111–120 of 155 posts
" Not only do minorities get asthma at a higher rate, but [UCSF] pulmonologist Dr. Esteban Burchard ... has found that ethnicity is the most important factor in determining if a patient will respond to asthma therapy. Unfortunately, for the most most commonly prescribed asthma medication, Albuterol, 67 percent of Puerto Ricans and 47 percent of African-Americans show no improvement when taking it, yet Albuterol works…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We haven't done extensive research in populations outside of the United States, but for the last 50-100 years the US (and Europe) has been leading the charge, but in both these locations, Minorities have been a low percentage participation in research. As well, many of these outcomes he mentioned are the indirect result of years of research. Think of diabetes, 100 years of research was 99% spent on a white population…
> We haven't done extensive research in populations outside of the United States, but for the last 50-100 years the US (and Europe) has been leading the charge I'm confused, I thought that over the last ten years a lot of the medical research formerly conducted by U.S. pharma companies has been outsourced to SROs, who in turn test their drugs on poor people in India or whatever. Is that not actually the case?
" Not only do minorities get asthma at a higher rate, but [UCSF] pulmonologist Dr. Esteban Burchard ... has found that ethnicity is the most important factor in determining if a patient will respond to asthma therapy. Unfortunately, for the most most commonly prescribed asthma medication, Albuterol, 67 percent of Puerto Ricans and 47 percent of African-Americans show no improvement when taking it, yet Albuterol works…
Does anyone know why this is? Seems very weird.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Acknowledged. I actually have a few (of those books). More so raised the points to be objective and for those who don't know any better. Serious question though, is there much (U.S.) interest (define it as you wish) in this subject? Or is this more a passion project and attempt to raise awareness. (I'll understand if you duck the question for various reasons.) * Bonus historical example... Department of Energy (along…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> a politically convenient assumption The centuries-long existence of slavery, segregation (which was brutal oppression, including lynching), and racism isn't an "assumption", but indisputable fact. Occam's Razor is not a real arbiter of truth, but in this case it cuts the other way: Racism is the simpler and blazingly obvious explanation, backed by endless reearch and even the most casual observation. You really hav…
>Racism is the simpler and blazingly obvious explanation, backed by endless reearch and even the most casual observation. Things that are wrong can be obvious to individuals and groups of people. It's certainly not obvious to half the country, and that "endless research" is tainted. How long do you get to keep your job in academia if you point out the primary drivers of black misery in the US (out of wedlock births,…
It's almost as if the sins of the past affects the lives of people in the present somehow.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We don’t because no one has run a clinical trial to find out why :(
Would a clinical trial tell why? Or only who it works for and who it doesn't?
Essentially, the drug companies can't win. People will find something to complain about. Either minorities are getting neglected, or they are being abused as lab subjects.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Racism is the simpler and blazingly obvious explanation, backed by endless reearch and even the most casual observation. Things that are wrong can be obvious to individuals and groups of people. It's certainly not obvious to half the country, and that "endless research" is tainted. How long do you get to keep your job in academia if you point out the primary drivers of black misery in the US (out of wedlock births,…
> How long do you get to keep your job in academia if you point out the primary drivers of black misery in the US (out of wedlock births, drugs, and violence) are self inflicted? It's almost as if the sins of the past affects the lives of people in the present somehow.
In any event, if free will isn't a thing, there's no point in trying to make the world a better place, right, so we should just leave things as they are?
Suppose this wasn't the case. The news headlines would of course be "Experimental drugs being tested on minorities". That would be a PR disaster. It's safer to steer clear of minorities. Essentially, the drug companies can't win. People will find something to complain about. Either minorities are getting neglected, or they are being abused as lab subjects.