View Full Version : Race-based medicine


android
11-08-04, 08:01 PM
NEW ORLEANS -- A two-drug combination pill dramatically reduced deaths among blacks with heart failure, a landmark finding that is expected to lead to government approval of the first medication marketed for a specific race.

Black cardiologists hailed this form of racial profiling after years in which minorities got short shrift in medical studies.

http://www.katc.com/Global/story.asp?S=2537237

:m:

otheadp
11-08-04, 11:46 PM
Americans are insane... they're going to politicize THAT? a life saving medicine?

Facial
11-09-04, 01:08 AM
That's pretty good news. I'm sure there will be other gene-based medicine in the near future targeted towards a variety of races.

Vortexx
11-09-04, 08:28 AM
So, colour is much more than skindeep afterall ? Was a bit surprised about the low nitric-oxide thing though, since nitric-oxide plays important role in maintaining a huge erection, more research needed.... :D

...Perhaps the amount of vasodilators has to do with being fitted for a warm or cold climate? I know that people with larger veins have less risk for frostbite (like Russians survive the winter with vodka dilator medicine), but it could be that those people would lrespire and lose more lwater in a hot climate???

ElectricFetus
11-09-04, 10:19 AM
the genetics for this specific from of heart disease is much more common in blacks then whites, that does not mean this treatment is universal for blacks and non-effective on whites: some blacks will not benefit and some whites will. Medicines should not be generalized to a population or race, but to the individual.

android
11-09-04, 03:10 PM
Not to state the obvious, but clearly the black population doesn't agree with you.

ElectricFetus
11-09-04, 03:40 PM
Explain?, because the article you posted seems towards what I just said and recommended that this medication be tested on whites again.

thefountainhed
11-09-04, 08:51 PM
Firstly, it is not a drug that would for instance benefit blacks living Kenya more than their "White" counterparts in Spain. What you have here is a cultural trend amongst African Americans that can be traced through diet, environment, etc. Specific cultural groups as long as they are reasonably insulated exhibit health specific tendencies-- it is not a "race" drug.

Dr Lou Natic
11-10-04, 07:19 AM
African americans are a race not built for the white mans fat lazy lifestyle. Whities had to ease into it, but blacks were tossed into it.
Kind of like how aboriginals in australia can't handle booze, they'd never had a snifter of alcohol in their history and now it just absolutely destroys them physically.
White people actually gradually evolved to be suited to the western lifestyle, just like bushmen of the kalahari gradually evolved to be suited to running oryx into exhaustion over many many miles. Throw a big white idiot into that situation and he'll die from heat exhaustion, simply because the animal he is hasn't been bred for those conditions.
Darkie hearts weren't bred to handle mcdonalds.

They shouldn't be fixing it, they should be waiting it out, masking the inadequacy only favours it for the future. They're encouraging heart failure to keep raising its head for generations to come.
Sell more pills I suppose.

android
11-10-04, 06:41 PM
There's a lot of illiterate bullshit being posted to this thread.

The races are physically different. Get over it already.

ElectricFetus
11-10-04, 08:47 PM
Social races like black and white and Asian, ect don't effectively quantify those physical differences, even more so those genetic differences. Biological races or breeds do not match up to well with the limited and outdated selection of social races. For example an Ethiopian and a South African are less related to each other then to a Caucasian. The vast variance genetically and physically within a socially quantified race is an obvious sign of the system outdated nature.

Also social races have often been used to state superiority of one race over another, negating individual differences and oppressing people who donít deserve it.

One can state that a trait is more common with in a race for example 90% of Chinese are lactose intolerance, but you cannot make generalized statements like ďAll Asians are lactose intoleranceĒ first of all that negates the 1 out of 10 Chinese this is lactose tolerant that also negate the 40% of Tibetans and 25% of Mongolians that are lactose tolerant. A statement like ďOn average Blacks have a lower IQ then whitesĒ is acceptable and some controversial evidence supports that, but that should not be used to negate the fact that many Blacks have exceptionally high IQs and that man Whites have lower then average intellects.

Finally if a heart medication is found to be more effective on average on Blacks does not mean it works on all blacks nor does it mean there arenít many whites that could benefit form this treatment.

android
11-11-04, 01:51 PM
I don't think anyone claimed that was the case.

In fact, I think you're creating a strawman to try to make your argument seem legitimate.

ElectricFetus
11-11-04, 05:38 PM
You made several generalized statements about races, so I explained why that is not correct, how is that off topic?

android
11-11-04, 08:43 PM
"Off topic" is not the question here.

Accurately representing the assertion is. You failed it.

android
11-11-04, 08:45 PM
THE popular notion that skin colour can indicate physical or mental differences between groups of people has been demolished by a new analysis of the human genome, which declares race to be a biologically meaningless concept.

