The amount of dislikes here is disgusting. These are legitimate medical concerns.

This talk has nothing to do with feminism. It's a large step in the future of medicine which is personalized health care. Excellent talk. Very eye opening.

For all the people who are dislking this because it's "just a feminist rant" obviously haven't watched till the end because clearly this is about personalized healthcare for everyone. She is focusing on women because they are the ones which have been lumped in with men. She's not suggesting we take away men's research, only add women't research.

14:34 "This is not just about improving medical care for women, this is about personalised, individualized healthcare for everyone" Before anyone on either side of the gender debate thinks this is a charged video and blames men/women for some bullshit, watch it. It's not supporting a feminist agenda, it's not supporting an anti-feminist agenda. It's simply pointing out that we don't test our drugs thoroughly enough.

I started to watch this video being skeptic about how medicine could be harmful for women. But the points she made in the talk where so convincing that I don't understand why anyone who took the time to listen to her would disagree.

It's funny how the definition "Women are not just men with boobs and tubes" applies only to circumstances where women have everything to gain and nothing to lose.

I've actually seen old (as in a few decades old) medical textbooks which teach that women's complaints are mainly "hysterical" and that menstrual pains and menopause symptoms are imaginary. There is still some of that underlying attitude in some medical professionals. That's beside the facts these speaker is talking about - that most medical studies were done on men and the assumption that women will have the same result is detrimental.

She makes a very valid point... Why the dislikes?

So whenever somebody on TED says that men and women are equal, all the redditors start spamming the comments and disliking the video. Here's a woman that says there are important differences between men and women, and the trolls spam and downvote anyway! It's almost like you guys legit hate women or something

Took us till the 21st century to realize that women are different from men. Gee imagine that.

As a woman in medical school this talk really resonated with me, especially because I too am interested in emergency medicine. Before listening, I had no idea that there is little representation of women in drug studies and research done on physiological differences between men and women. I had never thought about the fact that men do not have the same processes going on compared to women such as hormone fluctuations, menstrual cycles, etc and how that could alter drug metabolism as Dr. McGregor mentioned. We are taught in school the innerworkings of the human body and very rarely do we discuss the differences between men and women except for reproductive organs which Dr. McGregor pointed out as well. This lack of representation calls into question many of the ethical tenets that doctors are taught to abide by when practicing. First, is the most obvious to me which is beneficence or making sure that your patient receives the best care possible based on the studies that have been done that we base our medical decisions on. Now knowing that this evidence we are using is extremely skewed towards the male population makes it incomplete and biased resulting in women receiving suboptimal care. Another ethical principle that is called into question is justice, which requires healthcare providers to provide care fairly and equitably to all patients. Since women make up half of the population, treating them with medications that have not been adequately tested for them and the risks that come along with them is violating their justice. Physicians are obligated to get informed consent from all of their patients for treatment and that includes providing them all of the information about their treatments including risks and side effects. If there is not accurate information about these risks for women then the consent physicians are getting cannot be labeled as “adequately informed” and therefore is a violation of the patient’s autonomy in their medical decision making. The best way to address these medical shortcomings would be to increase the presence of women in medication testing studies as well as more research to be done about the physiological differences between men and women in all aspects, not just the reproductive systems. Additionally, drug companies and regulatory bodies need to be more transparent with their research and any side effects they found in women versus men. These are just a couple changes that could be made to bring more equality to the medical treatment of women and allow physicians to make better informed decisions about the best treatment for their patients in general. Overall, I learned a lot from this talk and it gave me some things to consider as I pursue a future in the medical field and how to best treat and care for my patients.

More precision in Medical Science; why are people opposed to this?

"We thought there were no differences between men and women" That's what forced equality does to ya.

Wow this is a really good point and issue to raise, I never thought of this.

oh my god a scientist who actually admits that women are substantially different than men in body functions. victory for people who actually care about facts and realitu

Why are there so many dislikes? I mean this is one of the most mind-opening TED talk I've ever seen, and something I've never even thought of, like at all!

