Women are dying because medical research is male centric

Post Reply New Topic

by Dr. Marek Glezerman president of the International Society for Gender Medicine and the director of the Research Center of Gender Medicine at Rabin Medical Center in Israel.

This is also true for non white people. Which of course includes women. But yeah white men are who are focused on in medicine.

I'm not surprised-- I just wanted to post here now so I can claim I saw the thread before it turned into a warzone.

This is true. Here are some more in depth statistics on it.

Slate Article: Women Aren't Properly Represented in Scientific Studies

Though at least the problem is getting some attention these days, and cohorts are more frequently including males and females.

Quite frankly, the idea that "women are complicated" due to menstrual cycles, which I actually had a doctor tell me just the other week, is archaic, and a cop out for scientific laziness that would not fly in any other system in any other in industry.

I imagine if you took your computer to the repair shop and they declined to fix it because "computers are complicated", or if you took your car to the mechanic and they declined to fix it because "cars are complicated", or if you called a plumber to fix your plumbing but he or she just shrugged and said "Well, plumbing is complicated", wrote you an invoice, and walked out.

A menstrual cycle is a cyclic, biological process which has an underlying logic which can be vetted out, just like any other cyclic process. It is complex but not based on magic and not beyond the comprehension of someone of average intelligence.

In my industry, we deal with complex processes all the time, and shrugging your shoulders and saying "it's complicated" like that's a valid answer to anything doesn't fly.

From that article, it turns out that researchers are in often being too egalitarians in their analysis - not considering much sex differences, or lack awareness of them.

Also the effects of experimental drugs on pregnancy later on is a scary one, I bet even female researchers would hesitate to include women in their research regarding some drug that can have side effect on future pregnancy.
The article saying that they should be tested on women equally even on pregnant ones no matter what.....however there's a question of ethics and human conscience here - who is gonna bear the responsibility of future bad pregnancies? Researchers are humans after all and they would get worried.

"These discrepancies influence what is likely to ail you. For instance, three times as many women suffer from autoimmune diseases as men, and the statistics are reversed for autism. "

Not true for all autoimmune diseases, pediatric autoimmune diseases are more common in men, Type 1 diabetes for example is more common in boys, and it is not really a subtle disease that can go under the radar.
...and Autism is still a mystery, they still don't know what it is really, they still can't lump it with autoimmune diseases, this is just still a theory - and Autism is still to this day, only a psychiatric diagnosis ; not a medical one, it still has no known molecular etiology (in simple English: no biological/organic definition) - this is very important to understand.

I don't know why they use more male lab animals too, maybe because they prefer to keep more females alive to fasten breeding - this makes sense on hereditary genes studies.


and also:


Yet prostate is a bigger killer than breast cancer:
http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/health ... 6794504245




So who is right? I dunno but news.com.au sounds a more reliable source overall than New York Post.

To be fair, a naked man on the sidewalk screaming obscenities at squirrels sounds like a more reliable source than the New York Post.

The sex bias in the medical research industry is well known. It came to light we people began to realize more women were dying of heart attacks than men, and the reason was that heart attack symptoms in women, are often different than heart attack symptoms in men, and stress tests in women, are not as predictive of heart attack risk as they are in men, and previously all the studies on heart attacks and heart disease only included men.

Well... yeah. I'm not sure why you're telling me this, though.

I think that autism is a biological condition. They will discover more about it soon, but I take prescription medications that directly affect the symptoms of my autism (binary thinking, sensory perception, executive function.) If brain chemistry wasn't involved in autism why would these medications have an effect?

Psychiatric medications are largely based on trial and error, they may work, but "brain chemistry" is a very vague term- of course it is brain related, but biologists still don't know what the exact genes/bacteria/virus/factors causes what we call autism.
While William's syndrome and Down syndrome for example, are biological diagnosis that exist in the medical books (not in the psychiatric books), they know the exact locations of the mutation in the dna that causing these syndromes; not the case for Autism.

And since Autism it is still that unknown biologically then they can't tell much of the sex differences related to Autism - the only "sex differences" they can see is the statistics of diagnoses and the perceived severity of symptoms per gender.

And the NYP article is for promoting a book, and it is written by the same author of the book.

While the news.com article inquired more than one researcher.

I didn't read the book, he may have inquired a lot of researchers too; so I am judging the article only not the book.

Not yet, but I think they will know within the century.

Am I the only one who is reminded of the difference between breast and ovarian cancer research vs testicular and prostate cancer research? You don't exactly see a hundred ball ribbons a day like you do pink ribbons. I don't even know the color for testicular cancer, if it even gets one.

I guess that is what happens when people spread around that sex and race don't exist and are just social constructs. I mean obviously there are some differences between males and females, as for race not only do different ones have different hair structure(a difference) but some diseases effect some ethnic groups more than others. The idea all humans are exactly the same doesn't really serve much purpose.

@Sweetleaf, my opinion of you just rose several degrees. Don't bother telling me that you don't care, I'm already aware. Just sayin.

The President of the International Society for Gender Medicine and the director of the Research Center of Gender Medicine at Rabin Medical Center who wrote the column seems like a good source to me. It would have been stubborn of me to not to post this just because it was published in a Murdoch tabloid. An article by a reporter who if we are lucky might have actually taken a science course or two is better because it is published in the called respectable media? I post a lot of articles and columns and this one was superior to 95+ percent of them as far specific detail.