The problem with race-based medicine | Dorothy Roberts
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 3 мар 2016
- Social justice advocate and law scholar Dorothy Roberts has a precise and powerful message: Race-based medicine is bad medicine. Even today, many doctors still use race as a medical shortcut; they make important decisions about things like pain tolerance based on a patient's skin color instead of medical observation and measurement. In this searing talk, Roberts lays out the lingering traces of race-based medicine - and invites us to be a part of ending it. "It is more urgent than ever to finally abandon this backward legacy," she says, "and to affirm our common humanity by ending the social inequalities that truly divide us."
TEDTalks is a daily video podcast of the best talks and performances from the TED Conference, where the world's leading thinkers and doers give the talk of their lives in 18 minutes (or less). Look for talks on Technology, Entertainment and Design -- plus science, business, global issues, the arts and much more.
Find closed captions and translated subtitles in many languages at www.ted.com/translate
Follow TED news on Twitter: / tednews
Like TED on Facebook: / ted
Subscribe to our channel: / tedtalksdirector
Can someone explain what she said that was wrong to get so many dislikes?
Dorothy is correct that race is playing a role in medicine that it should not be playing.
@@DapperCatPictures She's anti-racist triggering racists and their racist beliefs (your comment).
Whhat Nooh She does focus on what 401 years of racism has done to Black people. What has been the impact the social determinants of health on disease in AA. Black folk , for the most, are a mixed people with varying degrees of white, black , Asian, etc. genes.
fte your nuts. You need to look in the mirror. You’ll see that “Way-cist” right there.
She's delusional in the assumptions that she makes. Different races and ethnicities have medical problems that are more pronounced in their communities than in others. Thats not racism, that's reality, she would say its because of racism, hense the number of dislikes...
@@SaviorCross 2:03 She is not delusional. You are correct that there are races and ethnicities that have medical problems unique to them but what about mixed raced individuals such as Dorothy? Macah, dude u is being delusional about her being delusional. U didnt watch nor listen to a thing she said.
WHERE ELSE IN MEDICINE IS RACE USED TO MAKE FALSE BIOLOGICAL PREDICTIONS?
I don't know why this has so many dislikes. Did people get antsy and start calling her an SJW when she said she "identifies" as black because they were too dense to get the point she was making about how she's just as white as she is black, but is treated as only/mostly black by society? She's not wrong about that, so what's the issue?
I've never seen a medical questionnaire that didn't have "mixed" as a race option but still, why all the hate?
I've noticed many bigots and racist come out of the shadows lately. It's pretty alarming, but at least they are starting to show why it's so important to have movement addressing the very issue. Racism is alive and well. Are we moving backward or forward. Idk.
+Ebob that´s exactly the point. You´ve never seen a medical questionnaire that didn't have "mixed" as a race option. She sounds like we shouldn´t differentiate in race when it comes to medicine, while you absolutely 100% should, because there are biological differences between races. If she did make a point of society nobody would´ve been pissed off.
+Joshua V Irrelevant, some traits manifest more than others, deciding that there is not a more prevalent race on your gene, and that a certain medication could work better than another is detrimental.
***** Not only skin color but people at different regions, for example, black people are less likely to get skin cancer than white people.
And that is based directly on their skin color.
*****
I never said that our *enitre medicinal field* needs to be based or should be based on skin color.
It's differences in genetics, and also the regions where you come from that make it relevant to know your race, as race can influence your genetics, and thus some illnesses can be better treated in different manners depending on that.
Of course there are other factors and areas where this differences don't matter, but if I can find you one clear example where it does. then perhaps you should look at the big picture and recognize that race can be relevant to treat the health of people.
They upload a talk of a dude trolling an email scammer, everyone loves it. They upload a talk with opposing opinions and IDEAS, everyone loses their mind.
Also as a medical resident, I absolutely agree with her. A lot of things in medicine are outdated, and using loosely defined races is one of them. Due to olden standards, a whole lot of attention is given to race, while actually important variations, in gender for example, are overlooked.
+okiluxs
If you want to talk about changes to a serious topic, like medicine, you have to maintain a certain level of credibility and professionality. If you ramble about some scammer you have trolled, you don't. And with her first sentences, her level of credibility fell right through the floor and falling back to the afro-american inferiority complex later on doesn't raise the bar either.
+Hendless Ethnicity is more of culture. It might tell you about a person's habits, but not genetics.
+TheAnnoyingGunner Medicine is at the end all about what the patient wants or needs. She, as a patient, has all the credentials necessary to make a point. It is absolutely a doctors responsibility to provide patient centered care that acknowledge social stigmas. Her 5 first sentences were actually meaningful. I thought it was an interesting that we don't consider her a white woman with a black parent. I disagree with your vague, possibly non-existent, point.
+TheAnnoyingGunner Also did you not notice that she's a SOCIALOGIST? You're making a poor point. You can't leave medicine only in the hands of doctors. Literally thousands of professionals come together in a hospital to provide care. These professionals range from doctors, nurses, assistants, ethical philosophers, economists, SOCIALOGISTS, social workers, and many many more. I'd say she's pretty dam qualified to make a statement. You disagree with her as a person, not her ideas. That's ad hominem in my book.
And just because the hospital employes a janitor doesn't inherently qualify that janitor to speak about changes in medicine. He can talk about it all day long if he wants to, but he doesn't have any credibility. When talking about genetic predispositions and factors in medicine, a sociologist has about as much inherent credibility as this janitor. And a syringe during blood sampling doesn't infuse the patient with the collective knowledge about medicine as well.
Just so we have the statement in question printed in front of our eyes, here is the transcript:
"One of the very first questions asked me to check a box for my race: white, black, Asian or Native American. I wasn't quite sure how to answer the question. Was it aimed at measuring the diversity of research participants social backgrounds?"
Of course you know better than me with what I disagree, how foolish of me. I couldn't care less about her person, but the stuff she uses to open this talk is simply pseudo-intellectual nonsense. The last sentence here is the exact reason why she disqualified herself from the very beginning to talk about this topic. Your race is not a social construct. Eminem can rap at the side of his black buddies all day long, but he is not black and won't become black. Obama could make politics like a white guy for the next 20 years, but he will stay black. If you are exactly 50% black and 50% white doesn't make you black the one day and white the other day, but a fixed thing inbetween, your race is not gender bullshit. The point she quite obviously didn't know she was making here is the lack of that other option "mixed".
Just to remind you: The wealth of your parents during your childhood is a social background. Abusive behaviour during your childhood is a social background. White, black, Asian and Native American are not social backgrounds. The longer I think about it, the more I doubt that she made it beyond highschool and THAT is an ad-hominem.
The speaker is not saying that there are no medical differences between people of different biological heredity. She is saying that medicine, studies, and more importantly the pharmaceutical corporations that market medicine and treatments (and pay for most of these studies), focus on physical appearance when dividing data into statistical groups. They don't do this to improve their own science, they do it because it makes them more money.
"So, the results of your clinical trial say that people that identify themselves as Black are more likely to have [insert anything here]? Excellent. Tell this to every doctor and media outlet so that they recommend people get tested for it and get prescribed our new drug."
can someone explain all the hate this is getting?
+Masen Kuppler sorry how are those two statements different. Sounds like a different phrasing of the same sentence.
+Krillin ' so you´re such a bigot yourself you automatically assume white people criticising a black woman must be because they hate everything to do with race.
+Masen Kuppler as for the less likely to get breasts cancer, what about whites in the first example? Just because they aren't black they don't have the doctors shortlist priority because their white and not black. As for your second example: just because they aren't white they don't have the doctor's priority shortlist because they're not white they're black.
I literally replaced the races opposite to what they were for the other race, yet the first would be OK and the second not ok. Why? Because malarkey speakers like you automatically think doctors are specifically discriminating the blacks and not automatically considering the fact that maybe if the races were swapped it would be fine.
Try to consider if a white lady were up there and every time the speaker said black or white, you replaced it with white and black, therefore reversing the racial profiling. The speaker that reversed it would be called racist and would be out of a job. It's all because the races. If a white police officer slaps a black man, it's racist, but if a black officer slaps a white man, it is OK. It's ridiculous.
+Masen Kuppler my whole point of reversing the issues is not that it would be unfair if I was the minority, it was to point out that it is completely fine. If I was black and I heard whites were getting a drug that would help them, but it would hurt the blacks if they took it, so it is white only, I WOULD FIND IT COMPLETELY FINE. If I heard blacks had this drug FINE HELP YOURSELF IT IS BENEFICIAL TO EVERYONE.
