burns — skin damage caused by contact with irritating substances.

In one video viewed 45,000 times, user @ratqueen910 said the pads gave her “the worst chemical burns ever” in her groin area, where underwear meets the leg.

“When I looked at the burn with the flash on it really looked like my skin was gooey! I was scared af,” she told commenters.

She said she first thought the pain was chafing or an allergic reaction to spandex in her underwear, before seeing other women online describe the same symptoms.

“I realised that so many people have had problems the last few months with these pads,” she said.

“It’s not like, ‘oh, I switched over to Always pads’ — no, I’ve used them since I was in like sixth grade.

“So they must have changed the formula, messed something up, put some extra chemicals in that sh**t because it messed me up. I had chemical burns. I had issues and I didn’t know what it was.”

She said a doctor suggested another cause for the irritation, but she believes the pads were to blame, noting she had never been sensitive to scents or suffered urinary or yeast infections before.

Her post drew hundreds of comments, with many women saying they too had reactions to Always’ Flexfoam pads.

One wrote: “The whole area that the pad touched gave me a chemical burn after only a few hours. It was the Flexfoam.”

The original poster replied: “Mine was Flexfoam as well.”

While users did not specify exact product types, Always sells both day and night versions of its Infinity Pads with Flexfoam, which appear to be those mentioned.

Another commenter said: “Just a few days ago I was on my period using Always pads and I was f**king itching and it was burning. I never itch or have pain down there. I took the pad off so quick.”

A third wrote: “I switched to Honey Pot and had been fine. When my coworker gave me an Always pad, I was hesitant but used it — and got a chemical burn.”

Others described repeated irritation.

One said: “I use another brand for the first half of my period, then Always for the last two days, and I’ve had this burn for three months in a row. Stopped using them last month and no issue.”

Some also reported rashes or itching. One wrote: “In real time I am itching and getting a rash. I wore an Always pad earlier today.”

An Always spokesperson told the Daily Mail: “Our pads are used safely by millions of women every day around the world.

“Their safety is our top priority, and we carefully evaluate every component of our Always products to minimise the chances of skin irritation or allergic reactions.”

The flagship women’s health summit brought together over 400 visionary founders, funders and innovators, with a shared mission of transforming women’s health worldwide.

This year’s Women’s Health Week, which took place at the Barbican, London from 14-17 October, showcased a sector once considered by funders to be too much of a ‘niche’, meeting a crucial unmet need with huge market demand.

Investments are outperforming their value, regulators want to speed up the route to market, and clinical validation is cutting through the noise and demonstrating real results.

There is a buzz about the femtech sector – or at least there was in the Barbican last week – but experts have urged founders should move forward responsibility, building ethics and equity into their innovations.

Here’s our takeaways from the key conversations at Women’s Health Week.

1. Women’s health is outperforming – but angels and influencers are crucial for raising capital

Investment in women’s health is outperforming, and this trend is expected to continue, according to the panel at Women’s Health Week on Thursday 16th, where fund managers and founders highlighted significant returns, growing institutional interest, and the critical role of early-stage backers.

Sanji Chotai, a senior investment manager at British Business Bank, says she is seeing “really encouraging data” and anticipates more “outperformance”, particularly in medtech, which is drawing interest thanks to “shorter timelines to regulatory approval” and rapid commercialisation.

Series A and B activity is also picking up, but the panel agreed that early-stage capital and angel investors remain essential.

“My first angel investment in a women’s health company, I think on Series A, is going to be 20x on multiple and for our fund, it’s going to be around 9x,” said Trin Linamagi, founding partner at Sie Ventures.

“We need to take bigger bets and double down – and actually put the capital behind these businesses early on.”

Having driven successful campaigns for Soulcycle and Barry’s Bootcamp, Tatum Getty, now a founding general partner at THENA, also highlighted the importance of influencers – and not just on Instagram.

“Who is that person who believes in what we’re building and will tell their friends,” she said.

“Women have not been traditional investors they are more risk averse, smaller investment but bigger impact. They add so much more value than the amount of capital that they contribute.”

2. NICE and new pathways for health technologies

During a discussion on mastering Europe’s regulatory process, a representative from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) outlined how new rules-based approval routes, now being introduced for health technologies, are designed to speed access to innovation.