Every human being shares more than 99.9 per cent of their DNA with everybody else, and the tiny variations that remain differ more within ethnic groups than between them, a major review of the evidence says.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1330502,00.html

New analyses show humans and chimpanzees to be 99.4 percent identical in the functionally-important DNA, which codes for proteins and is shaped by natural selection.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/05/030521092615.htm

android
11-11-04, 08:45 PM
The genomic test revealed that the killerís heritage was approximately 85 percent African and the rest Native American. That changed the focus from a white suspect to one of mixed racial heritage. Frudakis predicted that the killer would have a moderately dark skin tone.

http://www.genomenewsnetwork.org/articles/06_03/serial.shtml

android
11-11-04, 08:48 PM
New research casts doubt on the widely accepted belief that humans are 99.9 percent genetically identical. That statement has been used to argue that race isn't real.

http://www.world-science.net/exclusives/exclusives-nfrm/040908_race.htm

ElectricFetus
11-11-04, 08:49 PM
Well forgive me for misinterpreting your assertions you seemed rather vague and generalized in descriptions of them.

android
11-12-04, 02:18 AM
You're flirting with me, aren't you?

ElectricFetus
11-12-04, 04:26 AM
now who making a strawman?

android
11-12-04, 02:12 PM
I wonder if there's going to be more race-based medicine. For example, some ethnic groups are more prone to keloid scarring.

ElectricFetus
11-12-04, 03:24 PM
there are alot of genetic disease that are limited or specific groups of people.

android
11-12-04, 04:00 PM
So you're in favor of race-based pharmaceutical development?

I'm divided. On one hand, it's good to see science recognizing race. I can't stand social taboos supported with pseudoscience.

On the other hand, saving more lives isn't part of my agenda. We've got more frickin humans than we could eat in 10,000 lifetimes. And for what? They're not getting any brighter, nicer, wiser or stronger.

EAT AN EXCESS HUMAN TODAY

ElectricFetus
11-12-04, 06:52 PM
So you're in favor of race-based pharmaceutical development?
Did I say that?


it's good to see science recognizing race.
The subject is controversial but it generally agreed with by most geneticists that races as they are commonly classified are invalid genetically. Science does not recognize race, at least not the ones your familiar with.

pixel
11-12-04, 09:25 PM
If there was a chance in hell that there was some genetic consistency in the region my parents hail from (southern Italy), I would very much love to hear all about medical treatments/approaches (incl. holistic) that treat any illnesses especially prevalent in that area. Unfortunately, southern Italy has been invaded and colonized by just about every "race" throughout known history, and so my own genes are a mish-mash at best. If there were more consistency in the gene pool, I think it would be awesome to target known/likely weaknesses with specific treatmetns. Anywho, why the f*ck am I going on about myself... My point is, race-specific medicine -- why the HELL not, if it's based on valid assumptions/theories, if it'll help even one person?

ElectricFetus
11-12-04, 09:29 PM
why not genetic aliment specific medicine? It is far more accurate. Take your case for example (Iím half Italian by the way) why try to figure out your ancestry and make very rough guesses of your genetic conditions when we could just test you to see what precisely you have going wrong?

hypatia
11-13-04, 07:16 PM
why not genetic aliment specific medicine? It is far more accurate. Take your case for example (Iím half Italian by the way) why try to figure out your ancestry and make very rough guesses of your genetic conditions when we could just test you to see what precisely you have going wrong?

That will be the preferred option when we figure out exactly which alleles are making us more or less susceptible to the effects of each particular drug.

Until then, dividing people into groups that are statistically more or less likely to benefit from a given drug is an improvement over assigning the drug randomly, don't you think?

ElectricFetus
11-13-04, 08:59 PM
hypatia,

It still very limited in what can be guess, only rough statistical likely hoods can be surmised, unless we can define you to a much smaller group then just black or white.

Medicine*Woman
11-14-04, 02:53 PM
otheadp: Americans are insane... they're going to politicize THAT? a life saving medicine?
*************
M*W: otheadp, I don't see it as "politicizing" at all. It's a well-known fact in the medical field that medications were created for white men. Even the study of cardiopathy in women has only been recently addressed. Different sexes often require different medications because, for example, due to the hormonal influences. More recently bioscientists have singled out the Hispanic population to study hypertension and hypercholesterolemia. In Blacks, they have been singled out because of sickle cell anemia, and studies have been directed at that population. They are also at higher risk than Caucasians and Hispanics for heart disease and stroke. It's truly not "politicizing" health care -- it's reaching out to the under-studied populations. For example, prostate cancer is almost never found in Japanese men, and that's attributed to their rice diets. Heart disease in high Italian populations have lower incidence of heart disease because of the olive oil (Mediterranean diet). Native Americans have their own specific problems as do other groups. I believe they are advertising these differences because they want to get the word out to the high-risk populations, and that's a good thing.

hypatia
11-14-04, 05:49 PM
ElectricFetus:

But all of medicine is based on statistical likelihoods. While the current trend for 'evidence-based medicine' is recent, throughout its history medicine has been making educated guesses on the basis of what's been seen before.

