The interview was a good read right up until the end, where it went political. I don't know about the UK, but the US doesn't have any systemic inequality in availability of healthcare. Anyone can walk into a clinic or hospital and get the care they need. And no, not having money to pay for healthcare is not a racial issue. It's an economic issue.
In the UK healthcare is free* but non-white people still tend to get worse outcomes and in the case of COVID-19 it appears that some genetic factor makes it worse for them. Even after that became apparent there wasn't much effort made to do anything about it, e.g. to shield black/Asian healthcare staff.
* It's free but the Home Office has been discriminating against non-white people for a decade, taking away their right to healthcare illegally and unfairly.
The answer seems to be "Maybe". IIUC people with highly pigmented skin also have a slightly different way to metabolize vitamin D, so it's not clear that they really are deficient. Just "probably deficient". That said, I don't know of any studies that say a slightly higher than minimal dose of vitamin D is not unhealthy. So **MODERATE** vitamin D supplements are probably a good idea.
In the UK healthcare is free* but non-white people still tend to get worse outcomes
I'm not sure that's true. I think that the issue is poverty and black families tend to be poorer (which is at least partly due to systemic racism) but even with COVID I don't think the research suggests that the issue is directly related to skin colour or other genetic characteristics commonly possessed by people with black skin. Poor white people have very similar outcomes, including with COVID. However, there is a lot of research on this and not a lot of clarity (which in itself is suggestive of there being no real link to genetics).
A lot of it is due to poverty, which itself is linked to race in the UK, but also simply because medical research tends to target affluent white people because they are the biggest market. Issues that mostly affect non-white people get less attention and money thrown at them. Medical staff tend to be less familiar with them.
A lot of it is due to poverty, which itself is linked to race in the UK, but also simply because medical research tends to target affluent white people because they are the biggest market. Issues that mostly affect non-white people get less attention and money thrown at them. Medical staff tend to be less familiar with them.
Affluent people are probably also more likely to get recruited into medical studies and have the time to participate, especially if subjects are recruited from existing patients (for example we take our daughter to see a specialist and they ask every time if we would be willing to be included in a research study if they wanted us to). Poorer people are probably less likely to see doctors to begin with (so there's a recruitment channel lost) and more likely to have work schedules that would preclude them fr
I was speaking generally as we don't know what the exact factors at play here are. There does appear to be something that makes COVID-19 worse for certain genetics but AFAIK nobody knows what it is.
Someone mentioned high blood pressure and diabetes. Are these the issues that don't affect white people?
Uncontrolled hypertension (high blood pressure) disproportionately affects poor people because rich people are more likely to see a physician regularly and get put on metoprolol and a reducing diet. Because of bigoted state laws prior to the mid-1960s, poor people in the United States are disproportionately nonwhite.
The virus has been shown to be systemically sexist in that it is more deadly to men than women and they still have no idea why that's the case, although there are lots of guesses. So it's entirely possible it may act differently with different racial groups. The fact that there is no clarity is pretty much par for the course with medicine which has massively complex datasets to analyse where it is easy to find multiple correlations none of which might actually be causal. Combine that with a lack of statisti
determining why men or particular racial groups are worst hit is not really the highest priority at the moment. The focus is on developing treatments and vaccines.
I would have thought that understanding the commonality between victims would be key to any treatment and most vaccines.
In what area? For example the amount of money spent on testicular cancer far outweighs the amount spent on most other cancers on a per-case basis.
There are area's where men's health is underfunded, e.g. mental health. But it's not as simple as a blanket statement, and it intersects with race and poverty too.
In what area? For example the amount of money spent on testicular cancer far outweighs the amount spent on most other cancers on a per-case basis.
In most, if not all, countries, government spending on fighting breast cancer far oughteighs spending on fighting prostate cancer. The "per case basis" as in "let me cherry pick some random stat to deny men are disadvantaged" is commendable, but, remind me, why you have mentioned cancers at all in COVID-19 vulnerability discussion?