Lief Theorine It would depend on whether or not it was safe for her. If statistics show that hispanic people are more likely to have a brain disease, and white are more likely to have heart, then yeah, LOOK FOR THOSE MAIN THINGS FIRST IT IS COMMON SENSE TO HELP THE PERSON BASED ON WHAT MAKES LOGICAL SENSE. If a person is black and it is statistically proven that a black person is less likely to get brain disease OR heart disease, but sickle cell is common, SCAN FOR SICKLE CELL FIRST! IT SHOULD BE A PRIORITY! THAT IS NOT A BAD CONCEPT, IT IS LOGIC AND LOGIC IS ONE OF THE ONLY THINGS IN THIS WORLD THAT IS UNCHANGING. Even in this day and age, even technology and cultural beliefs of what are acceptable are changing. I am 14 and I am noticing firsthand the effects of the (Supposed but honestly not even existant) racism in my school, and I have a common idea of what logic is, but so many people fail to realise that logic is not racism. As a very wise person here somewhere stated, "Racism is not in every aspect in life and it is certainly not proven to be. Statistical disparity is not racism. If you disagree, show me the evidence. Show me how it is racist. There is correlation and there is causation, and correlation is NOT causation. Black people are always blaming racism and society and white privileged males and their neighborhoods for their own shortcomings instead of taking responsibility for their choices and actions. Yes, decisions have consequences...shocking right? It is their cultural upbringing that sets them up for failure not any external factors, mostly speaking. What is the standard for something being caused by racism, can you tell me? Or is it something that you in your own head subjectively feel. What you feel but cannot prove cannot be taken as truth. Blacks need to stop blaming others for lives they have chosen to live and work hard towards achievements. NOONE is oppressing or impeding their ability to do so. I am mainly speaking about the poor, whining blacks that are constantly looking for handouts and pity - not the few well-educated, mature, and responsible black people that I know personally and know that exist in America"
I find the statistic at 6:52 interesting. There are similar reports of women's pain not being taken seriously. I've heard lots of anecdotal evidence of people having to go to multiple doctors before finally getting a proper diagnosis and care.
Everyone who disliked didn't watch the whole video... Shes saying that you cant give medication based on race which is correct.
Because race doesnt exist.. its a made up idea, not based in biology.
I'm 2 and a half minutes in and I don't really get why so many are disliking it. My understanding of it is that she doesn't like how someone who's not fully [this race] genetically can check [this race] on the paper. I'm black/white too and would feel more comfortable checking a "mixed" box or check both "white" and "black" for the sake of the study and my own identification.
Too lazy to finish the video, so anyone care to explain what's wrong about her statement?
+Nanny G Her statement is fine. The problem is people generally just can't grasp complex ideas that conflict with some of their deeply held beliefs. Their immediate reaction is to respond defensively and negatively. A lot of people here see a black person talking about race and they tune out because in their mind it's just a bunch of complaining about some made up bs. Maybe they've been scarred by having a "social justice warrior" call them a racist and tell them they have unconscious bias, but whatever the reason they will now recoil from anything remotely resembling "social justice"
This presentation is exactly right, and highlights a common fault among individuals that are either primitive of thought or of understanding: *the oversimplification of a complex thing based on a too few characteristics.* In this case, skin colour is disconnected from the physiological characteristics of uncountable bodily dysfunctions, and should not be used as a primary determinant of treatment.
+Sean Lumly. You're precious aren't you. ''Skin colour'' is just one expression of the genotype differences between ''races'' or more accurately ethnicities. Most of the Asian crowd lack the enzyme to digest lactose that Europeans have evolved, Africans tend to have a thicker skull, the native of the South African cape region had an extra vagina flap. Slavic people are genetically different to Germanics, who are different to Celts. When it comes to medicine, there are different responses and tolerance levels. ''Black'' and ''White'' is a bit general, but Doctors don't have time for your nonsense. Should Doctors refrain from asking for ''Male'' or ''Female'' now? Should they have a 100-long list with labels like ''Gender-Fluid'' and "I like fucking turtles''? You can hid behind pretentious language, but you don't have science on your side.
Mud Hut "In this case, skin colour is disconnected from the physiological characteristics of uncountable bodily dysfunctions, and should not be used as a primary determinant of treatment."
+Sean Lumly Future physicians are taught to think critically. They are not taught to use race as a primary determinant of the type of treatment used. Race is a factor based on evidence. Also, a difference of 3 for the eGFR will not change treatment. (Note: the 'e' stands for estimated). Physicians are taught to take in multiple variables and come up with the best course of action. A positive or negative test result does not determine certainty and physicians know this. A first year medical student with multiple years left of training, at least in the U.S., is taught this.
It seems most the negativity regarding this video stems from people thinking they know she's unqualified to speak on the subject of medical uses of race.
Like she pointed out race does not equal genetic ethnicity
Brilliant talk! I'm dreaming of that day in medicine too, where doctors practice what has been scientific fact for years; there is only one human race.
Doctors want to help as many people from suffering and make them better.
We don't mind accepting that fat people might need different treatment to some things than skinny people, we don't mind accepting the fact that some people might have family run diseases, we don't mind accepting the fact that age differences could play a factor.
Then why should it matter that treatment would also have a ethnic origin factor?
“The Problem with Race Based Medicine” by Dorothy Roberts discusses how despite the fact that race is almost wholly biologically irrelevant, it can greatly influence an individual’s healthcare. Doctors are tasked with and entrusted to know a large amount of information. One way in which clinicians manage this challenge is to categorize patient test results and corresponding treatment by characteristics such as age, BMI, race, and so on. Race, unlike the others mentioned, is a social construct that is chosen by the patient based upon what they most closely identify with. Roberts states that race is “a crude, but convenient proxy for some greater factor,” citing certain tests indicate different parameters depending on the race of the patient. This statement is supported by Richard Lewontin, who surmises that race is often mistaken for heritage. If doctors are basing treatment off of a construct that does not accurately represent a patient’s genetics, this could lead to the improper allocation of resources. In these cases, patients may be deserving of treatments that precedent denies them. Roberts uses the treatment of long bone fractures as an example of the implications of race based medicine: Black and Latino patients were significantly less likely to receive pain medication than white patients with the same injury. Here, one would expect these groups to have received relatively similar levels of resources - in this case, pain medications. Rather, resources were not allocated justly because standards of care were based on “stereotypes that black and brown people feel less pain, exaggerate their pain, and are predisposed to drug addiction.” This systemic bias could prevent even the most impartial physicians from fulfilling the beneficence of the patient. That’s not to say that medical guidelines should be disbanded entirely. Rather, as Roberts suggests, guidelines should be based directly upon the [greater factors] such as muscle mass, or other appropriate physiological conditions. Admittedly, we may have to wait for genomic medicine to advance. Clinicians use race is to represent certain hereditary factors that can be determined only through sequencing that is not readily available. However, short cuts that are more biologically pertinent are still preferable. Physicians would be able to more accurately provide treatment in the best interest of the patient and more adequately allocate resources. Further, self-identified race may not be entirely clinically inconsequential because the “inequities caused by racism” are so extensive. For example, race could give some information as to the social pressures an individual has experienced. In this context, a clinician could gain a small amount of understanding in regards to the psychosocial aspect of the patient. Race is not an adequate biological indicator in healthcare and should not be included in medical guidelines nonetheless. Without this bias, clinicians will be more likely to deliver patient care in a manner that properly allocates resources and is congruent with beneficence.
She was making a good point on how the questioner is unscientific and thus pointless.
Absolutely! I have been placing quite a bit of time looking into scientific journals discussing this very issue for a video I plan on making. I'm really happy to see Dorothy Roberts discuss this, because race-based medicine is absolutely problematic. And only further shows the complications as a result of the folk taxonomy of "race." For its our genotype and subsequently our ancestry that truly provides an accurate description of who we are.
+TutelarSword and anyone who attacks a stranger's intelligence by calling them a moron or attacks the value of their humanity with words like scum and makes assumptions about their social circles and activity with a pejorative term like SJW is someone who doesn't want to hear or be heard, but to escalate or facilitate conflict, not learning or change, nymag.com/scienceofus/2016/02/subreddit-sparked-a-study-on-changing-minds.html
and the original poster can be reasonably confident that responding will only result in more anger and hate, because this is the internet and that kind of response is usually, though not always, trolling.
www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/climate_desk/2014/02/internet_troll_personality_study_machiavellianism_narcissism_psychopathy.html
Your statement of "anyone that uses" suggests "all or nothing" thinking, and if you use that kind of "splitting" in daily life it's sure to cause problems with maintaining healthy relationships and personal growth. Seeing a therapist can really help with that, as well as ease the sense of hostility and discomfort you feel about the world.
www.betterhelp.com/start/?AdWords&Search_PPC&network=g&placement=&target=&matchtype=p&ad_type=text&adposition=1t1&gclid=CjwKEAiAgeW2BRDDtKaTne77ghgSJACq2U4bbznxhFsUaJfyZslB7274Wwpcu0NRbNj6so1UO52dbBoCG7fw_wcB&modal=1&go=true
If you do want to change minds, you need to find a different approach. All the Best.
