The ideological corruption of medicine

The post-George Floyd racial reckoning shook the field of medicine like an earthquake. Medical education and research, as well as competency parameters, have been destroyed by two related hypotheses: that systemic racism is responsible for both racial disparities in the demographics of the medical profession and racial disparities in health outcomes. Questioning these hypotheses is professional suicide. Vast amounts of public and private funding have been taken from basic science and earmarked for political projects aimed at dismantling white supremacy. The result will be a decline in the quality of medical care, as well as a shrinking of scientific progress.

Practically every large organization Medicine — from the American Medical Association (AMA) and the American Association of Medical Colleges (AAMC) to the American Association of Pediatrics — has embraced the idea that medicine is an inequality-producing enterprise. The Strategic Organizational Plan to Include Racial Justice and Promote Equity in Health is, in practice, indistinguishable from the stated missions of a department of Black Studies.

The authors of the plan, anonymous, seem to be aware of how its departure from the traditional purposes of medicine is radical. The preamble notes that “just as the wording of a business document differs from that of a physics document, so does an equity document.” (Such poor regency and grammar characterize the entire tome of 86 pages, making the preamble’s boast especially ironic: “the field of equity has developed a phrasing that provides both : authenticity, accuracy and meaning”.)

Warned in this way, the reader sinks into the tangle of social justice maxims: Physicians must “confront inequalities and dismantle white supremacy, racism and other forms of exclusion and structured oppression, as well as include racial justice and promote equality in all aspects of health care systems.” The country needs to drop the “euphemisms and go for explicit conversations about power, racism, gender and class oppression, forms of discrimination and exclusion.” (The reader may wonder how today’s “conversations” about racism can be even more “explicit.”) We need to discard “the American stronghold of false notions of hierarchy based on gender, skin color, religion, validity, country of origin, as well as other forms of privilege.”

A key solution to this supposed oppression is identity-based preferences through of the entire medical profession. The AMA’s strategic plan calls for “fair representation of Black, Indigenous, and Latinx people in medical school admissions, as well as in […] rankings[…] of leadership.” The lack of “fair representation”, according to the AMA, is due to deliberate “exclusion”, which will only end when we have “prioritized and integrated the voices and ideas of people and communities experiencing great injustice and historically excluded, exploited and deprived of resources”. needed, such as people of color, women, people with disabilities, LGBTQ+, as well as those in rural and urban communities.”

According to the leaders of the medical and exacting areas, to be white is to be racist per se ); apologies and reparations for this offensive feature are now de rigueur. In June of 2020, the Nature identified itself as one of the unfortunate “white institutions that are responsible for bias in research and academia.” In January of 2020, the editor-in-chief of Health Affairs lamented that “our own staff and leadership are overwhelmingly white”. The AMA’s strategic plan blames “male and white lawmakers” for systemic racism in the US.

Schools and Medical societies must also discard traditional standards of merit in order to alter the demographics of the profession. The demolition of standards rests on an a priori truth : that there are no differences in academic skills between whites and orientals, on the one hand, and blacks and Hispanics, on the other. This proposition needs no proof; it is the starting point for any discussion of racial disparities in medical staff. Therefore, any test or assessment in which blacks and Hispanics score worse than whites and Asians is biased and should be eliminated.

The US Medical Licensing Examination is a prime suspect. At the end of the second year of medical school, students take the First Step of the Exam, which measures knowledge about anatomical parts, their functioning and malfunctions. Topics include biochemistry, physiology, cell biology, pharmacology, and the cardiovascular system. High scores on the First Step suggest residency success; highly sought after residency programs such as neurosurgery and radiology use the notes in Step One to help select applicants.

The rate of black students admitted to competitive housing is below that of whites because of their average grade on First Step exams, which is one standard deviation below that of whites. Step One has already been modified to try to close this gap; now includes non-scientific components such as “communication and interpersonal skills”. But the standard deviation [de diferença] in the grades persisted. In the world of anti-racism, such persistence can only mean one thing: the test is to blame. It is the First Step which, in the language of anti-racism, “disadvantages” underrepresented minorities, not a lesser degree of medical knowledge.