The question, if you have forgotten it, was: if government doing nothing to mitigate higher death rate among POC shows it is racist, does government doing nothing about men show i [dw.com]
The "per case basis" as in "let me cherry pick some random stat to deny men are disadvantaged"
It's not cherry picking, it's trying to compare like-for-like. Since breast cancer is far more common of course more money is spent on it.
if government doing nothing to mitigate higher death rate among POC shows it is racist, does government doing nothing about men show it is misandrist?
In that case you are begging the question. Is it racist? There might be some institutional racism in there but it might also be genetic. Probably a bit of both.
Also the question is based on a false premise, namely that the government is doing nothing about men.
It's not cherry picking, it's trying to compare like-for-like. Since breast cancer is far more common of course more money is spent on it.
I thought you've just stated that more money was spent on prostate cancer, but good to know. Actually, roughly similar numbers die from both cancer.
There might be some institutional racism in there but it might also be genetic. Probably a bit of both.
I have just applied the same metrics that you have used to call out "institutionalized racism". Still not sure what your answer is, can we call that "institutionalized misandry"?
Also the question is based on a false premise, namely that the government is doing nothing about men.
Oh, if government did something to protect the gender that is more likely to die from COVID19 but I have missed it, please, point out.
why you have mentioned cancers at all in COVID-19 vulnerability discussion?
It seems you were the one which invoked the government as some sexist entity. So maybe you want to refine your statement to "Government health workers exclusive to virology are misandrist".
Otherwise if you're going to invoke the government in general and then cancer statistics are very much a relevant counter point to your proclamation. Also giving examples while asking you for citations isn't cherry picking, it's solid arguing. On the other hand moving the goalposts around like you're doing is not.
Otherwise if you're going to invoke the government in general and then cancer statistics are very much a relevant counter point to your proclamation.
For starters, "government is not doing something for group X => government is against group X" is the original statement and, no, what is going on with cancer, doesn't change it.
But it is ironic, that cancers got mentioned at all in that twisted "per case bases" statement. Breast cancer spending beats prostate cancer research spending in any country on this planet.
Both are roughly as deadly, roughly 1 in 40 men/women dies from it.
"Since 2003 women's health research received more than $833 million from the National Health and Medical Research Council compared to less than $200 million for men. Breast cancer received $60 million more than prostate cancer and ovarian cancer $64 million more than testicular cancer. The smaller funding for menâ(TM)s health research is a paradox given their average life expectancy is just 79.7 compared to 84.2 for women."
The only thing I expect you to do is spend inordinate about of time cherry-picking data to keep sure the idiots who keep giving you modpoints don't recognize your sexist bigotry.
So how do you explain this? Men still have most power in the countries where these cancer treatments are developed, the heads of the companies doing the research are mostly men. Where is the misandry coming from?
I know the answer but I don't think you want to hear it.
Lack of in group bias among men (and strong presence of it among women) perhaps explains why certain folks of certain gender even came up with the "gender traitor" term".
People engaged in gender tribalism might be surprised to learn that many humans, men in particular, are not viewing themselves to be part of the gender tribe.
They act for the benefit of men in general at other times.
No, they clearly have not, but feel free to make it up to support "the narrative".
Testicular cancer is comparable to ovarian cancer, which is "far" similar to testicular cancer.
No it isn't. They're not even remotely similar.
Most testicular cancers are cancer of the germ cell (e.g. seminoma). Testicles are constantly producing sperm, which happens because germ cells are constantly dividing. More dividing means a greater chance of copying error.
Ovarian cancer, on the other hand, doesn't actually exist in the sense of ovarian tissue becoming cancerous. Rather, cancer cells from other parts of the body find a hormone-rich environment around the ovary and decide to grow there.
Testicular cancer is comparable to ovarian cancer, which is "far" similar to testicular cancer. What "far outweighs" is just the amount spent.
I interpreted this as saying that testicular cancer and ovarian cancer are similar, and the only difference is the amount of money invested. I fully concede that I may have misinterpreted it.
