Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How Neglecting Minorities in Medical Research Has Led to Deadly Outcomes

hdphealth.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 155 posts

Re: How Neglecting Minorities in Medical Research Has Led to Deadly Outcomes

#121

Post by burfog »

scott_s wrote: post #25
m1el wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you find the opening statement "With more than 50 percent of the population estimated to be a minority by 2044" ridiculous? When did we start ignoring what words mean? That's not what the word "minority" means. There's many ways you can rephrase it and still be correct, mind you.

It’s not ridiculous. It means that by 2044, estimates are that over 50% of the population will be part of a minority group, and the largest single group (whites) will no longer be a majority of the population. The minority groups will individually still be smaller than the largest group.

This is a very US-centric view of things. Worldwide, whites are the smallest minority, and they are the only group to be shrinking. The largest group is of course Asian.

Re: How Neglecting Minorities in Medical Research Has Led to Deadly Outcomes

#122

Post by idrios »

gozur88 wrote: post #78
blaurenceclark wrote: post #58

Earlier 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?

Nothing you've said seems wrong to me, but the tone of how you write is too dismissive.

> since there are other explanations (lifestyle habits, genetics, poverty) that would explain the difference, in whole or in part.

This doesn't contradict the meaning of "structural, systemic racism", but it explains it. When pharmacies are making drugs that are only effective for white people, and not researching effectiveness on black people, that's structural racism almost by definition.

Obviously pharma companies are responding to financial incentives, and if it's not profitable for a company to research treatments specifically helping a minority group then they're probably not going to. Less availability of pharmaceuticals makes treatment harder, causing what is available more expensive or leading to complications that require more further medical treatment (and cost more money); and those who choose not to get treatment will find themselves with further medical conditions later. In the end it would cost the minority more money, which they likely cannot pay for other systemic reasons, so more often they would be denied access to a hospital outright. Everyone involved is responding to natural incentives, but the net result still becomes [minority group] is neglected because of the color of their skin.

> Did you read the whole comment?

When you write like this it feels like you're attacking the character of the person you're talking to, which makes the whole conversation more toxic to follow.

Re: How Neglecting Minorities in Medical Research Has Led to Deadly Outcomes

#123

Post by Clanan »

citricsquid wrote: post #2

https://www.propublica.org/article/nothing-protects-black-wo... This is a longer article on the subject of poorer health outcomes for minorities, covering the situation for black women and one family's experience, which is very much worth reading, but here are the key points: Statistics: * A black woman is 22% more likely to die from heart disease than a white woman * ...71 percent more likely to perish from cervical…

That was a fascinating, and heartbreaking, read. The statistics are astounding. I'm disappointed though that the author completely omitted any discussion of single-parent families. 66% of black families are single-parent vs. only 25% of white families. I would think that would have a huge impact on well-being and health of the mother, in general. Even just in terms of making time for doctor's visits, etc.

Re: How Neglecting Minorities in Medical Research Has Led to Deadly Outcomes

#124

Post by jsoc815 »

forapurpose wrote: post #105
jsoc815 wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> the outcome is more a feature than a bug What outcome is a feature? You seem to be saying that the outcome that minorities are dying is a feature, but I strongly suspect that the comment just needs clarification.

There are many ways of solving inconvenient 'problems'.

Re: How Neglecting Minorities in Medical Research Has Led to Deadly Outcomes

#125

Post by forapurpose »

jsoc815 wrote: post #124
forapurpose wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the outcome is more a feature than a bug What outcome is a feature? You seem to be saying that the outcome that minorities are dying is a feature, but I strongly suspect that the comment just needs clarification.

There are many ways of solving inconvenient 'problems'.

Your ambiguity implies you are indeed saying that minorities dying is feature.

> inconvenient 'problems'

Calling people dying "inconvenient" implies that at best you don't think it's serious. Putting "'problems'" in quotes, implies that you don't really think it's a problem.

Do you really want to say that deaths of people who are members of minorities is desirable, or at least not a problem?