The body is also better aligning processes with the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) to reduce the time it takes to regulatory approval.

“We’re taking forward the rules-based pathway for health tech,” said Kendall Gilmore, a senior advisor at NICE.

“Developing a model more similar to the medicines pathway, where, for some products, it goes through the MHRA, through NICE and then comes with a recommendation that has a funding mandate attached.”

The pathway, currently being developed will see health technologies assessed in a similar way to medicines with the first products approved from April next year.

NICE currently evaluates only a fraction of the 500,000 technologies used daily in the NHS. While a NICE recommendation is “not mandatory”, it can be a “powerful signal” to the NHS.

NICE is constantly “horizon scanning” for “disruptive products” further down the pipeline and is engaging more directly with innovators, industry associations and international partners to identify promising technologies earlier, and a new early value assessment route is giving promising products a faster track.

“If it meets an unmet need, it should be used with further evidence generation,” Gilmore explained.

“This is particularly relevant for digital health and diagnostics.”

3. Scientific validation is the most effective way to ‘cut through the noise’ 

In a panel exploring how to “cut through the noise” in femtech, founders were urged to bake credibility into product design from day one, with scientific proof and clinical validation the sharpest differentiator, according to Soun Rakshit, of MV Health.

“You have to spend probably two years going through the R&D process,” said Rakshit.

“That is the best and probably the only way to do it, so that by the time you get regulatory approval, you have already had significant patient feedback and iteration.”

Earning trust also means collaborating with experts who understand the problem, as Helen O’Neil, founder of Hertility, explained.

When in the development stage, O’Neil reached out to professionals, including obstetricians and gynaecologists to understand the right questions to ask based on their “clinical intuition and personal experience”.

Rakshit added: “If we can show true clinical evidence, and it does take time, it is the best way to cut through the noise.”

4. Bias in AI is ‘real and harmful’ – and founders need to know how to address it

Experts discussed the role of AI and its potential to both help and harm women’s health, urging proactive testing and human oversight to avoid the risk of decades of a “male default model” being implemented into new solutions.

“AI that’s trained on that skewed data can really fail women,” said Sarah Montgomery Taylor, clinical lead of GenAI evaluation and scaled services at Google, highlighting familiar examples such as heart-attack presentation.

“Biases are real, and they are really harmful, and so being aware of them is so crucial.”

Panellists also flagged “measurement bias” and the “historical dismissal of women’s pain,” where systems trained on those records “can learn to deprioritise” certain signals.

Beyond bias in diagnostics, Marinos Ionnides, head of software and AI medical devices regulation at the MHRA, highlighted the risks of implementing AI in areas where there may be hidden bias.

“I’m quite worried about the deployment of software AI in places where we aren’t we didn’t know we would be finding bias [such as] appointment booking,” he said, adding that in these “unknown unknowns,” “the regulator has their greatest role”.

Founders were urged to be responsible when scaling AI, introducing guardrails such as building in equity and collecting data from the very beginning for “rigorous real-world validation”.

Clinicians need to be able to test the product and understand it to build trust, while regulatory processes should be “adaptive”, offering “clarity on what the path is to market”.

Chen Davies, founder at Anya, shared a real-world example of how products and content tailored for underserved groups drove measurable change, including a “10% population-wise” rise in breastfeeding rates in a deprived area of Blackpool after six months.

“AI should gradually complement human support without replacing it,” said Davies.

5. Consumer data can play a critical role in building the clinical evidence-base 

During the final panel, participants argued that continuous real-world data, paired with clinical benchmarks, is the fastest way to fix women’s health’s “male baseline” problem and turn lived experience into evidence.

Dr Chris Curry, clinical director for women’s health at Oura, argued that wearables are “one of the big unlocks” by collecting data that gives the “whole picture of the human”.

But tracking can – should – meet clinical standards, with the panel pushing for globally representative consumer datasets.

“I see consumer data if it’s truly representative, if it’s truly globally representative, being critical,” said Micah Gellman, a senior strategist for women’s health innovation at the Gates Foundation.

