Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!ginosko!usc!aero!bevans@jarthur.Claremont.EDU From: bevans@jarthur.Claremont.EDU (Brian Evans) Newsgroups: soc.feminism Subject: Re: Women and Medical Research Message-ID: <1732@jarthur.Claremont.EDU> Date: 29 Aug 89 00:20:48 GMT References: <56026@aerospace.AERO.ORG> Sender: nadel@aerospace.aero.org Reply-To: Brian Evans Organization: Society for the Preservation of E. coli Lines: 38 Approved: nadel@aerospace.aero.org Status: R In article <56026@aerospace.AERO.ORG> nadel@aero.UUCP (Miriam H. Nadel) writes: >also concerned that experimental drugs are not being tested on women. In the >specific cases of both AZT and Compound W, women were specifically excluded >from test trials because of fears that reproductive organs would be affected >by the drugs. However, when a drug is approved, it can be used on women, >without long term effects being known. First off, it's compound Q, not W (Compound W is for warts....ah...if only curing AIDS were that easy...) Second off, I think it's horrid that they'd test a drug only on one segment of the population and then approve it for everyone. >When I was reading this it struck me how much medical research in areas other >than contraception is biased toward men. The usual explanation is that >researchers don't want to "corrupt" data due to fluctuating hormonal status >(i.e. the menstrual cycle) but men *also* have hormonal cycles. Yes, men have hormonal cycles, but they tend to be much quicker than women. That is, the fluctuations occur on an hourly basis as opposed to a monthly. Too, there is usually only one hormone wafting its way through the veins of males whereas women have more than one. What this means to me is to have a separate test to make sure that the stuff is alright for women to take. > And, even if >hormones can be an influence, don't we need to know that so that results >can correctly be applied to women? (One example which comes to mind is the >protective effect of estrogen on the heart. Advice on cardiovascular health >which ignores this is, at best, naive.) I agree whole-heartedly. -- Brian Evans "It has been scientifically proven bevans@hmcvax.bitnet that scientists cause cancer in bevans@jarthur.claremont.edu laboratory rats." or !uunet!jarthur!bevans