NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.cbc.ca/story/science/national/2005/06/23/BiDil-approval050623.html

Can some one tell me how THIS got thrwe?

I can just imagine...

"WHAT? You market a drug that's supposed to only save us negroes lives? That's racist, you crackers!"

How are they going to go about defining whose 'black'?

I just wondering how this is leagl!

It's odd.... but if there's a good scientific reason behind it, that's fine. But I don't what exactly they mean by whites faring better. Are they saying that the drug causes less severe side effects in blacks or simply mean it is much more effective at curing the condition in blacks?

something about nitric oxide in the blood or something like that

Their argument is they only tested it on black people so that's how they are getting this shit done.

Here's my opinion. Since this drug is being marketed to blacks, its ok, but if a drug was marketed to all white, it would automatically be claimed as racism and never be allowed. People hold less sympathy to racism to whites, and that is sad when we are always trying to get away from racist views.

It's medicine, that's why it would be legal.

For example, when the Europeans first went to the Americas, they brought with them diseases that wiped out the native populations because they had no natural immunities to the new diseases.

Although we are all human and very much alike, family traits and genetic faults can cause us to inherit traits and problems that might be treatable with a drug that doesn't do anything useful or is even dangerous to people with different genetic patterns or ethnic heritage.

Not Legal?

Why wouldn't it be legal? What they are asking is, this; they want the FDA to approve the drug with the restriction of race because the FDA will test it and they are saying, don't test it on other races, we think it will either not work or may be harmful, but we think it will help the African American population (self described, they didn't claim a test for it) which suffers from more and earlier heart failures in America than any other cultural group. This company thinks they might have figure out why that would be true and have a specific treatment for it.

It is plausible. Although low levels of nitric oxide is not something which comes with being black, it could be a genetic trait which has become predominant in the black community, just like sickle cell anemia. People tend to marry within their own race (ethnicity, color, call it whatever the hell you want), even today, so that trait could have become common.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with this. As a research scientist, I know of compounds that work differently on different races. These interactions can be predicted through careful modeling and human testing targeted as needed. Thus, there is no need to put whites or asians or native americans at risk to test a drug which will likely not work on them due to inherent genetic differences.

We need to stop having knee-jerk reactions to something just because society thinks (and usually correctly) that limiting something to a particular race is bad. It does, however, scare me that this same process would likely cause an overwhelming stir if it went in the other direction. For example, it is well within scientific possibility that a drug should be approved for caucasians only--that is, it causes more harm than good when used by people with non-European backgrounds. However, I highly doubt most people would take too kindly to a medicine being labeled "whites only."

I agree with Greenlander. This drug has no hint of raceism, it just works better, for blacks. We are geneticly diffrent from other races, though its a very very small diffrence its enough to make diffrent races to react to diffrent drugs diffrently. So a drug for a specific race is only a logical thing to have. Anyone saying other wise just wants to point at something and call it raceist, and trust me there are alot of people that like to do that. I also agree to the comment that stated that if it was a drug only for white people a lot of people would call it raceist.

Ihatevacations']Their argument is they only tested it on black people so that's how they are getting this shit done.


wrong! to be brief, it originally went through clinicals in the late 80's and for the general population it failed miserably (in fact, if i remember correctly, i think it actually increased mortality rate of the non-black patients). however, it found great efficacy in one demographic--african americans. in the last 10 years, they have not found anything as effective for the black populaton, and hence, they are now marketing this as a drug for african americans. i am actually more surprised that they are doing this now in an ever-increasing PC world and didn't do it back then, especially when you consider IP issues (but that is a whole different story).

Though they have a decent defense, imagine if some oen developed a white only drug? There would be so many people lining up for lawsuits, NAACP and what not.

ANd don't call me wrong, I'm stating what I read in the news days ago

Just because you legislate that everyone is equal, doesn't mean that mother nature is going to pay attention. There are plenty of examples of different racial groups having specific medical problems. For instance, most African people have a gene that protects them from malaria, however, it has the side effect of increasing their chances of getting sickle-cell anaemia, and consequently, it isn't unreasonable to expect that they may need special medical treatments or medicine. Arguing that everyone must recieve the same medical treatment is like arguing that making paraplegics use wheelchairs is discrimination.

I agree with Greenlander. This drug has no hint of raceism, it just works better, for blacks. We are geneticly diffrent from other races, though its a very very small diffrence its enough to make diffrent races to react to diffrent drugs diffrently. So a drug for a specific race is only a logical thing to have. Anyone saying other wise just wants to point at something and call it raceist, and trust me there are alot of people that like to do that. I also agree to the comment that stated that if it was a drug only for white people a lot of people would call it raceist.
Agreed. Look at Sickle Cell Anemia (another Blood related disease). If there is a drug that works on sickle cell anemia, it would be virtually useless on european whites. Why shouldn't there be other drugs that work well for african descendants but not be approved for european whites?

Genetic dfferences exist - if only because of Natural Selection. (i.e. White men can't jump... or run distance... :rolleyes: :D )

(Obligatory anti-racist disclaimer...) One genotype is not "better" than another, just better at certain things than another. Big difference.

Here's my opinion. Since this drug is being marketed to blacks, its ok, but if a drug was marketed to all white, it would automatically be claimed as racism and never be allowed. People hold less sympathy to racism to whites, and that is sad when we are always trying to get away from racist views.

Has anyone started on the conspiracy theory stuff about trying to market poisons to blacks yet? You know "this 'heart medicine' containts androgen blocking drugs designed to make the black race infertile" sort of thing. I mean if a soda (Tropical Fantasy) gets a reputation for making black men sterile just because it's cheap and tastes like paint, and Snapple is rumored to be owned by the Ku Klux Clan just because it has the "Kosher" 'K' on it, then I don't see how a drug that's only marketable to black people is going to escape it. I'm sort of looking forward to the show. I have a fairly sick sense of humor.