The First Step exam has one more point against it. The pressure to get good grades diverts minority students from what has become a main component of medical education: promoting anti-racism. A fourth-year Yale medical student describes how the First Step spectrum affected his priorities. In his first two years of medicine, the student did an “immersion”, he said, in a student committee focused on diversity, inclusion and social justice. The student had a podcast on health disparities. All of his political work was made possible by Yale’s pass/fail system, which meant he didn’t feel obligated to put education ahead of concern for diversity. So, as he says, Step One “showed its ugly head.” Getting a real grade on an exam could corroborate “whoever suspected I didn’t deserve a spot at Yale as a black med student,” worried.

The solution to such academic pressure was obvious: abolish the First Step grades. As of January 2020, Step One works on a pass/fail basis. The fourth-year Yale student can return to his diversity activism without worrying about what a graded exam might reveal. Whether future patients will like the focus he chose is another story.

All other measurements of academic dominance have a disparate impact on blacks and are therefore in the crosshairs.

In the third year of medicine, professors grade students by assessing their clinical knowledge, in what is known as the Student Performance Assessment of Medicine (known by the acronym in English MSPE). The assessment uses qualitative categories such as Outstanding, Excellent, Very Good and Good. White students at the University of Washington School of Medicine received higher grades on the MSPE than underrepresented minority students from 2010 The 2015, according to an analysis by 2015. The disparity there followed that of the First Step notes.

The parallel between the MSPE and the First Step may suggest that what is being measured in both cases is real. But the truth a priori holds that no gap between academic skills exists. Therefore, the researchers proposed a national study of medical scores to identify the real causes of this racial disparity. The conclusion is the aforementioned: bias on the part of the faculty. As a Harvard medical student said on the website Stat News: “biases materialize in assessments of students from marginalized contexts”.

A study of

on clinical performance scores anticipated this inescapable conclusion. Professors at Emory University, Massachusetts General Hospital and the University of California, San Francisco, among other institutions, analyzed the faculties’ assessments of medical residents on aspects such as medical knowledge and professionalism. By all ratings, black and Hispanic residents scored lower than whites and Asians. The researchers put forward three hypotheses: bias on the part of faculty assessment, effects of a non-inclusive learning environment, or structural inequalities in assessment. University of Pennsylvania professor of medicine Stanley Goldfarb tweeted a fourth possibility: “Is it possible that [estudantes minoritários] are less good at residency?”

Goldfarb violated the truth a priori . The punishment was immediate. Predictable tweets called him, inter alia, possibly “the biggest human trash I’ve ever seen with my own eyes,” and Michael S. Parmacek, chair of the Department of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, sent an email to the entire faculty regarding Goldfarb’s “racist claims.” The statements evoked “deep pain and anger,” Parmacek wrote. Consequently, the faculty would put the “whole leadership team” at your disposal to “support you,” he said. Parmacek took the opportunity to reaffirm that doctors have to recognize “structural racism”.

On the same day, the Executive Vice President of the University of Pennsylvania Health System and Senior Vice President of Medical Education at the same university assured faculty, staff and students via email that Goldfarb was no longer an active faculty member, but rather an emeritus. Both officials affirmed the university’s efforts to “cultivate an anti-racist curriculum” and promote “inclusive excellence.”

despite allegations of racism made by the faculty, disparities in academic performance are the predictable result of admissions preferences. In 2020, the average score of white applicants in the Medical School Admission Test (MCAT, in English) was in the 71th percentile, meaning it was equal to or better than 50% of all average grades. The average grade of black applicants was in the 35 th percentile — a whole standard deviation below the white mean. The MCAT has already been redesigned to try to reduce this gap; a quarter of the questions now focus on social issues and psychology.

Still, the gap persists. So medical schools use widely varying standards to admit white and black applicants. From 1953 to [gatekeepers] , only 8% of white college students with a final average and below-average MCAT won a place in a medical school; and less than 6% of eastern college students with these qualifications have achieved them, according to an analysis by economist Mark Perry. Medical schools saw these low grades only as disqualifying — except when presented by blacks and Hispanics. More of 56% of college students with a final average and MCAT below average and 16% of Hispanic students with these grades were admitted, making a black student in this range seven times more likely than an equal white classmate to be admitted to a medical school and more than nine times more likely than an equal Asian student. [Como “média final”, traduzo “GPA”, ou Grade Point Average. (N. t.)]