My point is merely that the amount of funding may have its basis in how difficult the actual diseases are to diagnose, treat, and hopefully cure.
most others... excluding breast cancer you mean. Breast cancer gets an INSANE amount of funding. There are tons of charities (that pink ribbon bullshit) that raise money specifically for breast cancer. They've spent so much money on breast cancer that someone with Stage IV titty cancer can expect to live 10 years before dying. If you walk into a doctor's office and the doctor says, I'm sorry you have pancreatic cancer, you might feel completely fine at the moment but you'll be dead within a year. On the ot
IIUC, the problem with pancreatic cancer is that it's almost never diagnosed before it metastasizes. There just aren't any symptoms. I knew a person that had it, and survived. The detected it only when they were doing an operation for something else. I think it was something duodenal. Once they knew it was there they took it out and started treatments, and there were minimal problems.
The same problem happens frequently with lung cancer. It's hidden in your lungs, and you don't know it until it metastasizes. Then six months later you are dead.
IIUC, the problem with pancreatic cancer is that it's almost never diagnosed before it metastasizes. There just aren't any symptoms. I knew a person that had it, and survived. The detected it only when they were doing an operation for something else. I think it was something duodenal. Once they knew it was there they took it out and started treatments, and there were minimal problems.
Raises hand. Yeppers, that's what happened with me. They were treating something else when a routine CT scan saw something
That's not because of lack of medical research though, it's down to social issues. I agree it should get more attention but unfortunately there are a lot of people fighting hard to prevent it getting better.
There are plenty of other reasons than just genetics though.
Many non-whites in the UK are generally recent or 1 and 2 generation immigrants. They are more likely to live in larger multigeneration families, or alternatively live in small apartments in high-rise apartment building with shared access (lifts, front door etc.). They are over-represented in jobs that put them at increased risk of exposure, like medical, care and also other face to face customer jobs (bus drivers, uber/minicabs, store clerk etc). Th
That's all true. I think the main thing that lends credibility to the genetic argument is that it was first noticed among NHS staff on the front lines. Not just that they were getting it more often, but that when they got it the outcomes were worse.
"The US doesn't have any systemic inequality in availability of healthcare" is astonishingly ignorant, as is "anyone can get the care they need". Not only are those things not true, they are less true in the USA than in any other developed nation. And yes, minorities have less access to care and receive poorer quality care than other people. These aren't political statements, they are statements of statistical fact. Please at least spend an hour looking at healthcare costs, outcomes, and access before you say this stuff because you are patting yourself on the back for living in a healthcare system that charges more, for less, than any other healthcare system in the developed world.
Yet you provide none of these facts. Systemic inequity is not "healthcare system that charges more for less" because that's equity, just more expensive for everybody. This is a vaccine trial participant who doesn't have any credibility beyond her experience in the trial. Citing NYT and Axios, both left biased news sources, as an unbiased source of information shows the bias that she holds. And completely invalidates every blathering word. Has she actually met all the vaccine trial participants? D
but the US doesn't have any systemic inequality in availability of healthcare
Are you high? The inequality of US healthcare is so apparent that your country is the butt of jokes across the world, made by both Americans and foreigners. It's almost a universal truth: Water is wet, the sky is blue, in the USA you better be a rich white male with health insurance if you want good health outcomes.
Seriously normally the retort to this would be the sarcastic question of "are you even American", but in this case it would be justifiable to say "do you even live on this planet, or are you just
Inequality is economics-based, not racial. A rich Black man can get exactly the same care as a White man of the same economic status. A poor white hick will get the same bad care as an inner city Black.
That's your choice, however, it's important to know that plasma that's paid for can not be used for transfusion medicine. It's only able to be diverted to pharma manufacturing and research. Only unpaid plasma donations of convalescent plasma can actually go directly to patients.
HAH! I used to work in paid plasma, once I overheard donors talking about how their blood was being used to make the TVs on our walls. One of the biggest cringes I've ever made in my life.
And the US has free public schooling, but there is a clear disparity in school facility and infrastructure between affluent, more white districts and poorer, minority districts.
Because schools are paid for at the city level and rich people vote to give themselves better schools. Even in situations where the schools are funded equally over a large area, the parents get together and form funding organs to help the schools in their neighborhoods. This is not at all comparable to the NIH. Guess what the N stands for in NIH. Go on, guess.
I used to buy that argument. Then California passed a proposition for statewide funding of schools, but somehow the distribution of funds remained as unbalanced as ever.
the distribution of funds remained as unbalanced as ever
Here's a link [ed100.org] of where funding comes from which includes local property tax. Also, educational results are not always correlated with funding. Local demographics can also play a part.
