The pharmaceutical company Schering-Plough is excluding African-American patients from the Phase II trial of its new Hepatitis C (HCV) anti-viral drug. Activist groups are denouncing this exclusion as racist. For its part, Schering-Plough argues that it has valid scientific grounds for limiting the research at this stage to other racial groups. Company researchers point out that for unknown reasons, black people do not respond as well to HCV treatments as do members of other racial groups. One prominent activist, Judith Dillard, told the Newark Star-Ledger, “The bottom line is that African-Americans have been left out of this study to make the drug look good.” Which is precisely the point.
In the past, drug trials would generally include members from diverse racial and ethnic groups. If the drug being tested was effective in all groups, then that was great; the company testing it had a potential blockbuster. If, however, some groups in the trial did not respond well to a treatment, then it would appear to be ineffective compared to placebo, and it would not be approved. Eventually researchers began to notice that not all groups respond the same way to the same medicines.
Researchers worry however, that the introduction of race-specific drug therapies may cause side effects in other groups, including the poorly-understood phenomenon known as “spontanious head explosion”.
So is the Schering-Plough HCV anti-viral study “racist”? Not really. The researchers have identified a patient subpopulation that they believe is more likely to benefit from the new treatment. If Schering-Plough can demonstrate that the medicine does work for whites, then the company can get it approved for sale by the FDA for that patient population. Admittedly race is a crude biomarker, but it would surely be bowing to political correctness about race to deny patients the benefit of treatments that are more likely to help them.
Of course. But that won’t stop some from trying.
Related.
The ‘race card’ is scientifically invalid. The subject population for this drug has specific genetic characteristics; the drug either won’t work or has adverse effects in a subject population with other genetic characteristics.
You could develop a drug, for example, to treat x-disease, but, it might only work for men. Or for women. Or, your drug might be for a disease, but, won’t work if your population has a particular genetic characteristic.
But, as usual, the Social Justice Workers will be at the forefront of the fight about ‘inequality’.
I suppose the same people probably found it offensive (sexist) that birth control pills are only tested on Women?
Fact: Certain diseases effect different people of different races (and sexes for that matter) differently. So if a drug is being trialed for a traditionally black disease, would these same people whining take up the race card because not whites were used? I doubt it. It is too late for this morning worker to list a few dozen facts and data so I’ll leave that to the doubters.
Kate, your “raison d’etre”(in the blogosphere), according to your homepage, is your refusal to accept whatever the MSM throws at you. You claim the higher ground on journalistic scrutiny yet you expect your readers’ to follow every stray link you provide and still sort out what’s been paraphrased, edited or editorialised in your posts. In this case, you cite , a known right-wing propaganda machine,as your source. Critical thinking is the only action that will lead to credible commentary. Unfortunately, this requires the commentator to abandon partisanship. Will you admit that you’re a mouthpiece for the right-wing wannabees that find justification for their prejudices on your site, or will you instead challenge yourself and let go of old perceptions and see the world with objective eyes? It may piss off your readership but it will certainly improve your artistry (and maybe your posts too).
Hope you’re not holding your breath, davidson.
I give up.
I spend over two years of my life attempting to build a national reputation as a mouthpiece for the right wing wannabes and just now people begin to notice?
Back to the drawing board.
No zuma Let the knob hold his breath
“let go of old perceptions…blah, blah
I think this guy might be that TV yoga instructor from the Simpsons, the one when Marge and Homer began to relax with the kids at camp.
I can tell you that orientals responds more to beta-blockers than other people, so the dose is cut in half. This was known at least 20 years ago.
blues rune,
expanding your frame of reference beyond the simpsons may be a idea worth noting
OR
in simple speak…like maybe a book or something, you know, might teach you new stuff, like maybe
I am a black woman and I do not find this racist at all.
My late grandmother ( who is also black) was forced to change medicines at one time when her insurance no longer would cover the drug she was on previously. She was doing well on the old drug. There was no way we could afford this drug out of pocket at $2000 a month.
Unfortunately , the new accepted drug for her condition was known to have severe side effects ( like increased angina attacks and strokes) for black people.
The doctor unfortunately prescribed her this new drug . When she complained about the problems ( she had angina attacks and suddenly had problems swallowing) I found out in a book available at a local bookstore that that drug was problematic for black people.
The same drug does not work for everybody with condition X.
I am equally sure that there are drugs that work well on black people with condition X but not whites.
My only concern is economic. If drugs can be approved only for certain racial groups ( or even age groups) will pharmaceutical companies focus more on drugs for the richer groups ( who obviously can afford the drugs) over the poorer groups ( where cost is an issue)
There has been talk about how drugs for certain diseases are unprofitable not because there is not a need for those drugs, but because the people who need them can’t afford them.
Blues Rune: B.A., LL.B., B.Ed.
Journalist, lawyer, English teacher,published author, and yet, unlike you, I’ve avoided becoming a pretentious ass. Try it!
BTW, what Starbucks do you work in?
davidson- someone whose ideology cannot be shaken by the mere facts of reality. If the facts don’t match up with the ideology well then it is ‘right-wing propaganda’, and let the name calling commence.
Here’s an idea hows about actually trying to challenge the science.
The big news recently was a heart drug specifically approved for black people as it only worked with genetic markers that are prevalent in black populations and very rare in other populations. This was celebrated by some, as it was evidence that researchers were paying attention to blac populations, while some criticised it because it gave race a scientific basis.
The sad thing is that everyone in this debate is so idiotic and ignorant. While there is no genetic “race” there are groups of populations with similar genetic profiles (I wonder why, could it be they share general ancestors?). Just as Ashkenazi Jews are more susceptible to certain diseases thanks to their shared gentic background, even though that won’t tell you anything about any individual Ashkenazi.
The one thing that no one mentions much is how genetically variable “black” people are. Other groups are descended from small subpopulations that left the continent, while African populations draw from a much larger genetic background. So you see much greater variety based on location than you would in covering the same difference in Europe or Asia.
What is unsurprising is the evil that the Left represents and their hostility to all progress and civilisation. Just as it is unsurprising to find that it is a leftist at the CIA who was engaged in traitorous leaking to subvert a president she was opposed to. There are so many things too precious to let the Left be involved in them, starting with security issues, the economy, and science. We need to deal with their treason and hold them to account for their ongoing support of crimes against humanity by their bolder colleagues overseas: Naomi Klein and Chavez, Durranty and Stalin, Trudeau and Fidel, all of the Left and Fidel. They are an active, ongoing conspiracy to committ crimes against humanity, and need to be held to account for their evil murder of hundreds of millions.
three words “Tuskegee Syphilis Study”
davidson…i couldn’t agree more
Crime Against Humanity = Canada’s Tainted Blood!