+Think Fact Did you see the comment section? People really hate this truth. Whether they're left or right 'race' is something they're just not willing to give up. Scientists have known for twenty years that 'race' is not genetically defined but as far as the general public is concerned, nothing has changed. It's so disappointing.
Zombi Pineapple It's because the construct of races extremely simple and doesn't take a critical understanding to be able to comprehend. It's difficult to convince people that simplicity does not overrule complexity, especially when uncovering complexity often requires a lot of knowledge and reliance on tools.
The way you explain it to the public is to address the context of the situation. Breakdown the context behind old and new ideas without it getting too technical. That's how you do it. The video I am working on covering this has required a lot of labor and research, though I am a very confident it will be quite effective at breaking down the massive amount of misunderstanding that occurs when discussing this topic.
Well I wish you luck. My perspective on the situation is a lot less charitable than yours though.
"I've been told that it's based on an assumption." Turned this off at this exact moment.
How did you post this comment then?
+xamphor i'm curious why that sentence was so offensive to you.
she was using the insanity of the example to demonstrate race-based medicine that isn't based on facts.
is it possible you misheard, or do you disagree with the reason it is different for blacks?
+TutelarSword Can confirm.
+weesh ful idk who she was told by. idk if that person knows what they're talking about. idk the context of the conversation. disappointing from a legal expert. it's absolutely correct that, though the idea that AA folk have more muscle mass per kg of weight has been validated by the literature, thus should be looked at per individual. she neglects the literature that validates higher creatinine excretion in AA folk per gram of muscle. whole thing makes me think this was poorly/incompletely researched.
+Megabithero kept the tab open and the video off. check mate.
Dog races are a social construct. Yorkshire Terriers, Shiba-Inus, Huskies and Labradors are all part of one race: the dog race.
Next up on TED: Whining Beagle complaining about not being considered the same as German Shepherds.
brilliant!
+Krillin ' you're*
+KamiSilver Do you actually think dog breeds are in anyway comparable to human ethnicities? wow
+Uselube Do you actually think they don't? wow
***** The only difference is that humans have been doing selective breed over hundreds of generations on dogs.
Other than that, races among humans can be as different as dog races. Maybe I am exaggerating a bit, with how humans have been inter breeding in the modern era, but the point is, there are certain characteristics that can be attributed to certain races.
She's correct, by diagnosing and treating people based on race, physicians are not treating them as individuals with their own set of symptoms, medical history, family history and ancestry. They are treating them based on some racial stereotypes.
This video was beautiful. Thank you, Doctor Dorothy Roberts!
If you have African ancestry you could carry the sickle cell trait for one example. That depends on your ancestry not what you identify as.
+Jimmy Hough thats what i gathered from the video.
Greeks and Italians also carry the gene for sickle cell, so it's not just Africans and people with dark skin.
Actually that comes from anywhere Malaria was present. It's a mutation that provides immunity to Malaria.
+Megabithero You know what, I was just going to leave a generic comment about how Ted talks are awful and I dont learn anything anymore from them. But I learned something from you Mega. Thanks bud.
She makes it seem like an undue weight is given to one question on the medical history forms we all fill out. Symptoms you are presenting and the history of your immediate family are focused on more than race. Doctors know race isn't color, it's ancestry.
According to Wikipedia the incidence rate of sickle cell trait is many times higher in Africans than in Greeks and Italians,. When problem solving you look at probabilities first and then narrow down to particulars.
There are racial factors in disease and there are socioeconomic factors. Doctors know the difference. Anesthesia was also developed during slavery. It speaks nothing to its validity. People in the field over the last 150 years however have used data to advance it.
Just yesterday, on CBC, they said that Canada's flu immunization program was more effective with Black patients then other ethnic groups, and now they're working hard on a race based cocktail for immunization? Apparently, it was scientifically studied and proven to be a logical path to direct our energies ( and resources ) towards. You should look it up and give them a link to your talk. And perhaps? express the danger with heading in that direction. Thanks for sharing your talk Dorothy ... you sound like a wonderful human being. :)
Here I thought it was going to be about the differences in say North and South African. And how we can't have specific medicines.
+gregheffly This is an extremely important topic that is almost never talked about. How does United States treat patients compared to China? Why has the Cuban HIV treatment never been compared to the Israeli vaccine? Cultural barriers of medicine is a huge problem that needs a lot of work
Thank you for the video. It is very important to understand that and to explain that too. Thank you for your research.
Thank you for addressing this issue.
This is shocking! I can't believe that it's common practice for doctors to practice this psuedo-science.
umm it's population based science, and the best there is
It's marketing B.S. I studied evolutionary genetics for a lot time as an anthropologist, and the only physical traits that significantly load on regional populations are phenotypic only (skin and hair deep).
There's more variation within groups, than between. That means that statistical variation over a place as large as the US cancels out any predictive benefit for an individual. This is the fallacy of composition.
It's much more accurate and helpful to simply measure the person in front of you than to use arbitrary group averages with large standard deviations.
E.g., a 50 year old, working class, black male in rural Alabama will have more in common with white men of the same age, diet, etc... in his town physically than he will with a 30 year old, middle class, black male from Northern California.
To assume otherwise is to misunderstand genetic variation gathered with modern science, and to to fall into the old psuedo-science of racism.
The only exceptions to this are will known genetic disorders with a strong founders effect, and regional bottle neck effects. E.g., Tay Sachs with Ashkenazim Jews. Sickle Cell with the descendants of Sub-Saharan Africans, Maccular Degeneration among Northern Europeans with light colored eyes, or the obvious susceptibility of red heads to skin cancer.
Outside of these common sense issues, nothing can be gained from racially specific diseases that are suffered by everyone.
I accounted for that in my comment. It's was the last 2 paragraphs.
Also, different ethnic groups have different diets, behaviors, etc... So, observational studies in medicine can't really account for spurious correlations. Researchers try to control for externalities using various regression methods, but it's not the same as a lab study.
Doctors aren't biological anthropologists. There might be some isolated population mutation in Africa that would cause a person from that group to metabolize a drug differently, but Africa is massive. It also has the highest rate of genetic variation of any other place. So, saying that someone has a recent ancestory from Africa isn't meaningful without a lot more information.
A person who is decended from former slaves in Africa, came from similar African regions. But, more people have come to America from Africa as immigrants after slavery, than ever came as slaves. So, one population came from a small initial group a few hundred years ago. A person from this group, without any other group mixing, could have a probably higher predictive outcome.
But, the other group came from all over Africa recently. The two groups have been mixing with each other, and the highly varied European population for a free generations now.
You show me a doctor that knows even that, let alone all of the places that make up an Americans generic background. So, when a patient walks in how's a doctor gonna know anything by the color of skin? You think they're gonna ask the person if they can trace all 128 of their ancestors back for the last 200 years?
Relatively isolated populations are a thing if the past.
Every drug has known side effects that vary depending upon lots of factors. And, 2 people from the exact same ethnic background can have totally different side effects.
It would be infinitely easier to just map someone's genome.
+Léa ! I see. one thing I've learned from my travels, is that different countries have slightly different medical histories, treatment philosophies, etc... France also has a very different population mix than the US. The African immigrants are more recent, and less diverse. The ethnic mix overall is much less diverse.
So, I have no idea how well generics have been exploited by French doctors. But, it makes a lot of sense to avoid a specific medication that has a higher probability of bad outcomes for someone from Algeria.
That said, what you're talking about is a severe reaction, like a bad allergy, to a medication. Is there a single medication that's available, and legal, and legal that will negativity affect every person from a specific ethnic background? I can't imagine there could be, but I'm not a doctor.
On the converse, is there any medication that only has a significant therapeutic benefit for only one or two groups?
And, that's my point. Every time I get a shot, or medication, I'm asked if I'm allergic to certain compounds in it. They don't assume things due to my European ancestry.
And, that's the speaker's point. If this drug was beneficial to black Americans, it would be beneficial to many non-black Americans.
@@rickjack78 I agree with most of your points. But even genetic diseases commonly associated with a racial group typically have nothing to do with race. The genetic mutation causing sickle cell, for example, has been naturally selected for in high-malaria regions because it confers protection against malaria. West and Central Africa happen to be two of those regions, but so do parts of India and the Mediterranean basin. And that mutation is very infrequent in Southern Africa. So again, race is a poor proxy for genetic ancestry. There seem to be some population-level differences in how common certain gene variants are. The problem for race-based medicine is that those populations do not map onto racial categories.
Why is she talking about something she has ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA about? She's nothing to do with medicine. NOTHING
+BambisMother She's there to fill the race quota.
+BambisMother That's my main problem here. I mean I've got a few, but that's the biggest issue. She has no background in science or medicine, and CLEARLY hasn't studied up on the matter beforehand, but still she speaks on this as if she has some sort of grasp of the topic.
+gilless429 Didn't you know? If you are even a little black you automatically know everything about anything you want to talk about as long as you imply the people who disagree with you are racists.