Such disparate admission fees apply across any combination and MCAT and final grade levels . Contrary to the AMA’s Strategic Organizational Plan to Include Racial Justice and Promote Equity in Health, blacks are not being “excluded” from medical training; are being catapulted ahead of their less valued white and Oriental peers.

Although mediocre MCAT scores eliminate few black students, some activists want to do away with the exam altogether. Admitting less qualified students to doctoral programs in the biological sciences will lower the caliber of future researchers and delay scientific advances. But the risk is highest in medical training, where insufficient knowledge can risk lives here and now. However, some medical schools offer early admissions to 2nd and 3rd grade high school students with no MCAT requirement, hoping to enroll students with, in the words of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, a “strong appreciation of human rights and justice.” Social”. The University of Pennsylvania Medical School guarantees admission of black students who score only 1300 on the SAT, maintain a final average of 3.6 in high school and complete two summers in the school’s boarding school. The school waives the MCAT requirement for these black students; University of Pennsylvania non-preferred medical students score in the top 1% of all MCAT scores. [O nosso ENEM é a cópia do SAT deles. (N. t.)]

According to racialist advocates, differences in MCAT scores must result from bias of the test itself. Yet the MCAT, like all standardized tests now under attack, is constantly purged of questions that might presume forms of knowledge peculiar to a class or race. This “cultural bias” spiel has been an irrelevance for decades; still, it maintains its importance with the anti-test movement.

The MCAT questions with the greatest racial variations in correct answers are removed. External bias examiners, with adequate diversity, check the MCAT internal reviewers’ checks. If, despite this onslaught of reviews, bias still held out on the MCAT, the test would err downwards in predicting medical school performance on the performance of minority students. In fact, they miss the mark upwards: Black medical students do worse than the MCAT predicts, as measured by First Step grades and graduation rates. (This upward error characterizes the SAT as well.) However, we expect an increasing number of medical schools to drop out of the MCAT in hopes of wiping out the test altogether and thus eliminating a persistent source of objective data about the specter of the skills gap. academics.

Meanwhile, medical professors need to be re-educated to ensure that their grades and hiring practices do not give more evidence of said ghost. Colleges are routinely subjected to workshops to combat their own racism.

As of May 3, 2022, the Senior Advisor to the NIH Executive Director for Scientific Workforce Diversity gave a seminar at the University of Pennsylvania medical school entitled: “Me, bias? Recognize and block bias.” Senior Advisor Charlene Le Fauve’s mandate at the NIH is to “promote diversity, inclusion, and equity in biomedical research through evidence-based approaches.” Yet the presentation itself relied too heavily on a supposed measurement of bias that the evidence discredited: the Implicit Association Test (IAT). The creators of the IAT themselves have recognized that it lacks validity and reliability as a psychometric tool.

An increasing time of time of college is spent on these anti-racism activities. In 16 of May 2020, the Manager of the Anti-Racism Program at the David Geffen School of Medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles, hosted the presentation by the Director of Equity Strategy and Education Programs at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai entitled: “Anti-Racist Transformation in Medical Education”. The Mount Sinai Dean of Medical Education and a medical student joined the Director of Mount Sinai Equity Strategy and Education Programs for the presentation in Los Angeles, as spreading the message of diversity apparently takes precedence over academic obligations in New York.

Grand rounds is a centuries-old tradition for passing on the latest medical news [consiste em apresentar os problemas médicos e o tratamento de um determinado paciente a um público formado por médicos, residentes e estudantes de medicina N.d.T]. (The great Thomas Eakins painting of 480 , The Agnew Clinic, portrays a

grand rounds at the University of Pennsylvania.)


Rounds are now a circuit for anti-racist education. In 15 of May 2020, the Vice Chair of Diversity and Inclusion in the Department of Medicine at the University of Pittsburgh did a grand rounds at the Cleveland Clinic on the subject: “In the absence of equity: a look to the future.” Then the audience should describe the “exclusion from a historical context” and the effects of the “hierarchy on health outcomes”; attendance was worth academic credit towards the continuing education obligations of physicians.

The medical school curriculum itself needs to change to close the gap between the academic performance of whites and Asians, on the one hand, and of blacks and Hispanics, on the other. Doing this involves replacing courses in pure science with training in militancy worth academic credit. More than half of the main ones 31 medical schools surveyed by the Legal Insurrection Foundation requested courses on systemic racism. The number will increase after new AAMC guidelines on what students and medical schools should know transform the curriculum further.