Fortunately hospitals are not built in every neighborhood and even more rarely in upper class neighborhoods. There's also things called ambulances which will pick you up from your shitty slum to take you to a hospital.
Comparing that to a very localised example of schooling where the choice of school is limited, the private sector provides far better outcomes (it doesn't for UK healthcare), and schools are so plentiful that they very much take on the affluency of a single neighborhood rather than that of hal
A great piece of propaganda of a Goebbels-like level. Maybe a bit of Trump bashing would have make it a master piece... Or a bit of hydroxychloroquine made-up science... But anyway, propaganda at its finest, nicely done.
It's not propaganda when the good guys are doing it. You will need to report for an attitude re-orientation seminar, citizen!
Our consultants at Consultants Factory are among the very few who have actually worked in-the-trenches on IT Governance implementation engagements for global companies.
Our IT Governance consultancy services are based on COBIT Consulting.
cobit consulting [consultantsfactory.com]
cobit consulting service [consultantsfactory.com]
cobit certification [consultantsfactory.com]
it governance consulting [consultantsfactory.com]
it governance consultancy [consultantsfactory.com]
Hoping that Oxford build its vaccine as early as possible. Otherwise the Indian government have declared the date of 15th August for success preparing covid vaccine. This build our scientists in extreme pressure to build a vaccine.
If the virus was extremely serious we would be having human challenge trials, where patients are deliberately exposed to the virus. That's how animal studies are done. How many people would volunteer for that?
The meningitis vaccine has about the worst side affects of any current vaccine.
A placebo would mean that no vaccine is given at all.
Without that, results cannot be trusted.
I don't know why you think that. The reason to have a control group is so you can eliminate unrelated confounding factors from your study. How does using saline solution do that better than a meningitis vaccine?
It's like comparing a rotten apple with a rotten peach. One can seem a little better or a little worse maybe and you can draw some (flawed) conclusions from that, but I'd rather have a fresh apple or peach included in the comparison, thanks.
It's like comparing a rotten apple with a rotten peach. One can seem a little better or a little worse maybe and you can draw some (flawed) conclusions from that,
This analogy doesn't hold. Your point is that you can only draw flawed conclusions by comparing the two vaccines, but you must demonstrate that applies in the original example.
The purpose of the control group is to be able to eliminate unrelated confounding factors from the study. What confounding factors do you think will be hidden by the meningitis vaccine (compared to saline)?
She said she was in a placebo group. A meningitis vaccine is clearly not a placebo. You seem unable to grasp that concept. Therefore, I've no interest in discussing with you further.
> The meningitis vaccine has about the worst side affects of any current vaccine. A placebo would mean that no vaccine is given at all. Without that, results cannot be trusted.
What? No. Your post is a prime example about why people should just shut up on topics they don't understand.
The whole reason they're giving the meningitis vaccine is because it's side effects are similar to those expected from any Coronavirus vaccine. If they gave them nothing at all there's a significant risk that an intentional o
Systemic inequality? (Score:-1, Redundant)
The interview was a good read right up until the end, where it went political. I don't know about the UK, but the US doesn't have any systemic inequality in availability of healthcare. Anyone can walk into a clinic or hospital and get the care they need. And no, not having money to pay for healthcare is not a racial issue. It's an economic issue.
Re:Systemic inequality? (Score:4, Insightful)
In the UK healthcare is free* but non-white people still tend to get worse outcomes and in the case of COVID-19 it appears that some genetic factor makes it worse for them. Even after that became apparent there wasn't much effort made to do anything about it, e.g. to shield black/Asian healthcare staff.
* It's free but the Home Office has been discriminating against non-white people for a decade, taking away their right to healthcare illegally and unfairly.
Re:Systemic inequality? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:0)
Re: (Score:2)
The answer seems to be "Maybe". IIUC people with highly pigmented skin also have a slightly different way to metabolize vitamin D, so it's not clear that they really are deficient. Just "probably deficient". That said, I don't know of any studies that say a slightly higher than minimal dose of vitamin D is not unhealthy. So **MODERATE** vitamin D supplements are probably a good idea.