+BambisMother actually she is right and anybody who went to college and studied premed, biology, chemistry, etc... knows this. I learned this while studying
+Toast Duck you are again missing the point of the talk. The point is that race is made up and is socialized. By saying I'm black says nothing about my ethnicity, health or status. Being "black" means what? It means nothing but what society says it means, this includes stereotypes and the like that come with race in America/ Every other country has their ethnicity as their origin. America is the only country that has made up this
Wow this was really awesome! As someone going for my MPH and hopefully MD in the future this was super insightful
i am amazed at the amount of dislikes on this video, those who cant "believe" that this occurs on a daily basis are blind to the society we live in. HUMANS are HUMAN that's it, it's that simple and if you aren't on the train towards progress then i think you missed your stop about 500 years ago.
This is a great video.
I should know better by now to watch the video before I read the comments.
I cant wait to get her book!
Lots of assumptions and emotional arguments. Some points might be worth looking into, but her underlying reason for adressing this is more problematic than she realises. What is the point of demonstrating that "we are all the same"? Individuals are different and that is a good thing. Differences between groups doesn't mean that one group is better than another. What is important when it comes to group differences, is to understand that there are exceptions - everyone is first and foremost an individual, not an instance of a group. Thus, arguing against such trivial differences as genes affecting risks of developing diseases seems like a really bad strategy. What if ethnicity completely determines your risk of getting a disease, does that mean that we all need to become racists and that one group is superior to another? We need to treat people like individuals instead of members of different groups. Then, when group membership is relevant, it does not have to be degrading in any way.
+SmultronsyltNatha skin genes do not affect inherited genetic disorders/diseases. It originates from what you're ancestors were exposed to and at a level that it affected your genes. If you had a gene for thousands of years able to be immune to milk, know that there are entire ethnicities [Native Americans] who cannot drink milk or they can possibly experience something dire doing so. It's not because of the fact of their ethnicity, it's because of the fact that most of them didn't go through the Darwin-esque process of drinking milk and leaving the ones who had the gene able to mix with those who didn't, becoming the majority after enough generations of childbirth. That's science. What's seen using statistics to diagnose someone isn't science; it can be deadly.
marquis Do you propose that doctors should stop using statistics when diagnosing patients? I think that would make their job a lot more difficult. A patient who is 60+ years old can get a completely different diagnosis from a 20 year old patient based on the same description of symptoms, because young people are far less likely to get some diseases.
For that one in 500 young patient who really had the disease, it will be really bad, but with limited resources doctors should prioritise so that the largest amount of lives can be saved and the largest amount of suffering can be avoided. That means not spending resources on tests for patients who are unlikely to have a disease.
+Sergio Sanchez +SmultronsyltNatha What I said connected pretty well, you just see it in the wrong light. You cannot have scientific research be the secondary perception to a non-scientific approach throwing the word "race" to define between one human from a different weather condition to another human from a different weather condition and create perceptual separation. No scientist supported this for a very long time, people in the non-scientific community, including government, still use it however. They're still within the same race but are genetically different and said difference are much less effective than the known direct approaches we can already do [they just cost more - but would you spend more to avoid cataclysm or simply go by statistics, which is partly the point of this speech]. HERC2 and SLC24A5/SLC24A2 help people understand how blue eyes and European skin come from; weather and food intake. Why must this be so effective to split us up?
Race doesn't provide "accurate" value in the statistics because of the fact that no one is the same, and a person with white skin can have the same errors as a person with brown skin, but a person with brown skin in this particular region [Somalia] can have the same ailments that a person of white skin has from Scandinavia because both places have people who consumed less dairy [for example], a condition that's colorless [like all of conditions that don't relate to the actual skin and sunlight] and thus need the same treatment. But we don't go by region statistics [because you'll need ancestral research - 250 dollars per person] or a direct genetic approach [which the genome project is covering, as well as scientific research for the past ten years at least], we instead went by statistics covering all peoples of the same skin tone because it is, simply, easier and cheaper, which is dangerous.
The statistics do not cover "all" of the people, heck, some, if not most of it, come from people who partake in a series of research covering just a few people of a particular skin tone to explain the pains and horrors of the many and become part of a doctor's source of research [aka, evidence to apply to a patient who may not even need so little or so much]; so I don't blame doctors following this but do blame the funding process. Sure, the statistical approach is a better approach than average, but we can do better, and some have done better and don't even utilize this practice [keep in mind] if we simply apply direct diagnostics and direct and more accurate counts of what's needed in a prescription, which we're able to for at least a decade - in fact, we're almost able to master star trek levels in interior reading and getting cheaper recently thanks to recent years [I think little over since 2012] of the discovery of direct photon/soundwave readings, which requires no statistics, simply light, sound, and personal database which might include Watson assistance and keeping track of your personal ailments/progress [there's much to work on of course - but this is just the latest of better things we can do compared to statistics based on skin color - so Smultronsy when you mention age, that's naturally in all animals and natural focuses of statistics will always be better than skin-based statistics, as it is more direct, but even this will be solved thanks to direct-diagnostics]. Again, sure, stats have can be helpful but it's dangerously inaccurate. Things are not as easy as you think and is a real problem. Especially when there's many who are immigrants and have different reactions to a particular medical statistic result. The problem is more complex and require more sophistication, otherwise she would agree with the very outdated race-based approach and so would doctors who, in real life, contest against it.
EDIT: Sergio - And: What makes you think I read Tumblr? I'm a little too old for that.
***** How do you apply that to this topic?
***** What I meant by 'emotional arguments' was that she attempts to get people on her side by appealing to their emotions, even though a deeper analysis of those arguments reveal that they are unsound. She describes things to make them sound similar to the racism that existed 100 years ago, when in fact, it is not like that at all. She tricks people's automatic processes (system 1, or whatever you want to call it) into thinking that this is like racism, making some people fail to engage the more effortful reasoning processes (like system 2 processes) which would be able to spot the fallacy.
Sure, I think that you can't have anything to be reasonable about if you don't have emotions. I also think that emotions might make you to find a good solution better than reason alone in some situations (especially when you have practiced that specific type of situation long enough to be an expert and have received immediate and unambiguous feedback). However, reason and emotions clearly are two different things - the former is fairly transparent and effortful, while the latter is opaque and automatic (in most cases - there are exceptions). Separating them is possible, but sure - it's not easy. I also agree with you that an objective point of view is not possible for humans to see. Though, that does not mean that all points of view are equally correct or that some are not built on emotions more than others.
I know a lot people are upset in the comments, but Doctors do do this. They even do it based on gender. My female friend was told by her doctor that her pain wasn't important, and just to take some paracetamol. Turns out her ovaries had exploded and she had to stay in hospital for weeks.
Doctors based ideas of Race, Gender, and Class (in the belief that the poor are more likely to become addicted).
+Monica Martin First i *really* had to laugh because i was thinking this is a joke. (explode?)
But are you serious?? What makes you think what happened to your friend was caused by sexism?????????????
+HYEOL the fact that her doctor refused to acknowledge her pain. and yes it happens, Google it. her ovaries had a tumor on them. surprise sometimes people's bodies don't work properly. it's a fact that doctors dismiss claims of pain via women because they think we cry Wolf.
While some of the points are indeed valid, as some do take the race "shortcut", you do need to take into account race. Race is just as important has gender or age when diagnosing. While it would be all pretty and "socially accepted", we humans are slightly different from race to race or from gender to gender. Medications and medical procedures should be designed with that in mind. Medication should be diferent for black/white/yellow/watever, if it makes it more efficient. Leave "social justice" out science and research please.
No where near truthful.
+blist14ant what is not true in my comment? There are plenty of small deviations among races/gender and age, and I can give countless examples that would change for example, medication doses depending on race/gender/age. Ofc that does not excuse using race as a excuse for taking shortcuts in a diagnosis...
+Helder Ribeiro I think you have a valid point. All the time she was talking I was thinking... but isn't it established that certain demographics are more prone to certain diseases? After all, both genetic and cultural differences cause different medical problems for, say, East Asians and Western Europeans. So how is it wrong, given these reasons, to make medical risk assessments based on race?
+neriumsuitedher there's white people with sickle cell.
+neriumsuitedher that's not because of race . Rather it's cultural geography
She Admits there are differences racially but because of the Social Inequalities.... but until these social inequalities are extinguished, the race based "guesstimates" are the best doctors can really do unless they want to dig into each patient individually and drive medical costs even higher.
this womans ignorance is nauseating.....
+Yk Man how
+Lachelle Singleton different races are more susceptible to different diseases, its not "racism" so this video and "talk" is pointless and stupid
Krillin ' half my family is black so not it not because shes "mixed" it's because she's a fucking tard.
