- 07 Jan 2017 20:30
#14760403
Would it therefore be deemed malpractice for a doctor to write prescriptions for patients based on race?
Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...
"Our main finding is that Neanderthal DNA does influence clinical traits in modern humans: We discovered associations between Neanderthal DNA and a wide range of traits, including immunological, dermatological, neurological, psychiatric and reproductive diseases," said John Capra, senior author of the paper "The phenotypic legacy of admixture between modern humans and Neanderthals" published in the Feb. 12 issue of the journal Science.
The evolutionary geneticist is an assistant professor of biological sciences at Vanderbilt University. Some of the associations that Capra and his colleagues found confirm previous hypotheses. One example is the proposal that Neanderthal DNA affects cells called keratinocytes that help protect the skin from environmental damage such as ultraviolet radiation and pathogens. The new analysis found Neanderthal DNA variants influence skin biology in modern humans, in particular the risk of developing sun-induced skin lesions called keratosis, which are caused by abnormal keratinocytes.
In addition, there were a number of surprises. For example, they found that a specific bit of Neanderthal DNA significantly increases risk for nicotine addiction. They also found a number of variants that influence the risk for depression: some positively and some negatively. In fact, a surprisingly number of snippets of Neanderthal DNA were associated with psychiatric and neurological effects, the study found.
Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2016-02-neanderth ... t.html#jCp
Agent Steel wrote:You're not getting what I'm asking. There are medications designed specifically for people of a certain race. BiDil, for example, is a heart drug, but only for blacks.
Pants-of-dog wrote:It is very possible that a few medications affect those very few genes that are different between races, but that does not magically mean that races are not a social construct.
Also, the trials showing how BiDil affects blacks more are questionable.
Pants-of-dog wrote:It is very possible that a few medications affect those very few genes that are different between races, but that does not magically mean that races are not a social construct.
Also, the trials showing how BiDil affects blacks more are questionable.
Also, the trials showing how BiDil affects blacks more are questionable.
ThirdTerm wrote:Ethnic identity is a cultural construct and it can be invented by spinning a nation's founding myth. But we cannot deny the fact that there are human Y-DNA haplogroups which are specific to certain ethnic groups, while the 19th century notion of the white race has been discredited by the progress in human genetics. Biologically, Africans are quite apart from Eurasians because of the lack of Neanderthal admixture. We are approximately 3%-5% Neanderthal by default, which is primarily responsible for our whiter skin pigmentation and other ethnic traits.
XogGyux wrote:Race DOES exist.
And the reason you might have heard doctors prescribing drugs (in part) due to race is because there have been studies that have shown that some races respond better to some medications than others.
For instance.
"In African Americans, monotherapy with a thiazide diuretic or a calcium channel antagonist has consistently lowered BP more effectively than β-adrenoceptor antagonists (β-blockers), ACE inhibitors, and angiotensin II type 1 receptor antagonists (angiotensin receptor blockers [ARBs]).[27,28] "
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/740380_4
Malpractice would be to not prescribe medications with race taken into account.
quetzalcoatl wrote:A good doctor would take these results into account. A better doctor would tailor his treatment to the individual.
Suntzu wrote:How could this be since race doesn't exist? And a smiley for you
XogGyux wrote:Race is not a social construct. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(biology)
Really? Who is questioning them?
Also, even if that were true, that would only be 1 of the many medical conditions that affect humans differently based on race. Sickle cell affects blacks almost exclusively for instance.
Pants-of-dog wrote:Please quote the relavnt text that supports your claim. Thank you.
