[blaurenceclark]

I'm going to quote what someone said below because this is blatantly false

"This is not only false, but dangerously false. We are in the process of discovering that certain classes of popularly-prescribed drugs (eg ACE inhibitors for blacks, certain chemotherapy drugs for Asians) are ineffective or even toxic for populations not represented in the relevant drug development research cohorts. It's not identity politics to note that pharmacokinetics can differ between individuals and populations. These differences do not explain all of the population-level morbidity and mortality differences between ethnicities, but they are significant when investigating differences between groups on the same course of treatment."

[gozur88]

... which is why I listed genetics under "other explanations". Did you read the whole comment?

[idrios]

Nothing you've said seems wrong to me, but the tone of how you write is too dismissive.

> since there are other explanations (lifestyle habits, genetics, poverty) that would explain the difference, in whole or in part.

This doesn't contradict the meaning of "structural, systemic racism", but it explains it. When pharmacies are making drugs that are only effective for white people, and not researching effectiveness on black people, that's structural racism almost by definition.

Obviously pharma companies are responding to financial incentives, and if it's not profitable for a company to research treatments specifically helping a minority group then they're probably not going to. Less availability of pharmaceuticals makes treatment harder, causing what is available more expensive or leading to complications that require more further medical treatment (and cost more money); and those who choose not to get treatment will find themselves with further medical conditions later. In the end it would cost the minority more money, which they likely cannot pay for other systemic reasons, so more often they would be denied access to a hospital outright. Everyone involved is responding to natural incentives, but the net result still becomes [minority group] is neglected because of the color of their skin.

> Did you read the whole comment?

When you write like this it feels like you're attacking the character of the person you're talking to, which makes the whole conversation more toxic to follow.

[blaurenceclark]

Your assumption seemed to be that genetics didn't tie to ethnicity, which it is hence I restated it.

[gozur88]

I don't know why you would have thought that. Is it not obvious the physical aspects of what we call "race" are a collection of genetic expressions?

When you say "your assumption seemed to be" aren't you really talking about your own assumptions about what I'm thinking (but didn't write)?

[gefh]

It's not that there aren't genetic differences - it's that there is structural racism that means drug trials don't even test safety for minorities.