Re:Systemic inequality? (Score:5, Interesting)
In the UK healthcare is free* but non-white people still tend to get worse outcomes
I'm not sure that's true. I think that the issue is poverty and black families tend to be poorer (which is at least partly due to systemic racism) but even with COVID I don't think the research suggests that the issue is directly related to skin colour or other genetic characteristics commonly possessed by people with black skin. Poor white people have very similar outcomes, including with COVID. However, there is a lot of research on this and not a lot of clarity (which in itself is suggestive of there being no real link to genetics).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
A lot of it is due to poverty, which itself is linked to race in the UK, but also simply because medical research tends to target affluent white people because they are the biggest market. Issues that mostly affect non-white people get less attention and money thrown at them. Medical staff tend to be less familiar with them.
Re: (Score:3)
A lot of it is due to poverty, which itself is linked to race in the UK, but also simply because medical research tends to target affluent white people because they are the biggest market. Issues that mostly affect non-white people get less attention and money thrown at them. Medical staff tend to be less familiar with them.
Affluent people are probably also more likely to get recruited into medical studies and have the time to participate, especially if subjects are recruited from existing patients (for example we take our daughter to see a specialist and they ask every time if we would be willing to be included in a research study if they wanted us to). Poorer people are probably less likely to see doctors to begin with (so there's a recruitment channel lost) and more likely to have work schedules that would preclude them fr
Re: (Score:2)
Issues that mostly affect non-white people
Someone mentioned high blood pressure and diabetes. Are these the issues that don't affect white people? Looking around myself I seriously doubt that.
Re: (Score:2)
I was speaking generally as we don't know what the exact factors at play here are. There does appear to be something that makes COVID-19 worse for certain genetics but AFAIK nobody knows what it is.
Nonwhite ergo poor ergo sick (Score:2)
Someone mentioned high blood pressure and diabetes. Are these the issues that don't affect white people?
Uncontrolled hypertension (high blood pressure) disproportionately affects poor people because rich people are more likely to see a physician regularly and get put on metoprolol and a reducing diet. Because of bigoted state laws prior to the mid-1960s, poor people in the United States are disproportionately nonwhite.
Systemic Sexism (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
determining why men or particular racial groups are worst hit is not really the highest priority at the moment. The focus is on developing treatments and vaccines.
I would have thought that understanding the commonality between victims would be key to any treatment and most vaccines.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Even after that became apparent there wasn't much effort made to do anything about it, e.g. to shield black/Asian healthcare staff.
Men get much worse outcomes than women, but even after that has become apparent, there wasn't much effort made to do anything about it.
Does it make governments Misandrist?
Re:Systemic inequality? (Score:4, Insightful)
In what area? For example the amount of money spent on testicular cancer far outweighs the amount spent on most other cancers on a per-case basis.
There are area's where men's health is underfunded, e.g. mental health. But it's not as simple as a blanket statement, and it intersects with race and poverty too.
Re: (Score:0, Troll)
wow
Re: (Score:1)
wow
Yeah, some things are more complex than a simple binary choice. Mind blowing isn't it?
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
In what area? For example the amount of money spent on testicular cancer far outweighs the amount spent on most other cancers on a per-case basis.
In most, if not all, countries, government spending on fighting breast cancer far oughteighs spending on fighting prostate cancer.
The "per case basis" as in "let me cherry pick some random stat to deny men are disadvantaged" is commendable, but, remind me, why you have mentioned cancers at all in COVID-19 vulnerability discussion?
The question, if you have forgotten it, was: if government doing nothing to mitigate higher death rate among POC shows it is racist, does government doing nothing about men show i [dw.com]
Re: (Score:3)
The "per case basis" as in "let me cherry pick some random stat to deny men are disadvantaged"
It's not cherry picking, it's trying to compare like-for-like. Since breast cancer is far more common of course more money is spent on it.
if government doing nothing to mitigate higher death rate among POC shows it is racist, does government doing nothing about men show it is misandrist?
In that case you are begging the question. Is it racist? There might be some institutional racism in there but it might also be genetic. Probably a bit of both.
Also the question is based on a false premise, namely that the government is doing nothing about men.