*woman's
The point was that what you look like doesn't equal what your blood is, and although people from certain areas have genetic ties to certain disease, if you just look at them and check the "black" or "white" box, it blinds doctors to important genetic/ancestral information. (e.g. " only people from X get Y, and you don't look like them, so I'm not going to test for that, even though you could have that blood in you somewhere). Also, the difference between race, SES and environment are not standard, so you can't judge ( e.g. if you put 1000 pregnant women of the same race in a little town and treat them terribly and feed them crap, will there kids be sickly because of their race or because you treated their mothers like trash?)
The fact that this video gets so many dislikes is disturbing. Some people are almost trained to shoot down anything that even postulates equality even if it is scientifically better for everyone.
Because the truth hurts!
Usually the comments under Ted Talk videos maintain a fair level of respect. I guess certain topics attract certain individuals, in this case the ones who write comments before even watching the video.
+PKM101 Don't believe it, I wrote a long, sourced comment respectfully deconstructing her argument, with citations. And after getting 115 +1's and hundreds of replies and in depth discussion going on. SO what did they do? The shadow banned my comment. SO maybe the comments you are seeing are just the ones they want you to see to maintain their ridiculous narrative.
why is she on ted isn't this for smart People or influential people who are well known.
+derty qwerty 42N thanks for telling me the truth about tedx
I think she is doing a TED talk because she is highly influential and well known.
And OF COURSE there will be loads of dislikes on this video.
Oh well, great talk Ms. Roberts ❤
Can’t even see the number of dislikes anymore😔
I notice she conveniently left out things like Sickle Cell Disease, Cystic Fibrosis, and Tay-Sachs disease, which are all far more common and specific to certain races. Sure doctors use race as a "short hand", and do you know why that is? If someone is black is easy to tell that their genetic ancestry stems back to the region of the world where black people are native, and thus genetic diseases specific to people of that region. Same thing goes for White people, middle easter people, asian people, jewish people, etc etc etc. Having to run the full genome for each and every person to try and determine exactly what their ancestry is in order to diagnose them would not only be costly, but incredibly time consuming. Are people misdiagnosed because of this "shortcut"? Of course. People are also misdiagnosed all the time for various other reasons that have nothing to do with race. It's part of healthcare, and unfortunately people are flawed and imperfect so we have to deal with it. There are very real biological differences between the races all across the world simply because that's how genetics work. If people continue to breed solely among each other within a certain region, then they're going to develop very slight differences over time. As those people spread across the world they will face challenges in healthcare that others may not. This is the reality. It's not agenda driven bullshit.
+Butterworthy Black people tend to have lower levels of nitric acid which affects blood pressure. It's unfortunate but true. Reality does not conform to what we want just because we think it is that way or because we want it to be that way.
Ignorance is bliss! It's easier to pretend not to see or justify problems and injustices. That way, one does feel compelled to do anything to fix it. Cognative dissonance is quickly erased and people can lie to themselves so that They sleep better at night. afterall, it take a special person with a good heart to care about things that don't affect them, especially if they benefit from it.
+Hendless, I was responding to several of the ignorant responses to the video. Its easy and convenient for some to dismiss everything involving racism and discrimination, but ignoring it is not an option for those of us who have to live it all the days of our lives. I wish it was a figment of my imagination or an attempt to get attention or sympathy because that would mean that I have a choice and could make it go away. Unfortunately, that's not the case.
Sorry, typo. Should say
"...one does not feel compelled to do anything to fix it."
+Hendless, I originally thought your question was rhetorical, but was quite sure and wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt.
She never said "All doctors are racist". You are deliberatly deducing her message to an offensive absolute to deflect or manipulate. She discussed practices and theories that were created by people who had flawed, limited, jaded, and outdated views that should not still be used in this day and age. Those theories and practices need to evolve just like everything else. When you know better, you should do better.
+Hendless, she said the way they "practice medicine". That does not equate to your interpretation that she is saying "All doctors are racist". "Practice" is the key word. Doctors, like other professions, apply what they learned in school and make assumptions and assessments based on those things. If the ideology and theories are flawed and outdated, it will give false results. These differences and adjustments have and will be used to knowingly or unknowingly perpetuate stereotypes, discrimination, and flawed medical treatment to minorities.
I have a hard time believing that we are that different biologically that we require different medical treatment. It's just another way to justify discrimination and a superiority complex. it sets the stage to misappropriate resources and misdiagnose. Sometimes, people in power are insidious. They take seemingly unharmful approaches to situations, knowing fully that they intend to do harm. Then the methods and ideology get passed down from generation to generation. once the ball gets rolling we continue to knowingly and sometimes unknowingly keep it going because it's business as usual.k
Justice is one of four principles of clinical ethics. Justice ensures that care is equitable for all patients. Race-based medicine prevents us from upholding the principle of justice. As Dr. Roberts explained, race is not an appropriate proxy for an individual’s health. Using race as a “shortcut” to discern differences between patients has led to injustices in the care of minority races. Numerous examples were given during the talk of misdiagnoses and the lack of proper treatment such as administration of pain meds. The fact that these practices stem from biases and harmful beliefs that are not evidence based, makes me feel even more appalled. Race-based medicine has also kept us from focusing on efforts that will actually promote justice and equity in healthcare. Dr. Roberts emphasized the fact that the increased prevalence of diseases in certain populations is largely due to socioeconomic factors, not biological differences. Race-based medicine practices focus on biological differences between races such as lung capacities in spirometry tests and muscle mass in kidney function tests. Again, these differences are not well supported by research, and race, moreover, is a social construct. Thus, to address health disparities, we need to ensure that all individuals have access to healthcare and the means to live healthy lives. I realize that raising awareness of this issue is challenging, and ultimately changing healthcare practices even more so. This topic is complex, and I admit that it took me awhile to understand and adopt Dr. Roberts’ perspective. It is clear to me now that race-based medicine, while it acknowledges the diversity of patients, fails to identify the real disparities that need to be addressed.
This is the definition of race based on the book Sociobiology by Edward O. Wilson:
A population that differs significantly from other populations belonging to the same species is
referred to as a geographic race or subspecies. Subspecies are separated from other subspecies by
distance and geographic barriers that prevent the exchange of individuals, as opposed to the
genetically based “intrinsic isolating mechanisms” that hold species apart. Subspecies, insofar as they
can be distinguished with any objectivity at all, show every conceivable degree of differentiation
from other subspecies. At one extreme are the populations that fall along a cline-a simple gradient
in the geographic variation of a given character. In other words, a character that varies in a clinal
pattern is one that changes gradually over a substantial portion of the entire range of the species. At
the other extreme are subspecies consisting of easily distinguished populations that are differentiated
from one another by numerous genetic traits and exchange genes across a narrow zone of
intergradation.
Yep, agree 100%, we're all essentially equal genetically... "Lingering traces of race-based medicine" That's a good thing, right?... Now, you start to lose me when you forget to give individual agency to the people consuming the race-based drugs, and participating in the study you mention. Are we to assume these individuals aren't capable of being educated consumers/participants? Was there a clinical trial that was racist? Yes. Did you participate? Yes, and even went so far as to describe, and "give proof" of your socially attributed and, apparently proudly held, race.
So it's still unclear to me how equal you think we are. There are most certainly racist individuals and even collectives. But trying to make it clear whose side you're on, in some sort of disclaimer seems a bit antithetical.
Yes instead of 1 question they should ask 100 more complicated questions. And race is totally not social construct.
Which they do. Anyone who has been to the doctor knows that.
+Tomáš Viktorin It's not like doctors say: Oh you got a headache and you are black? Here is some black aspirin. They already ask more questions, yet, they CAN and DO decide between 2 different kinds of pain killers based on race. That is what this talk is about.
HandjesBreda Yes stuff like this is probubly bullshit, but race is not a social construct and there are some ,,side effects" to every race (black have hieger risk of infarct than whites ect). Im not saying whole her talk was bullshit but this ,,problem" is not a problem. The rest and roots of it is problem. And having 50% of talk focused on something not important is waste of time.
+HandjesBreda Where does she say they use two different painkillers based on race?
I'm white and when I told my doctor I had used cannabis he wouldn't give me any opiate based pain medicine and instead would only give me migraine medicine.
+Tomáš Viktorin race is a social construct. Biologically speaking there are not enough differences between blacks, whites, asians and so on to call them different races like in animals. The term race really means ethnicity and ethnicity is a social construct for example your mom is white your dad is 1/2 black so actually you would be 1/4 black. But you might identify as a black person based on the fact that you grew up in a predominatly black neighborhood. Now genetically speaking you are possibly over 80% white. If you get skincancer and a doctor is neglecting the sympthomes because it is unlikely for a black person to get skincancer (statisically) and you checked black as race. Then thats a problem which is based on race.
If you think that this video is stupid, read this article from Scientific American, where SCIENTISTS share the same opinion as the lady on the video: www.scientificamerican.com/article/race-is-a-social-construct-scientists-argue/
Educate yourself.