According to the AAMC, newly minted physicians must exhibit “knowledge of the intersectionality of multiple patient identities and how each identity can be presented in multiple and multiple forms of oppression or privilege related to clinical decisions and practices.” Colleges are responsible for teaching how to engage with “systems of power, privilege and oppression” in order to “break through oppressive practices.” Failure to comply with these requirements may put the school’s credit status at risk, and lead to its closure.

Mandatory instruction in such politicized concepts will help diversify faculty and administration — for whoever better to teach about oppression than a person of color? (Part of the appeal of diversity training and bureaucracy, whether in academia or the corporate world, lies in creating new jobs dedicated to increasing diversity that can be filled without great sacrifice of meritocratic standards.)

But being indoctrinated in “intersectionality” does nothing to enhance a student’s clinical knowledge. Every moment spent regurgitating social justice jargon is time spent not learning how to keep someone alive whose body was crushed in a car accident. Advocates of anti-racism training never explain how fluency in intersectional criticism improves the interpretation of an MRI or the proper prescription of medications.

All the moments spent regurgitating justice jargon Social time is time spent not learning how to keep someone alive whose body was crushed in a car accident.

The academic skills gap, confirmed in every measure of knowledge before and during medical school, does not close during medical training, despite the palliative remedy. Even so, the low representation of blacks through the medical profession is only attributed to racism on the part of the guardians [gatekeepers] of the profession.

Nature accused itself of denying a “space and a platform” for black researchers, without naming any of those researchers who have been discriminated against, nor any editor who has made the discrimination. In April 2020, the Institute for Scientific Information denounced the fact that the proportion of black authors in medical research did not match the US census of the general population. Black representation did not increase between 1300 and 2015, lamented the institute. If white supremacy bequeaths this lack of progress, it is a mystery why the proportion of Oriental researchers in the last decade has increased faster than population changes among Orientals.

Despite the persistent gap between academic skills, the sudden hiring of minorities is on the way. Many medical schools require that faculty search committees contain a quota of minority members, that they be overseen by a diversity bureaucrat, and that they interview a specified number of minority candidates. No one would need to be very shrewd to predict the outcome. In recent years, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, Cleveland Clinic Taussig Cancer Center, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, University of Chicago Cancer Center, University of Pittsburgh Division of Medical Oncology, Massey Cancer Center at Virginia Commonwealth University, the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, and UCLA’s Department of Medicine have hired black leaders.

)These candidates may have been the most qualified, but it is inevitable that specific calls for diversity in medical management will tarnish such selections. In at least one case, the runner-up had a research and leadership record that far surpassed the winning candidate. But it lacked the favored demographic characteristic.

It is important to know who is in charge of research projects and medical schools . Elite scientists are able to identify the most promising directions of study and organize the most productive research teams. But the pressure for diversity is causing some scientists to give up competing. When the UCLA Department of Medicine chair became vacant, some qualified faculty members did not even present their names because they did not think they could be taken into account, according to an observer.

The students, when they decide to try a place in medicine, can also read the sign. A doctor reports that his best lab technician in 30 years was a recent Yale graduate with a BA in molecular biology and biochemistry. The former student had intellectual involvement and experience in cloning. His final GPA and MCAT were both high. The doctor recommended him to the dean of Northwestern’s medical school (where he worked), but the student did not go beyond the interview. In fact, this “white and straight Catholic”, in the words of the former employer, was only admitted to a single medical school.

These stories are common. A UCLA doctor reports that the smartest undergraduates in the science lab comment, “Now that I know what’s going on in medicine, I’m going to do another thing.”

