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

141–150 of 155 posts

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

#141

Post by jsoc815 »

petroseskinder wrote: post #80
yipopov wrote: post #62

Good luck defending this as long as it's deemed political wrongthink to say there are any biological differences between races. If everyone is the same, why bother with diverse studies?

There's a lot of baggage with "race related medical research." At least within the US, it is currently deemed wrong think for a number of reasons. First, how are you defining race? The current American definitions of race are imprecise and sociologically constructed. Since the founding of America, the definition of white has expanded to include various groups that were previously excluded (e.g. Polish, Irish, Jewish…

I brought this up in passing and was summarily ejected into oblivion. Thank you for posting in detail what I didn't have the patience and energy to. (shrug)

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

#142

Post by BearGoesChirp »

pvg wrote: post #104
BearGoesChirp wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 thi…

Grandparent has been deleted and I can't see it Go to your HN profile and turn 'showdead' on. It hasn't been deleted, users flagged it.

Oh, I thought it was something depending upon getting a certain rep and I hadn't hit it yet. Thanks.

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

#143

Post by scott_s »

burfog wrote: post #121
scott_s wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yes, it is a very US-centric view, because we're talking about the US.

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

#144

Post by BearGoesChirp »

dragonwriter wrote: post #91
BearGoesChirp wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 thi…

> These seem like polar opposite lines of reasoning, The problem is you are viewing them as reasoning about the cause from the effect alone rather than reasoning about the cause from a combination of the effect and masses of historical evidence.

What masses of historical evidence? The ones that show that being a male has long been a major disadvantage in a legal system? Yes, going back into the past being a minority was even worse than it is today, to a point where there was absolutely no justice at all, but that doesn't have an impact on the line of reasoning used to try to say the legal system discriminates against women.

This type of response only further reinforces the notion that the underlying reasoning and terminology is created ad-hoc to justify existing notions.

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

#145

Post by Clanan »

forapurpose wrote: post #132
Clanan wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> I'm disappointed though that the author completely omitted any discussion of single-parent families ... I would think that would have a huge impact Perhaps the author had no evidence of it. Is there any?

Sure, tons. A simple Google search turns up reams of sources (and articles about sources). A few random readings show studies on single-mother families having highest rates of poverty, increased rates of smoking, lower health, etc.

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

#146

Post by ekianjo »

blaurenceclark wrote: post #7
pkaye wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But this seems to be different situation from what the article is talking about which is the inadequate involvement of minorities in drug trials. You are highlighting the lack of adequate health coverage which is a different issue in the US. But this bring up a question if blacks and other minorities have the poorer health outcomes in other countries? Japan, China, South Korea for example does their own drug testing…

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…

> Minorities have been a low percentage participation in research.

That's not true at all if you consider PMS (Post Marketing Studies) which are an integral part of clinical development post launch.

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

#147

Post by tptacek »

BearGoesChirp wrote: post #144
dragonwriter wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> These seem like polar opposite lines of reasoning, The problem is you are viewing them as reasoning about the cause from the effect alone rather than reasoning about the cause from a combination of the effect and masses of historical evidence.

What masses of historical evidence? The ones that show that being a male has long been a major disadvantage in a legal system? Yes, going back into the past being a minority was even worse than it is today, to a point where there was absolutely no justice at all, but that doesn't have an impact on the line of reasoning used to try to say the legal system discriminates against women. This type of response only further…

This is a string of non-sequiturs.

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

#148

Post by dang »

jsoc815 wrote: post #140
dang wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please don't do this here.

I'm sorry. Do what?

Please don't: (1) troll HN by making veiled references to outrageous things; (2) post unsubstantive comments, such as ones that go on about how you do or don't like to comment and how other people fail to appreciate this; (3) use HN for political or ideological battle, or for flamewars.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

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

#149

Post by blaurenceclark »

burfog wrote: post #118

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.

I 100% disagree with everything you say here. For one, that is not a PR disaster as the headline you're using is one no one would ever use as it is insensitive. In fact what would happen is "New cancer treatment found to be more effective for minorities than previous treatments being test" would be a fabulous headline that would garner tons of support.

Saying "steer clear of minorities" shows complete "superiority" complex and is indicative of why the problem exists.

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

#150

Post by BearGoesChirp »

tptacek wrote: post #147
BearGoesChirp wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What masses of historical evidence? The ones that show that being a male has long been a major disadvantage in a legal system? Yes, going back into the past being a minority was even worse than it is today, to a point where there was absolutely no justice at all, but that doesn't have an impact on the line of reasoning used to try to say the legal system discriminates against women. This type of response only further…

This is a string of non-sequiturs.

Then allow me to fill in the gaps.

>What masses of historical evidence?

This is a question in response to the GPs post that:

>>masses of historical evidence

>The ones that show that being a male has long been a major disadvantage in a legal system?

This is a purposed answer to the previous question, making the claim that there is plenty of historical evidence that males have been strongly discriminated against by the legal system, even if we went back in time. Need I source a claim showing that men were more likely than women to be charged, convicted, and receive longer sentences? This has been the case for at as far back as I've looked.

The reason for this is because GP acted as if I was ignoring some evidence that would justify the argument that the legal system is biased against women because it goes easier on them and make it somehow compatible with the second argument that the legal system is biased against racial minorities because it treats them harsher. It shouldn't be hard to see that these things still appear to be in contradiction.

>Yes, going back into the past being a minority was even worse than it is today, to a point where there was absolutely no justice at all

This is to preempt a response that if you went back in time, the legal system was even more biased against minorities than it is today. Instead of waiting for that response to be potentially made, I made it myself. I preempt this based on past experiences of seeing the point made in counter to my point.

> but that doesn't have an impact on the line of reasoning used to try to say the legal system discriminates against women.

I then follow up saying that I don't see this as a counter, because it doesn't impact the half of the two statements I have a problem with. One can try to explain why racial minorities being treated worse in the past by the legal system supports the statement that the legal system going easier on women is discriminating against women, only that the claim that I made in the first half of this sentence is not enough.

>This type of response only further reinforces the notion that the underlying reasoning and terminology is created ad-hoc to justify existing notions.

I then finish by saying the type of response from GP, which does not explain their argument to any degree other than a claim of forgetting to take historical evidence into account, makes people more dismissive of the original line of reasoning and the terminology associated with it, that of systematic discrimination, because the historical evidence appears to support my claim, not theirs. In short, an unsatisfactory defense strengthens the opposition's argument.

Would you like me to further clarify any point?

Post reply on HN