What's the opposite idiom to preaching to a choir? Because you're doing that. These ignorant asswipes care about science only when it seemingly backs up their belief in race and other pseudo-biology
+Uselube If people really cared about ending racism, this video would have close to zero dislikes.
+Lucio Cornejo "Science would favor Du Bois. Today, the mainstream belief among scientists is that race is a social construct without biological meaning." -[citation needed]
the authors of the paper are conflicted of interest and demonstrably have an agenda - science is HYPOTHESIS->CONCLUSION not the other way around. this paper is already invalid, the reason why you see it now is its still in peer review or the journal that accepted it is politically partisan, which is not uncommon in the world of science journals.
www.science.sciencemag.org/cgi/doi/10.1126/science.aac4951
his qualifications are:
DEGREES
BA, History and Soviet Studies(
+Lucio Cornejo the only one in the entire list with any qualification is rob desalle, but if you actually read the paper, you can see that a lot of his data is actually grossly misrepresented by the other 3 "scientists", the article is hidden behind a pay wall so i doubt you actually read it or anyone else for that matter.
either way, i appreciate you coming out and trying to present something tangible for the other side of the argument, but the fidelity of the paper in question is pretty clear
+alberto gordillo Could you share the paper? I have not read it, but I would like to, but couldn't find it.
Thank you so much!!
TED better check yourself before you wreck yourself by posting tips from this google doctor.
+Delsur27 no she didn't.
Rita Ogburn-McCall Shes not a real doctor... you're so delusional. What Does white people have to do with this topic. Im sensing some crazy vibe.
Im gonan step 2 feet back and retract from having conversation with crazies.
Wen Liang she has a PhD in this field lmao but go off I guess
"I consider myself a black woman with a white father" I really don't understand why. How can there be a distinction?
Dot, does that mean if your mother comes in I should not screen her for sickle-cell anemia? Hypertension?
Yeah, let's listen to a "social justice advocate" tell us how medical science works.
Nope, not worth my time.
That is an overly simplistic description of her work that leaves out her scholarly contribution to many fields. You don't have to be interested in the talk by any means, but I encourage you to understand who she is before writing her off.
+Anston [Music] It's pretty much what you would expect. Applying problematic glasses to the field of medicine without having any idea about evidence based medicine and why it is used everywhere and by everyone. It's quite interesting though to watch her mangle the social, biological and medical meaning of race, all of which differ, together to try and make a point that would wouldn't stand up any other way. Its sort of like watching a dog chasing its own tail. Funny, until it starts getting sad.
+Niall Newman I don't agree with you, but I do appreciate your opinion being expressed completely.
MagTrag89 Someone marked your last comment as spam, WTF? Thankfully I could return it as OP. It's kind of ironic considering the contents of that comment. :(
+Anston [Music] Honestly, I'm not surprised or offended. I made several comments on this page to address the discouraging language and stereotypes applies to this woman and the content of her talk. If marking a comment as spam helps the person displace their discomfort with the issue at hand, so be it. It just won't stop me from talking about it.
for genetic ancestry analysis it is common to remove individuals who cannot be classified as one ethnicity so maybe that's why it didn't matter
8:50 - 11:10 The Spirometer story was so strange. The clear conclusion i got from the story is that different races *do indeed* have differing lung capacity, as the clinical evidence for this is so strong, so undeniable, and so predictable that they actually added a button to the device to automatically compensate for this.
If race based lung capacity wasn't as predictable as it is, then the button would only make the device worse. But this is a device designed specifically for testing and data collection, people would have noticed pretty fucking fast if the results were wrong, it's the entire purpose of the device.
I mean, if she presented evidence that the results and data from the device were actually incorrect then they'd have a point. But she presented no such data. Before this talk i had never even heard that different races had different lung capacities, but (opposite to her intention) her talk actually convinced me that different races do indeed have differing lung capacity. How can i argue against data?
+roidroid Except that the button was added by that racially-motivated doctor over a hundred years ago. The reason she can't give any opposing evidence is because the medical profession is so locked into the habit of racially profiling that proper, wide-field studies _without_ race as an initial control are basically nonexistant.
+Chris V If there are no such studies to back up her claim, then what is prompting her to make the claim at all? Without at least SOME data to back her claim up, it's ridiculous. How easy would it to collect that data? She literally just needs to take a spirometer, test a bunch of people from different races, without using the button. BAM! DATA! But she hasn't done that. Why?
It's literally a conspiracy theory.
roidroid A fair question. She definitely could have done her own work there to back up her claims.
On the whole, however, it's still true that race is almost always one of the controls in a study, which doesn't make sense in the genetic age, IMO.
"Genetics, Race and Ethnicity. It is well known that some diseases are more common in particular racial or ethnic groups than in others, for example, cystic fibrosis among people of European ancestry, sickle cell disease among those of African and Mediterranean ancestry, and Tay-Sachs disease among Ashkenazi Jews." google search. ? OK now I'm confused
She was saying race (skin color) is a social label that categorizes groups of people - whereas genetics and ancestry are based on science and give a true picture of each individual.
A simple answer she should have checked on the form was 'Other' and then written in "Human" as we are all one race. Our diet has more of an impact on our health than the pigment of our skin.
Depends on how much Equatorial sun you get.
Our genetics play a big role but you are correct, diet and lifestyle are the parts we can control for better outcomes.
Different races are more susceptible to certain diseases and can be affected differently from certain medications.
I am pretty sure there are races.. If not, why do we have different skin colors? I mean, I AM NOT RACIST AT ALL. But isn't it a bit ignorant to say there are no races? Maybe I don't understand this concept. But, It's like saying there are no dog races. There are no huskies, cockers, etc. She was just saying how racist the medicine is. BUT, she wasn't argumenting the idea that there are no races. Cand someone explain me please, how are there no races? Seriously :) Thanks.
+Brian Briu There are no races because the Human Genome Project proved that all humans, regardless of race, are more than 99.9% identical to each other - genetically speaking. This is an established fact. _Everything_ that's different about us is contained in that 0.1% difference. With a margin that small, using something as crude as race for a base-line will never be accurate enough, hence the need for genetic sequencing rather than racial profiling. As I said in another post, it would be like trying to measure an atom with a ruler.
I'm also really tired of the dog breed comparison. The only reason dog breeds even exist anymore is because we genetically engineered them over the ~30,000 years they've been domesticated - we purposely halted their evolution and _forced_ the genetic gaps in breeds, something which has led to a HUGE number of complications and malformations as a result of inbreeding. Had we left dogs to their own devices, we would see a very different trend - namely that most of them would still be wolves or would have gone extinct. The majority of our "toy" dogs wouldn't exist at all because the traits that we selected for in these breeds are often the exact traits that would leave them almost entirely defenseless in the wild (a dachshund's short legs come to mind).
Put simply, dog breeds exist because _we created them_.
Chris V Thanks for teaching me something new! :)
+Chris V Your reasoning for this is quite stupid.
How can you determine that a 0.1% difference is small?
TED has the best talks, but the worst comments
this isn't a good ted talk, she isn't a doctor and as I've read through the comments there is a general concensus that some medince does have to take into account "race" or ethnicity, if she was had a degree in medicine than it would at least make her somewhat respectable but no all she is another sjw/intersectional feminist spreading her bullshit complaining about silly first world problems when clearly the facts are against her
+God Of Light
No need to be a doctor to understand that asking what race people are and then giving them a treatment in function of their response is not a good idea. It is well known that there's a lot of obsolete practices in the medical field, and it's thanks to people like that we're making progress.
+Awpossum So if there is a condition that requires a course of pills to treat, but the pills required are different for white, black and hispanic people etc. because it has been shown that the drug for one race is ineffective if given to the other races and so giving the wrong course of pills could result in a shorter life span or even death. Do you still think we should ignore race? Just guess the right ones maybe?
I'm hungry and your comment was not a sandwich. 2 stars.
+Meek "The L GOAT" Mill You consider someone spewing pseudo-scientific nonsense based on personal ideology to be a "good talk"? Shame.
It's like the people commenting didn't even watch the full video (or half of it, for that matter)... Oh, wait.... This is RUclips. Of course, they didn't watch it.
I don't know what you heard by listening to the end, I just heard more misinformation.
maybe because you don't understand science., medicine, or sociology.
To be honest she does have some valid points but then she throws in points which aren't, This needed a follow up with actuall medical researchers
Assuming the downvotes come from people who just think you're exaggerating the issue, or have some type of knee-jerk emotional reaction to being confronted with what would indeed be very counter-productive metrics to use, and would detract from any supposed or actual subset of humanity in the long run.
disease prevalence differs based on race/ ethnicity... but there are a lot of other factors that also impact disease prevalence (ie diet, activity, environment etc). As the global population becomes more inter-racial, race may become less important than these other factors
Family history....I guess that is why we ask when a patient cannot afford to wait or pay for genetic testing. Turns out you are not as black as you think you are but sickle cell anemia definitely comes from Africa. When a patient cannot tell family background and cannot pay or wait for genetic testing...the cheap option is to ask. Race based medicine is important and yes liver levels in all African Americans is different than it is Caucasian Americans. P.s. we treat women differently in medicine than men too. It'd be great to test hormone levels and other factors first but..... Wanna talk vitamin D levels by melatonin in the skin next?