Funding that once went to scientific research is now redirected to cultivating diversity. The NIH and the National Science Foundation are diverting billions of taxpayer dollars away from trying to cure Alzheimer’s and lymphoma and allocating them to the fight against white privilege and cis-heteronormativity.Private research support is following suit. Howard Hughes Medical Institute is one of the largest and arguably the most prestigious philanthropic funders of basic science. Aviation entrepreneur Howard Hughes created the institute in 1953 to get to the “genesis of life itself.” Diversity in medical research is now at the top of concern of HHMI. In May 2020, it announced a $1.5 billion effort to cultivate scientists committed to having a “happy and diverse laboratory where minority scientists thrive in and persist”, in the words of the vice-presidency of the institute. Diversity and inclusion “experts” will evaluate early-career scientists based on their plans to have “happy and diverse” labs. Applicants with the most persuasive “happy lab” plans will receive one of the new Freeman Hrabowski grants. The fellowships would cover the salary of the receiving university for ten years and would bring the equivalent of two or three NIH fellowships a year to its academic department. If the applicant’s “happy lab” plan doesn’t excite diversity evaluators, however, that application will be shelved, no matter how promising the research.

The HHMI program and others like it amplify the message that doing basic science, if you are white or oriental, is not valued by establishment scientific. It is not possible to calculate how many scientific discoveries will be lost thanks to these signals.

Leaders of medical schools, professional organizations and Today’s scientific journals reject the preceding criticism. Teaching concepts of racial justice and militancy is not a departure from the core competencies and obligations of medicine, they argue; is the highest fulfillment of those obligations. Racial disparities in health, they would say, are the greatest medical challenge of our time, and are a social rather than a scientific problem. If blacks have a higher rate of death and disease, it is because of the systemic racism that confronts them at every turn. Changing the demographics of the medical profession is essential to eliminating the sometimes lethal racism that black patients encounter in healthcare. Changing the profession’s awareness of its own biases is also key to achieving medical equity. And changing the orientation of medical research—from basic science to racial theory—simply shifts medicine to where it can be most effective.

And here we come to the second truth a priori : the disparities of health are the result of systemic racism; any other explanation is taboo and will be punished without mercy.


from February 2015, Ed Livingston, Deputy Editor of Clinical Reviews and Education at Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), recorded a

podcast with Mitch Katz, President of New York City Health and Hospitals, called: “Structural Racism for Physicians: What Is It?”. Livingston, a surgeon at UCLA, asked Katz to define structural racism. Katz gave examples such as running diesel trucks in poor areas and disparities in access to elite medical care. Livingston responded that Katz described a “very real” problem: poor areas with poor quality of life and few opportunities, where most residents are black or Hispanic. Livingston agreed on the urgency of making sure that all people “have an equal opportunity to succeed.” His only disagreement was the current emphasis on “racism” that “may be hurting” the cause of racial equality, he explained. Livingston was taught to decry discrimination and yet he was told he was racist. The focus, as Livingston realized, should be on socioeconomic disparities, not supposed racial mood.

After the podcast became an instant symbol of white supremacy, JAMA caused it to disappear from the internet. JAMA made Livingston himself disappear. (Later, at his home, UCLA Medical School, he faced a spectacular trial brought by his colleagues.) JAMA’s editor-in-chief Howard Bauchner, a professor of pediatrics and public health at Boston University, apparently felt that he could be next in line for sticking and start posting a series of apologies. The podcast deleted, declared Bauchner, was “inaccurate, offensive, harmful and inconsistent with the of JAMA.” JAMA would “institute change and prevent such failures from happening again” — a “failure” being defined as a deviation from racial justice orthodoxy. Bauchner knelt further in an official statement: “I apologize once again for the damage caused by this podcastand the tweet about the podcast.” (JAMA promoted the podcast with a tweet asking, “No doctor is racist, so how can there be structural racism in healthcare?”) As a precaution, Bauchner also published a letter dated March 4, 2021 apologizing for the “damage” caused by the tweet and the podcast and expressing its “commitment” to denouncing “injustice, inequality and racism in medicine”.

O JAMA it was once the premier forum for physicians and other scientists to present research to their peers. Now JAMA watchers see a fundamental component of the scientific method — the debate — as off-limits, at least as far as the diversity agenda is concerned. Livingston’s disagreement with Katz and the concept of “structural racism” was about language, not substance. Yet because Livingston suggested taking “racism” out of the phrase “structural racism” and focusing on equal opportunity, he, in Bauchner’s widely shared view, offended blacks and violated professional standards of journalism. No disagreement is tolerated.

Meanwhile, Bauchner’s efforts to distance himself from “offensive” dialogue were not giving results. Shamefully, an AMA committee gave him administrative leave, lacking an “independent investigation”—as if there was a backstory on what, clearly, Livingston’s personal views were. By June of 2021, Bauchner was also gone, although he, as he remarked sadly, “I didn’t write, I didn’t even see the tweet, I didn’t even create the podcast .”