It's not just about race. When your doctor prescribes a therapy for you, he will have in mind your age, gender, weight, occupation, and lifestyle, all of which will affect your likelihood of responding well or poorly to a particular therapy.

But let's take a race-based example anyway. Asians are far more likely than Caucasians to have the low-activity alleles of Phase I liver metabolic enzymes. For example, the frequency of a low-functioning allele of CYP2C19 is around 2% in Caucasian populations, but 61% among Polynesians. That means that if you just give everyone the recommended Caucasian dose of a drug that is metabolized by CYP2C19, six out of every ten people of Polynesian descent you treat will get an OD.

Now, obviously it makes the most sense to just test everyone. But labs often take days to come back. Suppose you have a patient who is in refractory status epilepticus, and you want to give him phenobarbital (a conventional therapy for RSE whose metabolism is controlled by CYP2C19) to stop his seizures. You have to do this *now*; you don't have three days to wait and see if he has a PM allele of CYP2C19.

Don't you think it makes sense to skip the phenobarb and try something else first if he happens to be Polynesian?

Or should we ignore the information we have because it is 'only statistically' relevant?

android
11-14-04, 09:57 PM
The subject is controversial but it generally agreed with by most geneticists that races as they are commonly classified are invalid genetically. Science does not recognize race, at least not the ones your familiar with.

Please address the following:

New research casts doubt on the widely accepted belief that humans are 99.9 percent genetically identical. That statement has been used to argue that race isn't real.

http://www.world-science.net/exclusives/exclusives-nfrm/040908_race.htm

ElectricFetus
11-14-04, 11:01 PM
android,

The races such a black and white do not exist genetically what exists genetically is a far more complex and convoluted mapping of humans. I have mentioned this before, Iím not disagreeing that people can be classified by genetic enactory into groups, Iím arguing the common classifications of race are outdated and inaccurate system. Nor am I arguing against guessing the likelihood of conditions based on ethnic ancestry, I simply saying that there are more accurate systems.

android
11-15-04, 09:40 AM
You're rambling. Read the article.

ElectricFetus
11-15-04, 10:17 AM
I did read it.


Others worried that the drug might not be the best choice for every black but that they will automatically be prescribed "the black pill" solely on the basis of skin color.

Being black is not a black-and-white distinction, said Dr. Timothy Gardner of the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, who had no role in the study. "Physiologically, it's a sort of continuous variable," including people of mixed races, he said.

Dr. Shamir Mehta, a heart expert from McMaster University in Ontario who has done much research on ethnic differences, said the genetic differences among ethnic groups are so small that the drug should probably help whites, too.

The early studies in the 1980s that found no benefit from the two chemicals in whites were done before modern heart failure drugs were available, and that could warrant a new study involving all races, experts noted.

CharonZ
11-15-04, 10:33 AM
Besides, "race" is not a biologically significant taxon as "species" is.
However it is very likely to subcategorize according to certain allels, but the significance is doubtful for a general classification. One can for instance catagorize into "lactose tolerant", "sickle cell positive" or something similar, but it would only be signifcant in certain contexts.
Usually it is probably mor precise to use the term "population" than "race" as the latter often implies more than wanted.

android
11-15-04, 08:21 PM
I did read it.

The second article posted. Did you read that?

How cute. Evasion. LOL @ you

android
11-15-04, 08:22 PM
Usually it is probably mor precise to use the term "population" than "race" as the latter often implies more than wanted.

Depends on the definition of race used.

Every argument against it I've seen is a strawman: make up a definition that's arbitrarily strict and argue against it.

I'll keep having pride in my heritage, thanks!

:m:

ElectricFetus
11-15-04, 08:44 PM
and which article is that?

Persol
11-15-04, 08:49 PM
I think the point is this:

1) I would be wonderful to give everybody drugs based on what their specific genetic makup calls for.
2) We don't know or have enough to do this.
3) The next best option is playing the odds.If group A has a significant chance of developing B, then treat them for B.

Best solution, no... but it may statistically be better than nothing.

ElectricFetus
11-15-04, 08:56 PM
And in some cases the error could be lethal. If you assume A and in many cases it was B, then many people got medication that was not helping them. I could go with guessing a treatment based on ethnicity, but not with just assuming it is working because of that ethnicity.

Persol
11-15-04, 09:05 PM
And in some cases the error could be lethal.And that's the case where the above doesn't hold true, so you wouldn't do it.
I could go with guessing a treatment based on ethnicity, but not with just assuming it is working because of that ethnicity.No, but if you know B kills people, and you have medicine that prevents it without side effects, and group A has a lot of people who catch B... it makes sense.

ElectricFetus
11-15-04, 10:19 PM
Sure you save alot of people, and yet you killed alot of people, but hey you saved more then you killed, that makes it all worth it?

slotty
11-15-04, 11:48 PM
Interesting thread. Thing is i can see a much more sinister use for drugs used for a particular race. I bet Los Alomos labs have been messing for years with racial drugs, and no prizes for guessing which race they would like to mess with