Also, what if the example with the lung capacity is true? Not saying it is, but as you are making a principle argument against race based science, I will use it as an example as to why it might be necessary. What if, your race actually determines not just average, but literally determines that you will have a lower lung capacity? Wouldnt the scientific way be to either judge each one individually OR make use of a pattern if its causation can be linked to race, instead of calling it racist?
most things in medicine are not absolutes but probabilities, so race is like saying well then your probability of x,y,z disease states or physiological conditions goes up.
Some medical treatments differ based on ethnicity, but that's not because of whatever silly reason you feel like making up today, it's because there's an actual difference in how various enzymes for example affect metabolism of certain drugs and therefore their effect, from one group to the other.
Source : Med student, and this among others www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/ScienceResearch/.../UCM085502.pdf
Scoota Reader I don't think you get how science works. It's not a gamble. It's a fact of reality that depending on ethinicity certain things react differently (being very simple in my language on purpose here). This has been studied, documented, proven, and is now considered scientific fact, is taught at universities to med students throughout the world (french guy here, got this direct from one of the lectures in pharmacodynamics I followed as part of my curriculum AND confirmed by prep school teachers, plus I provided a link to a study, and there's plenty more online, so not just blabbering on unlike someone here) and is used to change the exact treatment given to patients to fit them better based on this.
Scoota Reader So what you just said is equivalent to saying it's a gamble not to consider pregnancy as the potential cause for the nausea a MALE patient is complaining about...
Scoota Reader None of what you said actually adressed what I said, that's pretty impressive.
Of course each patient is different in some ways. But there are things which based on certain factors just ARE so or not without having to check on the specific patient at hand.
You're making no sense.
Ethnicity isn't shown to be a indicator of probable difference in metabolism. It IS definitely an indicator of different metabolism. Of course ANY patient can have some kind of irregularity which screws with how he'll react to medication, but until pharmacogenetics see huuuge progress, we can't always for every patient look at every single thing that might affect how they'll metabolize various medication.
ALL medical treatment works off some degree of assumption that the patient works like a normal human does unless his history says otherwise.
And normal humans, depending on their ethnicity, have differences in how their enzymes, receptors and targets for drugs work.
Again, you keep acting like it's an assumption of some kind. Your analogy about monkeys makes no sense, nor the one later, we're not talking about something that works for half of asians, but not others, half of caucasians, but not the rest, we're not talking about a risk of a disease, we're not talking about somehow GUESSING the ethnicity of the patient to diagnose them or something.
We're talking about scientific fact showing that based on ethnicity certain people just DO metabolize, react to, etc., medication differently, and so the treatment must be adapted to that when one knows what to treat and what the factor is.
Let's make an analogy that actually sticks : if it's proven that monkeys of a specific species, which to keep with your weird theme, happen to have blue butts inducing genes, lack the required metabolic agents required to properly metabolize, say, paracetamol and as such it remains in their system waaay longer, and affects them in a much stronger fashion, but beyond that they're pretty much just like us in how they react to painkilling medication. When one attempts to treat one of these monkeys' pain problems, they will either use a different dosage of paracetamol, or change to some other painkilling substance, because they have factual knowledge that's how to treat that species of monkey in that instance.
What you're saying is basically an argument, when used all the way instead of selectively as you're doing, for ignoring ALL rules of dosage, treatment, etc., and just start from absolute zero with every patient, doing veeeery lengthy, pricy, complicated tests to see how THEY metabolize things (btw, some of that can't even be tested without actually giving the stuff to them) and what kind of variation they have in how their receptors, transporters, targets, etc., work, before administering any medication.
You're not making sense.
There's certain accepted rules about how you treat people.
Yes certain things are just markers of risk or indicators of probability. But certain factors just DO positively and absolutely, indicate what is gonna happen when you give this medication, to that patient, compared to the average (average which btw you're basically arguing shouldn't be used as a way to prescribe dosage in any manner, whether you realize it or not, which is pretty funny, cause I don't really think you realize how much that means as far as changing how ALL treatment works across the board, I mean no doctor could prescribe you 500mg of paracetamol or ibuprofen three times a day based on a painful illness or health problem you're having without doing some tests on you every time if what you're unknowingly arguing is pushed all the way to the end). Some level of ethnicity-based difference in reaction to treatment is as factual as saying that if you pump someone who has low blood sugar full of insulin, they'll be in trouble.
There's just scientifically proven facts that affect how you're gonna treat patients based on various factors.
You keep arguing for tailoring treatment to patients, well this IS that, as it is scientifically proven fact that this is how it works.
It isn't assumption, it isn't guessing in the wind, and you can make up as many imaginary scenarios which you tailor and fashion SPECIFICALLY so that in them there IS guessing and silliness as you want, it doesn't change the scientific fact of the matter.
Frankly if your next answer is on the same level as this one, I'm not gonna bother.
This was lengthy response to type out, and if you insist on just making up analogies which have nothing to do with the reality of ethnic differences in reaction to treatment and how the knowledge of it is used, on and on, this is pointless as you're just trying very hard to deny something that's uncomfortable to you even if in the process you end up making arguments which when fully applied end up being in favor of not using ANY sort of general dosage or adaptation of treatment based on facts about the patient without testing everything on them personally.
PS : circ.ahajournals.org/content/118/13/1383.full
Makes for an interesting read, and so does the one I cited in my first comment, which I actually doubt you read since you didn't cite it at any point, just waved it off basically.
gilless429 In response to you saying that nothing I said addressed what you said, that's typically pretty annoying in a discussion. It addresses no points made, regardless of if they were a direct, formatted rebuttal, or a general rebuttal like you provided. Please refrain from dismissing any response, as that discourages and inhibits learning.
On the rest of it, from what I can tell, you're absolutely right. I did open the link in your initial comment, but I didn't read; I maybe glazed over the first paragraph. That was incredibly poor insight on my part, as scrolling down only slightly gave me a table with data I could understand, complete with the genes responsible for the differences and how their variances cause variance in a multitude of drugs. I read your most recent link for several paragraphs and found the evidence that the TED speaker seemed to conveniently forget existed.
On the blue-butted monkey analogy, I was equating butt shininess to skin color. It was meant to point out that, although there may be, say, a trait for higher risk of heart disease in a geographically distinct group of people, that has nothing to do with their skin color, and ancestry is the factor, not their skin color. It was more a statement that individual patient conditions trump whatever is written about their racial background, hence a person with no ancestors diagnosed with heart disease ought to be safe to assume low risk overall. This is case-by-case, and if we could more accurately measure alleles in a conventional lab, I'd imagine these statistics would be irrelevant.
I never said that there aren't differences in likelihood of certain mutations, such as lactose intolerance or sickle cell anemia; the important factor in both of those is that they are easy to test for, so assuming that all black people are lactose intolerant because about 75% are is very poor practice--and certain geographic regions are less than 25% lactose intolerant despite being black, but they're all lumped into this bubble of "easily testable, but we already know because it's likely" due to skin color.
However, when it comes to measuring alleles, if there's a trend in a specific population, and due to the cited examples where different dosages could potentially mean life or death, I have no choice but to agree. Opinion doesn't factor in here on how doctors should treat their patients, at least until we get extremely portable and efficient allele measuring devices. Simply put, the dosage amount is a direct correlation with ethnicity, and there is no magically changing genes. There are, of course, exceptions, but it's not as easy as seeing if a person reacts to specific stimuli, or drawing blood.
So, in short, I'd say you're correct insofar as there are measurable differences in drug dosages that are generally based on ethnicity, and it's not just a statistic to promote lazy healthcare.
Medical researchers don't need lawyers, priests or ideologues to tell them what there conclusions should be.
Race is indeed mostly a social construct, but it is a medical fact that different races are susceptible to different diseases, etc.
Like what 😂😂😂
The majority of comments sound stupid.
+ucheucheuche would that be the white or the black comments ? It is what it is.... i found the comments and the likes/dislikes argues more interesting then the subject itself. You could do a whole Ted Talk about this....
Damn the dislike ratio
There is a difference between how melinated people and non melinated people respond to chemicals, whether it be medical or otherwise. It's not as basic as race.
I find it funny how so many people become hostile when someone even questions the idea of race. I know you love feeling apart of a tribe and allowing a group think for you, but Reality is what it is. Sorry.
+Tasheem Hargrove
I find it really sad. And she just basically said : "doctors should look at their patients individually instead of based on their races, because even if their are trends, they're going to be wrong most of the time". Yet somehow people find that wrong.