The chance that the AMA would not appoint an intersectional editor-in-chief to replace the helpless Bauchner was zero. But just in case, the AMA appointed a black epidemiologist who specializes in racial disparities to lead the research and made a search committee with diverse members. The new editor, Kirsten Bibbins-Domingo, is a “health equity researcher”—another overdetermined fact, given the careers of many black physicians.

Bibbins-Domingo has already announced its determination to bring in “new voices” to ensure that the JAMA family of journals regularly “name” structural racism as the cause of health inequalities. Will these new voices lead to more accurate clinical science? It doesn’t matter: basic science is, at best, irrelevant to structural racism, and, at worst, its accomplice.

Livingston’s challenge to the idea that health disparities are caused by racism was

sui generis

among medical journalists. The dominance of this idea among medical publishers is absolute, but in another way. The New England Journal of Medicine, another once august institution now wallowing in racial politics, features an uninterrupted wellspring of articles on subjects such as “The Pathology of Racism”, “Towards an Anti-Racist Medical Alliance” and “How Structural Racism Works: Racist Policies at the Root of Racial Inequalities in US Healthcare.”

Entire issues of scientific journals have been devoted to racism. Scientific American has published a “Special Collector’s Edition” on “The Science of Overcoming Racism ” in the summer of 2021. The issue was dominated by praise for the IAT, denunciations against the police, and contempt for any suggestion that the patient has agency over himself. (Prescribing weight loss to black women, for example, is a “racist” way to fight obesity, wrote a sociology professor and nutritionist.) A special edition of )Science October

addressed “Criminal Injustice” and “Mass Incarceration”. The issue opened with an editorial by a professor of social work who claimed that US crime is “comparable to that of many Western industrial nations.” This statement is fantasy as the fact is that the US firearm murder rate is 15, 5 times higher than the average for other high-income countries, and almost 15 times greater among the youth of The 24 years old.

Like the AMA’s Strategic Organizational Plan to Include Racial Justice and Promote Health Equity, many of these anti-racist articles are a rhetorical formula of academic victimhood studies, supplemented by the personal narratives that early characterized critical racial theory in law schools. Others, however, have tried to quantify the racism that supposedly produces higher rates of illness and mortality among blacks. These efforts, made through regression analysis, do not capture the personal behaviors that affect the course of the illness, such as following the doctor’s orders, taking the right medication, and attending routine appointments. In some cases, regression analysis does not explain the differences in illness suffered by black and white patients at baseline.

Nevertheless, the second truth a proiri — that health disparities are a necessary result of the Systemic racism — devalued basic science saddled medical research with futile bureaucracy. The fight against cancer was especially affected. White and Oriental oncologists are assumed to be part of the problem of black cancer mortality rather than part of the solution, and they are beyond repair. According to the NIH, the leadership of cancer labs should match local demographics, wherever there is a higher percentage of minorities.

Grant applications for cancer research must now specify who, among the lab staff, will enforce diversity commands, and how the lab plans to recruit underrepresented researchers and advance their careers. As for the Howard Hughes Medical Institute Freeman Hrabowski Fellowships, an insufficiently robust diversity plan will lead to rejection of the proposal, regardless of its scientific merit. Discussions about how to supercharge the diversity section of the scholarship have become more important than discussions about tumor biology, according to one doctor. “It is not easy to summarize how his work on cell signaling in nematodes applies to the minorities who live today in the vicinity of the laboratory”, says the researcher. The mental energy expended on this rub is unspent energy c With science, he laments, since “thinking is always a zero-sum game”.

But the storm of laboratory with diversity has just begun. The NIH insists that drug trial participants also have to match local or national demographics. If the cancer center is in an area with few minorities, the lab will have to come up with a plan to recruit them for its study anyway, regardless of location and availability. Genentech, creator of life-saving cancer drugs, held a national conference call with oncologists in April to discuss the research itinerary. According to one participant, half the call was spent on the problem of reaching multiple test subjects. Genentech admitted to being out of ideas.

