I'm the founder of HDP Health, if you have any questions or want clarifications please ask away!
Is the answer to this problem simply more minority volunteers in clinical trials?
How Neglecting Minorities in Medical Research Has Led to Deadly Outcomes
81–90 of 155 posts
Re: How Neglecting Minorities in Medical Research Has Led to Deadly Outcomes
#82Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm going to quote what someone said below because this is blatantly false "This is not only false, but dangerously false. We are in the process of discovering that certain classes of popularly-prescribed drugs (eg ACE inhibitors for blacks, certain chemotherapy drugs for Asians) are ineffective or even toxic for populations not represented in the relevant drug development research cohorts. It's not identity politics…
... which is why I listed genetics under "other explanations". Did you read the whole comment?
Your assumption seemed to be that genetics didn't tie to ethnicity, which it is hence I restated it.
Re: How Neglecting Minorities in Medical Research Has Led to Deadly Outcomes
#83I'm the founder of HDP Health, if you have any questions or want clarifications please ask away!
You have a typo under "How does this work as a patient?": "You can simply visit our Find a Triala> page", pretty sure you don't want the "a>" there.
Re: How Neglecting Minorities in Medical Research Has Led to Deadly Outcomes
#84Earlier quoted context omitted.
Since development of medications is such a heavily regulated industry, it seems to me the correct course of action is through regulation. Require a testament of some sort of the drugs' tested effects on different races. Or maybe require that test groups be representative of the population.
110% agree. The government has actually had a mandate out for publicly funded research since 1993, but only have enforcement rules been enacted and we have yet to see if they will be followed through on. For research done by private institutions (Pharma, Biotech, etc.) there is no mandate and it's on the researcher to make it a thing.
[deleted]
Re: How Neglecting Minorities in Medical Research Has Led to Deadly Outcomes
#85Re: How Neglecting Minorities in Medical Research Has Led to Deadly Outcomes
#86I'm the founder of HDP Health, if you have any questions or want clarifications please ask away!
An incredibly complex issue. I'd be here all day trying to address it and my quibbles w/the article, e.g. "race" ≠ "ethnicity," nor is it uniformly defined across countries, since it's a (BS) social construct... In any event, my knowledge of the issue leads me to think that the outcome is more a feature than a bug. That said, while I think the article attempts to link (growing target) population size(s) with an incre…
If I were to cover every one of the points you called out in detail (which are all valid) I'd end up with an entire book haha.
Re: How Neglecting Minorities in Medical Research Has Led to Deadly Outcomes
#87Earlier quoted context omitted.
... which is why I listed genetics under "other explanations". Did you read the whole comment?
Your assumption seemed to be that genetics didn't tie to ethnicity, which it is hence I restated it.
I don't know why you would have thought that. Is it not obvious the physical aspects of what we call "race" are a collection of genetic expressions?
When you say "your assumption seemed to be" aren't you really talking about your own assumptions about what I'm thinking (but didn't write)?
Re: How Neglecting Minorities in Medical Research Has Led to Deadly Outcomes
#88Earlier quoted context omitted.
Since development of medications is such a heavily regulated industry, it seems to me the correct course of action is through regulation. Require a testament of some sort of the drugs' tested effects on different races. Or maybe require that test groups be representative of the population.
110% agree. The government has actually had a mandate out for publicly funded research since 1993, but only have enforcement rules been enacted and we have yet to see if they will be followed through on. For research done by private institutions (Pharma, Biotech, etc.) there is no mandate and it's on the researcher to make it a thing.
* All Minorities, not one minority, and technically I believe all funded research should reflect the populations that exist rather than focusing on one, and take the various genetic backgrounds into account when developing treatments.
Re: How Neglecting Minorities in Medical Research Has Led to Deadly Outcomes
#89I'm the founder of HDP Health, if you have any questions or want clarifications please ask away!
Is the answer to this problem simply more minority volunteers in clinical trials?
More minority volunteers, and having clinical trials where minorities go to for care. Great example is most of the well funded academic institutions that run research are in affluent, mostly white neighborhoods, so if a (for assumption) poor minority wanted to participate, its not likely that the clinical trial would be available near them.
Re: How Neglecting Minorities in Medical Research Has Led to Deadly Outcomes
#90Earlier quoted context omitted.
>That in general the well being of Native peoples in the US, of African Americans is devalued. It is witnessed in the exclusion in drug trials, in the diseases that pharma considers worthwhile to address... Speaking about medical research specifically: You seem to say these outcomes are because of white racists "devaluing" black and native peoples' well-being in an evil act of collective racism. A simpler explanation…
When people try to explain why you're coming to broken conclusions due to broken reasoning, they get attacked as radical leftists for using the straightforward terminology we have for describing the phenomenon we're discussing. Here, you've provided a perfect illustration of why we have the term "structural racism". Structural racism is the emergent discrimination arising from the circumstances that created our statu…
Grandparent has been deleted and I can't see it, so I'm not sure what their post was, so I'm aiming this response in more at the terms being used and their underlying meaning.
>When people try to explain why you're coming to broken conclusions due to broken reasoning, they get attacked as radical leftists for using the straightforward terminology we have for describing the phenomenon we're discussing.
How much of this is caused by people have past experience with selective application of different lines of reasoning.
For example, use the legal's systems racial and sex based discrimination. If we look at racial discrimination, it should be pretty clear that minorities have it much worse than whites. And there is a lot of research on this. If you then look at it based on gender, it appears there is even stronger discrimination based on gender than on race, with males much worse off than females (and a minority male receiving the worst of each). But the treatment of this online seems quite different. While it is a personal anecdote, on multiple occasions I've been told the racial discrimination is caused by structural racism against minorities that treats them worse than whites at every step on the system (from being more likely to be stopped and searched, to being more likely to be convicted given equal evidence, to receiving harsher sentences), and then being told that the gender discrimination is caused by sexism against women, resulting from the legal system treating women as children every step of the way (meaning they are less likely to be stopped and searched, less likely to be convicted, and receive less time). These seem like polar opposite lines of reasoning, yet I've seen both used as the same time.
I think it is at this point you get people who become opposed to the underlying reasoning because it appears that the group using the reasoning is starting with an assumption and then picking the logic that best fits their assumption. And I think many of the people you encounter online who use this reasoning are doing just that. People of every political and other leaning like to manipulate data to fit their world view. Combined with a lack of exposure to the actual scientists who work on this it can paint people's view of the language. To say nothing of scientist being humans and thus there being examples of scientist being very non-scientific about some issue (while I don't know of any examples on this particular issue, I did read through case of correspondences published in a scientific journal dealing with classification of certain behaviors as mental illnesses where some scientist were making some very indefensible arguments concerning evolution of which numerous counter examples were available that basically boiled down to "there is no way trait X evolved because it isn't reproductively advantageous in our environment").
And to be clear on my own stance, I do think that systematic racism exists in our current system, including in sub-systems where there are no racist members. There are agent models that show with even a small in-group bias, completely devoid of any out-group bias, you can have a system where out-group bias is apparent. For example, a system of entities of type A and B where A's has a certain preference for grouping with other A's, but no preference for not grouping with B's, ends up behaving similar to a system where A's have a preference for not grouping with B's.