Re: (Score:1)
It's not cherry picking, it's trying to compare like-for-like. Since breast cancer is far more common of course more money is spent on it.
I thought you've just stated that more money was spent on prostate cancer, but good to know.
Actually, roughly similar numbers die from both cancer.
There might be some institutional racism in there but it might also be genetic. Probably a bit of both.
I have just applied the same metrics that you have used to call out "institutionalized racism".
Still not sure what your answer is, can we call that "institutionalized misandry"?
Also the question is based on a false premise, namely that the government is doing nothing about men.
Oh, if government did something to protect the gender that is more likely to die from COVID19 but I have missed it, please, point out.
Re: Systemic inequality? (Score:2)
She is the resident misandrist of Slashdot. For people like her, buck stops at misandry.
Re: (Score:2)
why you have mentioned cancers at all in COVID-19 vulnerability discussion?
It seems you were the one which invoked the government as some sexist entity. So maybe you want to refine your statement to "Government health workers exclusive to virology are misandrist".
Otherwise if you're going to invoke the government in general and then cancer statistics are very much a relevant counter point to your proclamation. Also giving examples while asking you for citations isn't cherry picking, it's solid arguing. On the other hand moving the goalposts around like you're doing is not.
Re: (Score:1)
Otherwise if you're going to invoke the government in general and then cancer statistics are very much a relevant counter point to your proclamation.
For starters, "government is not doing something for group X => government is against group X" is the original statement and, no, what is going on with cancer, doesn't change it.
But it is ironic, that cancers got mentioned at all in that twisted "per case bases" statement. Breast cancer spending beats prostate cancer research spending in any country on this planet.
Both are roughly as deadly, roughly 1 in 40 men/women dies from it.
Re: Systemic inequality? (Score:2)
"Men are disadvantaged"
Maybe because we smoke and drink more, and kick each other in the balls a lot. Grow a pair.
Re: (Score:1)
Government spends less on men specific cancer, because men drink and smoke, got it.
Makes sense.
Teachers 'give higher marks to girls' [bbc.com], because boys misbehave. Again, makes perfect sense.
When it gets to exams and "teacher gender bonus" is gone, it is perceived as a problem. Hence Oxford University Plans 'Takeout' Exam to Help Women Get Better Grades [news18.com], again, makes even more sense, doesn't it?
Re:Systemic inequality? (Score:5, Informative)
Testicular cancer is comparable to ovarian cancer, which is "far" similar to testicular cancer. What "far outweighs" is just the amount spent.
You have history of bullshitting about men's issues so I don't expect any honesty from you. But just to make sure:
https://prostate.org.nz/2014/0... [prostate.org.nz]
The only thing I expect you to do is spend inordinate about of time cherry-picking data to keep sure the idiots who keep giving you modpoints don't recognize your sexist bigotry.
Re: (Score:2)
So how do you explain this? Men still have most power in the countries where these cancer treatments are developed, the heads of the companies doing the research are mostly men. Where is the misandry coming from?
I know the answer but I don't think you want to hear it.
Re: (Score:1)
So how do you explain this? Men still have most power in the countries...
It is quite simple, actually: men in power acting in the interests of male gender as a whole is an obvious lie.
Actual studies show that women exhibit strong in group bias, while men don't.
Re: (Score:2)
Gender traitors? I'm not buying it. They act for the benefit of men in general at other times.
Re: (Score:2)
Gender traitors?
What?
Lack of in group bias among men (and strong presence of it among women) perhaps explains why certain folks of certain gender even came up with the "gender traitor" term".
People engaged in gender tribalism might be surprised to learn that many humans, men in particular, are not viewing themselves to be part of the gender tribe.
They act for the benefit of men in general at other times.
No, they clearly have not, but feel free to make it up to support "the narrative".
Re: (Score:2)
Testicular cancer is comparable to ovarian cancer, which is "far" similar to testicular cancer.
No it isn't. They're not even remotely similar.
Most testicular cancers are cancer of the germ cell (e.g. seminoma). Testicles are constantly producing sperm, which happens because germ cells are constantly dividing. More dividing means a greater chance of copying error.
Ovarian cancer, on the other hand, doesn't actually exist in the sense of ovarian tissue becoming cancerous. Rather, cancer cells from other parts of the body find a hormone-rich environment around the ovary and decide to grow there.
