The fully explored answer to that is an article (or book) in and of itself, I can't cover every single outcome but highlight some prominent ones in a 2000 word article.
I was actually referring to the ProPublica article linked in the parent comment of mine. I believe it's much longer than yours so I was surprised it skipped such an alarming fact. I can certainly appreciate the tradeoffs of what to mention in only 2,000 words!
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.
Well you’d have to do basic research, come up with a hypothesis, then run a clinical trial to test that hypothesis. And hopefully find useful information although clinical trials do fail.
Totally agree, "bucketing" is certainly hard, but to define every possible bucket would have me writing an entire book. This piece is meant to get the discussion started and open peoples eyes to the existing problem and consciously start to work on solutions. My African ancestry is all sub-saharan African (at least according to my 23andMe) so I'm quite familiar with those statistics you're providing.
That's 100% true, I'm not saying we have to create a new drug, but define what is the best treatments available, as well as take that into account when the treatments are being made. Especially as there become more black people if there is a treatment just for that minority it may be a quite profitable route for them.
Further down in the comments somewhere I posted another comment where it's as simple as certain chemo's cause toxicity levels in Asians where they don't in white Americans. So simply lowering the dosage would fix the problem but because that wasn't involved in the original research it wasn't known for quite sometime and Asian populations suffered.
When I say "focus on minorities for research" working any solution is fine, simple or not.
Your assumption in #2 is incorrect. What actually happens often is the doctor doesn't know what to prescribe the patient and the patients quality of life suffers. As well as stated in my article, one of those alternative treatments "For another type of asthma treatment, long-acting bronchodilators, blacks are 4 times more likely than whites to die or experience serious complications when using them."
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 to note that pharmacokinetics can differ between individuals and populations. These differences do not explain all of the population-level morbidity and mortality differences between ethnicities, but they are significant when investigating differences between groups on the same course of treatment."
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.
You completely missed the point. I specifically put statistics in my article to refute this.
In many clinical trials African Americans that contract various conditions at the same rate or higher than White Americans represent only 1% of the clinical trial versus 15% of the population. While 95% of the trial are White Americans but they are only 60% of the population. There is clearly a disparity here.
I also use the word "Neglect" they haven't recently purposefully ignored minorities (although in the past they did), But the people that want to run the trials put the trials in the neighborhoods (read mostly white populations) that they have worked with before and want to cover. Therefore trials aren't being run where Minorities live.
This is where the "systemic racism" comes into play.