+Awpossum Because medicine is based on correlation. How are you suppose to tell if your patient's cholesterol level is safe unless you compare the morbidity and mortality of other people with similar characteristics?
Sahil Zubair Why use race as that basis though? It's a human creation. It isn't a natural concept observed by humans like gravity, or mathematics. It's an arbitrary grouping of humans.
Tasheem Hargrove It's not perfect but it's certainly not arbitrary. If a person is black they have recent ancestry in Africa, therefore they likely have the genetic advantages/disadvantages that have evolved in that gene pool. There's no denying this.
Tasheem Hargrove Of course that makes this data less useful in those rare cases (3% of the population) but if they have family history of illness, it's still relevant.
Don't even bother with this comment section. Take a deep breath and walk away. Do something constructive, creative. Leave your comfort zone. Expand your experiences. But don't look down this toilet of pseudo-scientists, whatever you decide to do.
(Current medicine is based on the health of individuals, not the health of your so-called "races".)
@Übermensch ..... correct the "so-called race." germans were never considered the "whiteness" that benjamin franklin spoke of. "White" became more associated with skin color. There is was no "science" to connect the social construct of "race" with genetics. So, saying this person "denies science" was an inaccurate statement when "race" never originated from science, but a social philosophy from the biases of european colonization..........
@Bosonian medicine should not be based on race but on individuals.
I have tried to "like" this video several times, but it keeps being changed back to 2 likes. This is very odd, but great message!
+Wyatt Nite, Thanks!
+TutelarSword, thank God you don't speak for all or "most" of humanity. In fact, it's funny that you use the word "humanity". Do your resaerch, then speak.
+TutelarSword, lol! You are funny! Likes and dislikes on a RUclips video is definitely a great method of surveying all of human kind! ...and name-calling....I think you've proven who the moron is without me saying one word! Take care! :)
There are certain factors where race does make a difference, for example, people with higher melanin / darker skin are better protected against UV radiation but more at risk of vitamin D deficiency, especially if they live at higher latitudes. However, it shouldn’t be assumed that just because you’re black you have a vitamin D deficiency.
I totally agree with you, races are social division, not for the genetic differences. We are all human race❤
But then why is it so hard to find matching transplant donors for mixed race people or that you and the other race have to be the same? Or is this unrelated ?
There are different versions of the C-19 vax based on race.
Let the Bodies Hit the Floor !!!
Great !
Did the people that disliked this video even watch it?
My Dr. treats me like a whole person, not just a race or gender.
Pick your Dr. wisely and see how they listen to you.
It is truly shocking how quickly discourse around race (or gender and class, for that matter) devolve into individuals rendering themselves not only incapable of finishing a theoretically sound and conceptually interesting talk, but if reverting to abhorrent language that attempts to analyze a subject the author seems to give little attention to.
Thank you 💕💕💕💕💕💕💕💕
She is talking about a true problem in the medical field. But using sensationalism to explain why it's wrong. Give me number and facts, but I do admit that her spirometry statement was very good. But many of her statement are a bit inaccurate.
I approve this for stand up comedy settings.
Measurements (foot size)
she has a good point. people shouldn't be asked for their race. it should be given by a genetic sample.
+Magnus Jørgensen
Yes, your doctor should by all means permit you to pay an extra $100-$2000 for a test in lieu of the indignity of self-identification. I see nothing wrong with that.
+ShadoFXPerino
Your point is that it would be expensive?
Well science is expensive, but nothing as expensive as not knowing.
+Magnus Jørgensen By all means anyone who is unsure should get a genetic test at thier own free time.
To me she is proof that we are barely racially divided in the genetic sense but heavily divided in the social sense. The offspring of black Africans + White Europeans or Asians is healthy and beautiful.
So many youtube doctors around here, great! But first get your facts straight, you can have more genetic differences between two people native in neighbouring countries or even villages in Africa (or any part of the world, but native Africans have more varied genetics) than between a "caucasian" and an "asian" person, the studies on genomics have proven most assumptions about races have very little meaning in genetics and therefore in medicine.
So I don't know what you all are shouting about, go see any piece of data from genome mapping
Her point is good and clear but we can't completely ignore race/ancestry in medicine. The physiological differences between races go deeper than the skin, and that, I think, is beautiful, although it also complicates things. The color of the skin is just the first differing word in a story that the person is as a biological entity. Thou shall not ignore the patient's ancestry and genetic heritage when manipulating his/her biology.
To Americans complaining: ask yourself, why don't we Europeans use the same race-based medicine ? Maybe because it is more a cultural thing than a scentifically valid approach?
1:17 that because you visibly appear more black than white. Very rarely can half African Americans pass for white, but sometimes. If you are white fully and your dad is black or mom is, that's a rare thing, but it happens. This girl is probably like 60 percent Caucasian if one parent is African American, they have a lot of British ancestors.
I never check any boxes for ethnicity/race.
You should if you need covid treatment. If you are non white you can go to the top of the list..
Idk it seems kinda racist to me. The federal government deciding things based on race can go south fast
Okay so if a person in the hospital refuses medicine based on it being more effective on them because of their race or genetic predispositions, I think we should let them. The genetic pool needs less stupid.
I could have sworn I saw TED talk a year or so ago complaining about how almost all USA medications are tested on white men for efficacy and how there are known genetic differences in how some drugs work. This talk would seemingly be in conflict with that other talk. I say throw out the ethnic genetic factors when there is no science behind them and accept them where is. I know, easier said than done.
Also the speaker makes the classic mistake of the genetic fallacy in trying to say that because the spirometer was developed
with by a racist guy who was justifying slavery, therefore that's a reason to reject it. No, only reason to reject it if it's a poor test.
Wait, this isn't this TEDx....what's going on here? TED is supposed to be better than the crap speakers that get on TEDx. Very disappointing.
First thing I thought too!
*TRIGGERED TALKS*
Not a doctor
She's a social justice advocate which has saved more lives than doctors can *_ever_* dream of.
Kind Regards,
Wyatt Nite
+Wyatt Nite lol.
+Wyatt Nite You're a troll right? Because that was the stupidest thing anyone has ever said.
+Niall Newman read his name out loud.
+Wyatt Nite Do you have anything to back that statement?
Humans are not all one race. That's why I hate when forms only have Hispanic as mixed (or nothing at all). I'm an Asian looking Hispanic who's DNA is Native American and Eastern European Jew mixed. I'm sure that has to have some effect on my health and reaction to treatment.
+Pac Oo Probably does.
What else, "problem with gender-based medicine" LMAO
That would make more sense than this bullshit tbh
+fuanshin I'm guessing you didn't watch the video in it's entirety before making this comment.
+fuanshin I think there is TED talk about it. Males and females have more different biology than white person and black person. And to make things worse most of female only drugs are tested on men.
Mr Awesome Bart
I watched that one, it was quite insightful.
fuanshin Then your criticism is invalid. Because she brought up clear, irrefutable examples of doctors using different forms of medicine on people for no other reason than race.
I would like to start by thanking Ms. Roberts for tackling a very important, timely and sensitive issue. In her discussion about race-based medicine, Ms. Roberts is addressing one of the four ethical principles followed by the medical community - justice. As healthcare providers, every physician vows to treat their patients with justice, that is to say, with fairness regardless of differences in race, social or economic status, etc. To pledge justice is to pledge fair and equal distribution of resources and treatments among all groups of patients. Ms. Roberts essentially argues that race-based medicine violates this ethical principle because certain racial groups like African Americans and Latino/as are subject to biases/stereotypes.
However, genetic background can actually play a major role in disease risk and prevalence. Because it is not quite feasible to test everyone’s genome, physicians deduce this genetic background by asking for patients’ race. Race is one of many tools to help determine how to best screen, evaluate data, or make a diagnosis for a patient. This brings up another important ethical principle of beneficence - acting in the patient’s best interest. Knowing the race of an individual is a piece to the diagnostic puzzle and truly helps physicians do the most good for the patient. For instance, Tay-Sachs disease is more prevalent in the Ashkenazi Jewish population, African American males are at greater risk for prostate cancer, and those of the African descent have a higher frequency of sickle cell anemia. If you knew you were at a greater risk for a disease based on your racial/ancestral background, wouldn’t you want your physician to be aware of your background so they could help to better monitor, diagnose, and treat you?
I understand Ms. Robert’s dissonance with having to check a box for race - as this must be especially confusing and seemingly inappropriate for someone of mixed racial descent. Perhaps asking a patient to list ancestral background (instead of being forced to check one box) would be a possible solution to this problem. Doctors may need to be more transparent with patients and explain the importance of knowing the ancestral background - this knowledge is ultimately for the benefit of the patient.
I have the utmost respect for Ms. Roberts and her work with the important and sometimes controversial topic of race in medicine. This is clearly an issue that affects many aspects of the doctor-patient relationship and I think it warrants continued discussion and study.