TL;DR Tes
Re: (Score:1)
In the context of "gargantuan disparity in spending on gender specific diseases" you went after biological nuances behind cancers.
Isn't it called nitpicking [wikipedia.org]?
Re: (Score:2)
Here's what I responded to:
I interpreted this as saying that testicular cancer and ovarian cancer are similar, and the only difference is the amount of money invested. I fully concede that I may have misinterpreted it.
My point is merely that the amount of funding may have its basis in how difficult the actual diseases are to diagnose, treat, and hopefully cure.
Re: (Score:0)
most others ... excluding breast cancer you mean. Breast cancer gets an INSANE amount of funding. There are tons of charities (that pink ribbon bullshit) that raise money specifically for breast cancer. They've spent so much money on breast cancer that someone with Stage IV titty cancer can expect to live 10 years before dying. If you walk into a doctor's office and the doctor says, I'm sorry you have pancreatic cancer, you might feel completely fine at the moment but you'll be dead within a year. On the ot
Re: (Score:2)
IIUC, the problem with pancreatic cancer is that it's almost never diagnosed before it metastasizes. There just aren't any symptoms. I knew a person that had it, and survived. The detected it only when they were doing an operation for something else. I think it was something duodenal. Once they knew it was there they took it out and started treatments, and there were minimal problems.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Raises hand. Yeppers, that's what happened with me. They were treating something else when a routine CT scan saw something
Overall Outcome (Score:2)
In what area?
How about overall: men's life expectancies are consistently lower than women's.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not because of lack of medical research though, it's down to social issues. I agree it should get more attention but unfortunately there are a lot of people fighting hard to prevent it getting better.
Re: (Score:2)
There are plenty of other reasons than just genetics though.
Many non-whites in the UK are generally recent or 1 and 2 generation immigrants. They are more likely to live in larger multigeneration families, or alternatively live in small apartments in high-rise apartment building with shared access (lifts, front door etc.).
They are over-represented in jobs that put them at increased risk of exposure, like medical, care and also other face to face customer jobs (bus drivers, uber/minicabs, store clerk etc).
Th
Re: (Score:2)
That's all true. I think the main thing that lends credibility to the genetic argument is that it was first noticed among NHS staff on the front lines. Not just that they were getting it more often, but that when they got it the outcomes were worse.
Emphasis on Scientific Method (Score:0, Flamebait)
The interview was a good read right up until the end, where it went political.
And then at the very end . . .
Most crucially, we all have to prioritize science right now.
. . . blatant white supremacy.
https://twitter.com/HurtfulOni... [twitter.com]
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Ec... [twimg.com]
Re:Systemic inequality? (Score:5, Insightful)
"The US doesn't have any systemic inequality in availability of healthcare" is astonishingly ignorant, as is "anyone can get the care they need". Not only are those things not true, they are less true in the USA than in any other developed nation. And yes, minorities have less access to care and receive poorer quality care than other people. These aren't political statements, they are statements of statistical fact. Please at least spend an hour looking at healthcare costs, outcomes, and access before you say this stuff because you are patting yourself on the back for living in a healthcare system that charges more, for less, than any other healthcare system in the developed world.
Re: (Score:0)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh my apologies: https://lmgtfy.com/?q=minority... [lmgtfy.com]
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Only if they're doctors outside the coverage.
Re: (Score:2)
but the US doesn't have any systemic inequality in availability of healthcare
Are you high? The inequality of US healthcare is so apparent that your country is the butt of jokes across the world, made by both Americans and foreigners. It's almost a universal truth: Water is wet, the sky is blue, in the USA you better be a rich white male with health insurance if you want good health outcomes.
Seriously normally the retort to this would be the sarcastic question of "are you even American", but in this case it would be justifiable to say "do you even live on this planet, or are you just
Re: (Score:2)
Inequality is economics-based, not racial. A rich Black man can get exactly the same care as a White man of the same economic status. A poor white hick will get the same bad care as an inner city Black.
Plasma doners needed too (Score:5, Insightful)
I will SELL my plasma! (Score:0)
Cash on the barrel head! Pay me, or walk.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Yeah, so that they can make plasma rifles? No thanks, I'm a pacifist.
