NitroMed tested the cardiac drug in blacks after the FDA rejected BiDil for general use. The Lexington, Mass., firm said the study was warranted because early evidence suggested that African Americans might benefit from the pill.

But some scientists say it's doubtful that only African Americans will respond to BiDil.

"It is not like one group has all the bad genes," said Neil Risch, a UC San Francisco geneticist. "They are pretty well distributed."

The drug has stirred concern outside the world of medicine as well.

By approving a drug for one race, "you are giving biological reality to … a cultural prejudice, and that can be dangerous," said Gregory Dorr, an expert in the history of medicine at the University of Alabama. "The last time something was labeled for blacks, it was water coolers and restrooms."


linkage: http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-bidil16jun16,0,4834657.story?coll=la-home-business

This is stupid. :banghead: Science is science. The drug company is doing the right thing by saying "we only tested this on blacks, so it should only be available on blacks for now."

If a bunch of tards have problems with it, then offer to finance the testing for other races.

Well, speaking scientifically, many drugs are tested on animals because, despite the significant genetic differences between human and animal, there are significant similarities where effects on animals apply to humans. By saying that testing on blacks only applies to blacks, you are saying that there are vast differences between the races.

NitroMed...a subsidiary of FUBU :killingme

linkage: http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-bidil16jun16,0,4834657.story?coll=la-home-business

This is stupid. :banghead: Science is science. The drug company is doing the right thing by saying "we only tested this on blacks, so it should only be available on blacks for now."

If a bunch of tards have problems with it, then offer to finance the testing for other races.


"The last time something was labeled for blacks, it was water coolers and restrooms."

he forgot the backseat on the bus?

J/k.... I hate it when they do the black and white thing! Just goes to further divide our country.

Well, speaking scientifically, many drugs are tested on animals because, despite the significant genetic differences between human and animal, there are significant similarities where effects on animals apply to humans. By saying that testing on blacks only applies to blacks, you are saying that there are vast differences between the races.

NitroMed...a subsidiary of FUBU :killingme


But, in fact, there are real, proven racial differences in disease prevalence and severity. One of the worst instances is in the severity of hypertensive cardiac disease (the condition for which this drug is indicated).

Zelnorm, the drug for irritable bowl syndrome, was only approved for use in women when it first hit the market solely because it wasn't tested in enough men to get approval in that population. Only after sufficient men received the drug did the FDA approve it for the general population.

This is the way pharmaceuticals get to market.

Well, what the hell. Different races probably DO have biological differences. I have no problem with that. And since I'm a white person and am not offended when someone notices that fact, I have no problem with a "blacks only" heart pill and I do not feel discriminated against.

Just thinking out loud here... but is there a difference between a medication being only for one race and a medication being for only one sex? We have plenty that are marketed for "Men" or "Women" only - outside of birth control and pee-pee excitement stuff :biggrin: . So, is there a difference? Because no one has a problem with meds being divided down the sex line.

And, it is scientifically known that some diseases do have a preference for certain "races" due to very slight genetic differences. Not just blacks - but there are diseases that occur of much higher rates in Indians (American and India), asians, caucasians, etc. Of course, this is a cardiac drug - and I don't think cardiac problems really are "race" aligned. :ohwell:

But, in fact, there are real, proven racial differences in disease prevalence and severity.
Prevalence, not exclusivity. Other races can have the same problems and may benefit from the same drugs.

There are differences in blacks and whites. Ever hear of a little thing called sickle cell anemia.

Just thinking out loud here... but is there a difference between a medication being only for one race and a medication being for only one sex? We have plenty that are marketed for "Men" or "Women" only - outside of birth control and pee-pee excitement stuff :biggrin: . So, is there a difference? Because no one has a problem with meds being divided down the sex line.

And, it is scientifically known that some diseases do have a preference for certain "races" due to very slight genetic differences. Not just blacks - but there are diseases that occur of much higher rates in Indians (American and India), asians, caucasians, etc. Of course, this is a cardiac drug - and I don't think cardiac problems really are "race" aligned. :ohwell:
I look at it from an engineering point of view.
If the drug hasn't been tested on a wide variety of races, and only has been tested on a single race, then it makes sense to only approve it for that race.

To approve a drug for all races without proper testing is like using a structural fatigue test for an Apache to approve a Cobra airframe. The test has to be conducted for all varieties, not just one.

Where it gets tricky is mixed races. But presumably if it's good in both races of a mix, then it would be good for the mixed race.

There are differences in blacks and whites. Ever hear of a little thing called sickle cell anemia.

:yeahthat:

That was what I way saying - some diseases are prone to certains races due to slight differences.

I look at it from an engineering point of view.
If the drug hasn't been tested on a wide variety of races, and only has been tested on a single race, then it makes sense to only approve it for that race.

To approve a drug for all races without proper testing is like using a structural fatigue test for an Apache to approve a Cobra airframe. The test has to be conducted for all varieties, not just one.

Where it gets tricky is mixed races. But presumably if it's good in both races of a mix, then it would be good for the mixed race.


Good point. If it's only tested in blacks - then it really shouldn't be marketed to anyone else. After all, the FDA is very strict about testing before marketing.

To approve a drug for all races without proper testing is like using a structural fatigue test for an Apache to approve a Cobra airframe. The test has to be conducted for all varieties, not just one.
But are the biological differences that significant or is it more like a comparison of a F/A-18A vs. F/A-18C?

But are the biological differences that significant or is it more like a comparison of a F/A-18A vs. F/A-18C?
The significance level of biological differences is where my knowledge of the subject ends. All I know of that subject is that there *are* differences.

Any human biologists or anatomists present?

There are differences in blacks and whites. Ever hear of a little thing called sickle cell anemia.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/bv.fcgi?rid=hstat6.table.17411
Well would you look at that...other races do get sickle cell anemia. :ohwell:

Like I said, prevalence, not exclusivity. Treat the disease regardless of the skin color of the patient.

Good point. If it's only tested in blacks - then it really shouldn't be marketed to anyone else. After all, the FDA is very strict about testing before marketing.


True :yay:

All I know of that subject is that there *are* differences.
Sure there are...we're all different.

*I'm not.*

Sure there are...we're all different.[/SIZE]
:sarcasm: Don't tell Toxic that :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: