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

21–30 of 155 posts

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

#21

Post by [deleted] »

blaurenceclark wrote: post #19
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.

Incorrect, the actual definition is "Majority minority" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majority_minority and yes those of us that are currently Minorities, would still be considered minorities in such a case.

[deleted]

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

#23

Post by blaurenceclark »

pkaye wrote: post #14
blaurenceclark wrote: post #7

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…

So none of the asian countries (for example SK or Japan) retest the drugs on their own population before approval for use?

There is a much longer answer to that question. SK and Japan only make up 5% of the asian population, many parts of asia are not well tested for these drugs. We're actually in the process of working with a large pharmaceutical company on a multi-country diabetes prevention trial in Asia because traditionally they have not been tested on as much as necessary. As well the companies there will run many of their trials in the US as well as Asia but our larger population (as well as running the trials in mostly white continents such as Australia and Europe) still causes quite a large discrepancy. We could do a whole other article on this topic.

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

#24

Post by bertjk »

m1el wrote: post #8

> With more than 50 percent of the population estimated to be a minority by 2044 "Hi, I'm Brian Clark and I don't know what 'minority' means"

I think the simplest fix to this sentence is to pluralize the word "minority."

"With more than 50 percent of the population estimated to be minorities by 2044,..."

No need for verbosity or weird terms that require a trip to Wikipedia.

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

#25

Post by scott_s »

m1el wrote: post #18
blaurenceclark wrote: post #4

I'm the founder of HDP Health, if you have any questions or want clarifications please ask away!

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.

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

#26

Post by m1el »

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.

And I agree with all of those statements, but phrased as it is now, it's blatantly wrong.

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

#27

Post by pacala »

blaurenceclark wrote: post #20
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.

No single group that is currently a "minority" would overtake the white population, therefore every other population in the US would still be considered a Minority until there is an equal or more number of a single minority than there are white Americans.

Mathematically, if no population is a majority, then the country is 100 percent minority.

You might be hang up on the additional narrative attached to the word “minority”. Consider using “underpriviledged ethnic group", as a. not even today all ethnic groups are equal and b. it is entirely possible some other ethnic group to raise to demographic majority status, and still exhibit the socioeconomic characteristics of a poor population.

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

#28

Post by happyrock »

m1el wrote: post #18
blaurenceclark wrote: post #4

I'm the founder of HDP Health, if you have any questions or want clarifications please ask away!

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.

All of these semantic games miss the point of the term "minority". It's not meant to mean "numerical minority"; it's meant as a euphemism for "non-white person". When you read it that way, all of these terms make sense.

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

#29

Post by indubitable »

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…

According to the CDC, the average weight [1] of a black woman aged 20-39 years in the US is 179 lbs, 158 lbs for a white woman. Converting to BMI (to adjust for height differences), the story is the same with an average 30.2 vs 26.7, or 'moderately obese' versus 'overweight.'

Remove any notions of race and compare the stats based entirely on equivalent weight/BMI I you will find nearly all differences would disappear. Fatness is literally killing our nation (with our life expectancy continuing to decline) and currently blacks are the fattest group in America. This can lead to false correlations laden with completely unjustified identity politics.

[1] - https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/ad/ad347.pdf

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

#30

Post by scott_s »

m1el wrote: post #26
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.

And I agree with all of those statements, but phrased as it is now, it's blatantly wrong.

I read the quoted statement as I wrote it. So I strongly disagree that it is wrong. And: please be more civil. See the guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Post reply on HN