There is no evidence that racist researchers are excluding minorities from drug testing with medical or non-medical basis. Barriers to diversity in these tests include a high incidence, among blacks, of eliminatory comorbidities, high levels of personal disorganization and suspicion against the medical profession — suspicion that the profession itself is increasing, with its chant of racism spread to the four winds.

In May , a physician lost her NIH funding for a drug trial because the population tested did not contain enough blacks. The drug analyzed was for a type of cancer that black people rarely get. There were almost no black patients with this disease to enter the trials. Better, therefore, to end the development of a therapy that could primarily help white cancer patients than to conduct a trial without white participants.

The requirement for racial proportionality in drug testing is jaw-dropping, as diversity advocates insist that race is a social construct, with no biological reality. To suggest that genetic differences exist between racial groups will earn the label racist. The Strategic Organizational Plan to Include Racial Justice and Foster Health Equity rejects “discredited racist ideas concerning relative biological differences between different racial groups.” If race doesn’t exist, according to the official truth now, then the composition of clinical trials shouldn’t matter.

)Proponents of the systemic racism hypothesis are making a big gamble that could have lethal consequences. In keeping with the idea that racism causes lethal racial disparities, they are changing the direction of medical research, the makeup of the medical school, the curriculum of medical schools, the criteria for hiring researchers and publishing research, and the standards for evaluating professional excellence. They are replacing training in political militancy with training in basic science. They are taking doctors out of the classroom, clinic and laboratories, and parking them in anti-racist lectures. Their preferential policies discourage individuals from pariah groups from studying medicine, regardless of their scientific potential. They take billions of dollars from pathopsychology research to produce treatises on microaggression.

Proponents of this shift insist that it is essential to improve the health of minorities. But what if they’re wrong? If individual behavior, pathogens that disproportionately infect some groups, and other genetic predispositions are found to have a stronger influence on health than supposed structural racism, then this reorientation in medical design will have impeded progress that helps all racial groups. . Obstetricians working in inner-city hospitals report that black mothers have higher rates of complications during pregnancy and childbirth because of their higher rates of morbid obesity, hypertension, and inattention to prenatal care. Sending these doctors to diversity reeducation will not improve birth outcomes. However, this will divert attention from solutions that could improve the outcome, such as: offering help getting to appointments and taking the right medication or encouraging exercise and weight loss. Even so, we hear that efforts aimed at behavioral change are racist and convincing patients that they have power over their health is blaming the victim.

High Covid mortality rates among black people are the latest favorite proof of medical racism, amplified by the documentary The Color of Care, in 2022, by Oprah Winfrey and the Smithsonian Channel. However, federal and state health officials prioritized minorities in vaccination and immunotherapy campaigns, and punished the highest-risk group — the elderly — simply because that group is disproportionately white. Such are not the actions of white supremacists. The most likely causes of the disparities in Covid outcomes are hesitancy in vaccination and obesity rates. When the chant of medical racism intensifies vaccine resistance among blacks, the gap between mortalities will confirm the hypothesis of racism, in a vicious circle.

Medical science has been one of the greatest engines of human progress, freeing millions of men from crippling disease and premature death. It also has its fair share of dead ends and misconceptions. Science goes astray when politics becomes prevalent, as in the denial of plant genetics and natural selection under Stalin. The very true story of structural racism in the US, a story we struggle to remedy, has resulted in segregated hospitals and cruel disparities in treatment. This past took a long time to go away, but luckily it is behind us.

The scientific method is a natural correction for such errors fatal. Now, tragically, when it comes to the claim that racism is defining the medical profession and is the source of health disparities, dissenting opinions have been deemed illegitimate and grounds for banishment. The separation of politics and science is no longer seen as a source of empirical strength; rather, it is a racist illusion that risks “reinforcing existing power structures”, according to the editor of Health Affairs[consiste em apresentar os problemas médicos e o tratamento de um determinado paciente a um público formado por médicos, residentes e estudantes de medicina N.d.T] .

The guardians of science have turned against science.

Heather Mac Donald is Thomas W. Smith Fellow of the Manhattan Institute, contributing editor to the City Journal and author of ‘The Diversity Delusion: How Race and Gender Pandering Corrupt the University and Undermine Our Culture'[A Ilusão da Diversidade: Como Raça e Gênero Corrompem a Universidade e Minam Nossa Cultura em tradução livre].

©2022 City Journal. Published with permission. Original in English.09152811
Back to top button