←back to thread

174 points bikenaga | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
kerkeslager ◴[] No.46199855[source]
This problem is actually even worse than the article identifies, because broad definitions of what a "risk" is, result in broad exclusions.

The most pernicious of these problems is that women--yes, more than half the earth's population--are considered a high risk group because researchers fear menstrual cycles will affect test results. Until 1993 policy changes, excluding women from trials was the norm. Many trials have not been re-done to include women, and the policies don't include animal trials, so many rat studies, for example, still do not include female rats--a practice which makes later human trials more dangerous for (human) female participates.

[1] Sort of one citation: https://www.aamc.org/news/why-we-know-so-little-about-women-... There's more than this--I wrote a paper about this in college, but I don't have access to jstor now, so I'm not sure I could find the citations any more.

replies(1): >>46203647 #
1. BoxOfRain ◴[] No.46203647[source]
The exclusion of women from clinic trials is one of those things that makes me really angry, there's many women in my life who've been adversely affected by various medications and essentially palmed off about it, being made to feel like they're making it up when there's obviously a problem at hand.

It will be one of those things future historians of medicine will judge our time harshly for in my opinion, and rightly so.

replies(1): >>46211912 #
2. mrguyorama ◴[] No.46211912[source]
People are currently judging our time harshly for it, mostly researchers and progressives and women, and are being yelled at for being "woke"

Read "Invisible Women" by Caroline Criado-Perez for a strong take.