Re: How Neglecting Minorities in Medical Research Has Led to Deadly Outcomes

#126

Post by forapurpose »

gozur88 wrote: post #106
forapurpose wrote: post #103

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 certainly not obvious to half the country

It's certainly obvious to the most of the U.S., and facts are not subject to a popularity vote regardless.

> "endless research" is tainted

Easily said, but completely unsubstantiated

> How long do you get to keep your job in academia if you point out ...

Can you substantiate that such a thing is true, and then answer your question? One thing that will lose you your job in academia is making intellectually weak, baseless claims. Academia doesn't run an affirmative action program to include all political ideologies; you have to actually have evidence and good arguments.

Re: How Neglecting Minorities in Medical Research Has Led to Deadly Outcomes

#127

Post by jsoc815 »

blaurenceclark wrote: post #114
jsoc815 wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

There is actually a push here (ignoring mandated public funded trials) because the Minority populations are becoming large enough that if a diabetes drug that was better in black people existed there’s a massive underserved customer base. Follow the money...

Thanks for responding.

I suppose I shouldn't be surprised, but I assumed that this sort of thing would have more traction outside of the U.S, which would then sort of (maybe) jump on the bandwagon.

Re: How Neglecting Minorities in Medical Research Has Led to Deadly Outcomes

#128

Post by cadlin »

gozur88 wrote: post #52
charlescearl wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or generally if historically oppressed minorities get poorer health outcomes. It seems a complex question that has many facets. Two tickets that come to mind: 1. When US sociologists and political scientists talk about “systemic and structural racism” this is one of the manifestations. That in general the well being of Native peoples in the US, of African Americans is devalued. It is witnessed in the exclusion in dru…

>When US sociologists and political scientists talk about “systemic and structural racism” this is one of the manifestations. Which has always bothered me, since there are other explanations (lifestyle habits, genetics, poverty) that would explain the difference, in whole or in part. It's a politically convenient assumption that goes contrary to Occam's Razor.

Black people have worse health outcomes controlling for obesity and poverty.

Blaming genetics for such a wide range of negative outcomes is silly if you're looking for a simple explanation. Consider this[1] paper on cervical cancer. There are nine different genes linked to it. Now do that for every relatively worse health outcome. That's the opposite of simple.

Lifestyle is even more nebulous. It encompasses so much that suggesting it's a kind of verbal jujitsu to suggest it's an adequate use of Occam's Razor. There are hundreds of lifestyle factors and you can weight them however you want to get the result you want.

All of those are about as broad and as simple as racism, which you appear to categorically disregard as a plausible explanation.

[1]https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19347305

Re: How Neglecting Minorities in Medical Research Has Led to Deadly Outcomes

#129

Post by forapurpose »

gozur88 wrote: post #119
aperrien wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

It's almost as if people like to use the sins of others long dead to excuse their own shortcomings. 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?

> sins of others long dead

You are suggesting that there isn't widespread racism now? What knowledge or basis do you have for all this?

> if free will isn't a thing

So either there is no free will or there are no systemic problems? Are poverty in Somalia and Kirghistan systemic issues, or is it just a failure of the people there that they don't live like people in the Bay Area? In the U.S., is poverty on Native American reservations, and among almost every group that isn't white men, just due to laziness? Society, health care, schools, the economy, racism, etc. - all have no effect?

Re: How Neglecting Minorities in Medical Research Has Led to Deadly Outcomes

#130

Post by jsoc815 »

forapurpose wrote: post #125
jsoc815 wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are many ways of solving inconvenient 'problems'.

Your ambiguity implies you are indeed saying that minorities dying is feature. > inconvenient 'problems' Calling people dying "inconvenient" implies that at best you don't think it's serious. Putting "'problems'" in quotes, implies that you don't really think it's a problem. Do you really want to say that deaths of people who are members of minorities is desirable, or at least not a problem?

Thank you for your interest.

Respectfully, I said what I wanted to say. Your interpretation of my posts is not necessarily correct. Yes, I am being circumspect.

Post reply on HN