Re: (Score:2)
Bollocks (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Bollocks (Score:5, Interesting)
And the US has free public schooling, but there is a clear disparity in school facility and infrastructure between affluent, more white districts and poorer, minority districts.
Re: (Score:-1)
Poor people are dumb, film at 11.
no shit (Score:0)
Re: (Score:2)
I used to buy that argument. Then California passed a proposition for statewide funding of schools, but somehow the distribution of funds remained as unbalanced as ever.
Re: (Score:2)
Here's a link [ed100.org] of where funding comes from which includes local property tax. Also, educational results are not always correlated with funding. Local demographics can also play a part.
Re: (Score:2)
Fortunately hospitals are not built in every neighborhood and even more rarely in upper class neighborhoods. There's also things called ambulances which will pick you up from your shitty slum to take you to a hospital.
Comparing that to a very localised example of schooling where the choice of school is limited, the private sector provides far better outcomes (it doesn't for UK healthcare), and schools are so plentiful that they very much take on the affluency of a single neighborhood rather than that of hal
Great (Score:-1)
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
It's not propaganda when the good guys are doing it. You will need to report for an attitude re-orientation seminar, citizen!
Our consultants at Consultants Factory are among the very few who have actually worked in-the-trenches on IT Governance implementation engagements for global companies. Our IT Governance consultancy services are based on COBIT Consulting. cobit consulting [consultantsfactory.com] cobit consulting service [consultantsfactory.com] cobit certification [consultantsfactory.com] it governance consulting [consultantsfactory.com] it governance consultancy [consultantsfactory.com]
Indian Vaccine (Score:0)
You also need zero health problems to volunteer (Score:2)
A simple localised paresthesia in my foot was enough to disqualify me.
They would also be getting paid £thousands.
Re: (Score:-1)
If you have TDS does it disqualify you? I have TDS bad. It seems untreatable.
Deliberate exposure (Score:2)
If the virus was extremely serious we would be having human challenge trials, where patients are deliberately exposed to the virus. That's how animal studies are done. How many people would volunteer for that?
Placebo, really? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Without that, results cannot be trusted.
I don't know why you think that. The reason to have a control group is so you can eliminate unrelated confounding factors from your study. How does using saline solution do that better than a meningitis vaccine?
Re: (Score:1)
It's like comparing a rotten apple with a rotten peach. One can seem a little better or a little worse maybe and you can draw some (flawed) conclusions from that, but I'd rather have a fresh apple or peach included in the comparison, thanks.
Re: (Score:2)
It's like comparing a rotten apple with a rotten peach. One can seem a little better or a little worse maybe and you can draw some (flawed) conclusions from that,
This analogy doesn't hold. Your point is that you can only draw flawed conclusions by comparing the two vaccines, but you must demonstrate that applies in the original example.
The purpose of the control group is to be able to eliminate unrelated confounding factors from the study. What confounding factors do you think will be hidden by the meningitis vaccine (compared to saline)?
Re: (Score:1)
She said she was in a placebo group. A meningitis vaccine is clearly not a placebo. You seem unable to grasp that concept. Therefore, I've no interest in discussing with you further.
Re: (Score:2)
Therefore, I've no interest in discussing with you further.
Of course not, because you are right.
Re: (Score:0)
> The meningitis vaccine has about the worst side affects of any current vaccine. A placebo would mean that no vaccine is given at all. Without that, results cannot be trusted.
What? No. Your post is a prime example about why people should just shut up on topics they don't understand.
The whole reason they're giving the meningitis vaccine is because it's side effects are similar to those expected from any Coronavirus vaccine. If they gave them nothing at all there's a significant risk that an intentional o
Last Paragraph (Score:2)
She kind of went out of her way to make sure we all know what an progressive, forward thinking citizen she is with that last paragraph speech.
Re: (Score:0)
-- She kind of went out of her way to make sure we all know what an progressive, forward thinking citizen she is with that last paragraph speech.
So what? Why would anybody other than a regressive backward thinking citizen care?
It's not like there's any serious doubt about the factual content of the last paragraph, nor the reality of the need expressed.