Races are defined according to any identifiable characteristic, including gene frequencies.[7] "Race differences are relative, not absolute".[7] Adaptive differences that distinguish races can accumulate even with substantial gene flow and clinal (rather than discrete) habitat variation.[8]
Chromosomal race
A population distinguished by having a unique karyotypes, i.e., different chromosome numbers (ploidy), or different chromosome structure.[7]
Geographical race
A distinct population that is isolated in a particular area from other populations of a species,[9] and consistently distinguishable from the others,[9] e.g. morphology (or even only genetically[3]). Geographic races are allopatric.[7]
Physiological race
A group of individuals that do not necessarily differ in morphology from other members of the species, but have identifiably different physiology or behaviour.[10] A physiological race may be an ecotype, part of a species that is adapted to a different local habitat, defined even by a specific food source.[11] Parasitic species, often tied to no geographic location, frequently have races that are adapted to different hosts,[10][12] but difficult to distinguish chromosomally.[13]
In botany, where physiological race (mostly used in mycology[12]), biological race, and biological form have been used synonymously,[10][14][15] a physiological race is essentially the same classification as a forma specialis,[10] except the latter is used as part of the infraspecific scientific name (and follows Latin-based scientific naming conventions), inserted after the interpolation "f. sp.", as in "Puccinia graminis f. sp. avenae"; while the name of a race is added after the binomial scientific name (and may be arbitrary, e.g. an alphanumeric code, usually with the word "race"): "Podosphaera xanthii race S".[13]
A physiological race is not to be confused with a physiologic race, an obsolete term for cryptic species.[12] Neither biological form nor forma specialis should be confused with the formal botanical taxonomic rank of forma or form, or a form in zoology, an informal description (often seasonal) which is not taxonomic.
The term race has also historically been used in relation to domesticated animals, as another term for breed;[3] this usage survives in combining form, in the term landrace, also applied to domesticated plants. The cognate words for race in many languages (Spanish: raza; German: Rasse; French: race) may convey meanings the English word does not, and are frequently used in the sense of 'domestic breed'.[16]
^ a b c d e Jonathan Kahn. BiDil and Racialized Medicine. Chapter 7 in Race and the Genetic Revolution: Science, Myth, and Culture, Eds Sheldon Krimsky and Kathleen Sloan. Columbia University Press. ISBN 978-0-231-52769-9
http://www.radiolab.org/story/91657-race-and-medicine/
http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... ontroversy
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=race-in-a-bottle
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articl ... 3D92095CD6
http://www.fdaweb.com/login.php?sa=v&ai ... m145JqeU6V
But the fact that the vast majority of diseases and medications deal with the diversity in races supports the point that race is a social construct.
XogGyux wrote:Sometimes it seems that I have to make a lot of chewing for you:
First of all, those are just magazine articles, no studies. Link actual peer-reviewed studies next time.
I will not read the rest because the first 3 I read seem to focus on the fact that it is controversial (which I do not dispute given the fact of racial divide) but says nothing to deny that certain drugs (and in particular hydrochrolothiazide "HTZ" and Ca blockers) are superior/inferior in certain racial groups.
Furthermore, even if this particular example were to be proven wrong tomorrow, we know there are hundreds of different diseases (and therefore treatments/preventitive measures) that affect different racial (and even ethnic!) groups differently.
Really? The fact that there are genetic differences in actual people support that race is not biologically based but socially?
One Degree wrote:@Pants-of-dog
If you don't believe in different races, then how do you support hate laws based upon race? :?:
Pants-of-dog wrote:No. These are good enough to support my claim.
Such as?
One Degree wrote:@Pants-of-dog
If you don't believe in different races, then how do you support hate laws based upon race? :?:
XogGyux wrote:And this is the reason you are not a scientist.
Such as?
HTN/CKD in African American
BRCA in Ashkenazi Jews (breast cancer)
Sickle cell in African American
G6PD deficiency in people of Mediterranean descend.
Diabetes in Hispanics.
Melanoma in "whites".
Lactose intolerance in Asian
Just to name a few.
Racism is a social construct, race is not.
no , i am not gonna do it. her grandfather was a[…]
did you know it ? shocking information , any comme[…]
Imagine how delighted you will be when the Circus[…]