“It helps us calibrate and link consumer insights and lived experience to clinical anchors and value outcomes… this kind of consumer data is one avenue that we have to really change investor appetite.”

Rhiannon White, CEO of Clue, which has a long-running research collaboration with Oura, including collecting symptom tracking data on perimenopause and pain, added that women’s spending power can actually steer where future R&D should be focused.

“We are able to shape and direct where people will put their research and put their development with our spending power,” she said.

6. The crisis in government support can be an opportunity for more innovative funding pathways 

With the Gates Foundation recently committing an additional US$2.5bn for research in women’s health, Gellman also reframed the reduction in government funding for women’s health – such as that seen under the Trump administration in the US – as an opportunity for more innovate financing.

“There is a real opportunity for European and Asian government funding to step up and fill some of those gaps,” said Gellman.

“An opportunity for government funding and philanthropic funding to take new forms and to be partnering in new ways to catalyse innovation and to work with academics and industry players.”

Rather than a binary between grants and VC, the panel highlighted “blended financing mechanisms, venture philanthropy… different kinds of outcome-based financing” with public and philanthropic dollars used “to de risk, early-stage investment”.

Gellman added: “This crisis that we’re in, in terms of government funding is also an opportunity for innovative financing.”

The comments brought the conference full circle, reminiscent of those made earlier in the day, by Tatum Getty, who highlighted: “Women and small amounts of capital, can make a big difference.”

Women who breastfeed develop protective immune cells that help guard against breast cancer, with effects lasting for more than 30 years, new research shows.

The study found that specialised T-cells — immune cells that fight disease — remain in breast tissue long after pregnancy and provide lasting protection, particularly against triple-negative breast cancer, one of the most aggressive forms.

Observations dating back to the 18th century, when physicians noticed nuns had some of the highest rates of breast cancer, first hinted that childbearing and breastfeeding could protect against the disease.

Modern research has confirmed this link, though the biological explanation was unclear.

Professor Sherene Loi is senior author and clinician scientist at the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre.

The researcher said: “The key take-home messages are that pregnancy and breastfeeding will leave behind long-lived protective immune cells in the breast and the body, and these cells help to reduce risk and improve defence against breast cancer, particularly triple-negative breast cancer, but potentially other cancers as well as disease.”

Researchers from the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre in Melbourne studied non-cancerous breast tissue from more than 260 women who had undergone breast reduction or preventive surgery.

They found that women who had given birth had more specialised immune cells called CD8⁺ T-cells — part of the adaptive immune system that targets specific threats, including cancer.

The team then tested whether these cells directly provided protection.

In mice, cancer cells implanted into breast tissue grew less in those that had pups and breastfed compared with those that had not. When the researchers removed the T-cells from the nursing mice, the protective effect disappeared.

The researchers also analysed data from more than 1,000 breast cancer patients diagnosed after childbirth with available breastfeeding records.

Women who had breastfed had better outcomes from triple-negative breast cancer than those who had not. Their tumours also contained more immune cells, suggesting ongoing immune activity against the cancer.

The study provides an explanation for why breastfeeding appears protective, and the findings could help inform new strategies for women unable to have children or breastfeed.

Understanding the underlying biology may aid development of vaccines or therapies that mimic this natural defence.

Professor Loi said: “The effects are really quite small for every individual, but population-wide the effects are large.”

She stressed that breastfeeding does not guarantee protection against breast cancer, noting it is “not a 100 per cent guarantee that they won’t get breast cancer.”

The study also explored why some breast cancers contain high numbers of specialised immune cells while others do not.

Patients with more of these cells generally had better outcomes, particularly with triple-negative breast cancer.

Professor Loi explained that T-cells react not only to viruses or bacteria but also to cancer, describing this response as “one of our very modern therapeutic weapons against cancer.”

Associate Professor Wendy Ingman from the University of Adelaide’s Medical School said longer breastfeeding duration provided greater benefits.

Each year of breastfeeding is linked to a 4 per cent lifetime reduction in the mother’s breast cancer risk.

“This study shows that having babies and breastfeeding causes long-lasting changes in immune cells that could help protect the breast from cancer,” Ingman said.

“I’m hopeful that this type of research will lead to new approaches to reduce women’s breast cancer risk.”