She really pointed out aspects I haven’t thought about before. I always wondered why some diseases are more prevalent in men than women or vice versa, so why medications are created or treated differently

Thumbs up if you had diarrhea at least once in your life!

I feel that when I was in the hospital suffering from a migraine that indeed I was given a drug that is not commonly used. The doctor even told me this! As a female i feel like i can relate to this video.I was given a medication that sent me into a reaction that was probably the worst of my life. I was restless beyond anything that I had ever experienced. This video showed many ethical situations.One in particular is that when the drugs are being made, the testers are not looking at the community as a whole. Everyone knows that the male body is a lot different than females and that our society has both male and females in it. It baffles me that when making these drugs, they only looked out for the males in this community. Also what about beneficence? This states that anyone in the medical field EVEN the ones making these drugs and testing them are supposed to look out for others in that it benefits them. By testing mainly males, I don't see how this is looking out for the benefit of females. Obviously changes are being made. I just had a first hand experience with this and I know it could have been prevented!!!

Very good! I hope there will be more research in the future.

This is a really good point

This is brilliant. Will probably enable me to seek the right help for my heart issues.

This also happened on Women and Alcohol. They still have more alcohol in the body than men even if both waited the same amount. Men and women are "build" differently and this is one fact we tends to overlooked.

an excellent and very factual approach that l personally experienced after a bypass operation when l was treated with the standard medicine that gave an averse affect and with persistent argument l got them to change the type of management to my specific case l am sure you are in the right track God bless you you could make the difference in many sick people and their recovery program management

I think what this doctor is saying is is important. Not least the point she makes about drugs remaining in the female system for longer than in males due to slower metabolism, and especially If you consider the build up of drugs within a system (like anti depressants and side effects, for example). Simply to draw an analogy, One Size Fits All clothing is simply preposterous, and we all know it. Shared to Google+.

I am grateful to this doctor. She opened many eyes.

love the talk

wow such an eye opener talk

We all go to doctors with trust and blind faith? No, many of us have had plenty of experience with doctors who are incompetent idiots, and a lot of people know that the pharmaceutical companies are willing to misrepresent their products to make a buck even if it's detrimental to patient's health. I'm sure the rest of the talk will be good, but I just had to pause the video to comment on that remark.

not sure why people disliked this. She isn't acting 3rd wave feminist at all. Very well put together talk!

I like the video for its subject matter, it's compelling and offers great information we otherwise wouldn't have known or considered. There is no need for a gender debate. This video is about getting PEOPLE the care they need and, last I checked, women were included in that category.

Thank you, thank you.

Dr. Alyson McGregor thank you! This TED talk was very informative, and I appreciate you advocating for half of our population and sharing the necessary information regarding female medicine. I did not know that 80% of drugs that are withdrawn from the market are due to the side effects on women. It makes sense that that is the case when you discussed how male models are the framework for medical research and that clinical trials are performed almost exclusively on men. That’s something that’s hard to wrap my mind around but having some knowledge of medical history it’s not totally shocking. Knowing that information now it’s kind of scary as someone going into medicine as this can result in myself prescribing medications to my female patients without a full understanding of their potential risks and benefits. The last thing I want to do it harm one of my patient’s, but with the lack of research in the female population I may not be aware of all the effects it could have. You brought up another great question and that is what are we missing? Men and women have different biological systems, which can affect how medications are metabolized and how they interact with the body. Men are mostly homogenous, while women aren’t as they have constant fluctuations of hormones coursing through their body which can impact the efficacy of a drug. Medical ethics stresses four pillars of practice. I want to focus on three of those: beneficence, non-maleficence, and justice. For those who may not know, beneficence is the duty of all medical providers to promote the course of action that they deem is in the best interests of the patient. Simply put, do good. Non-maleficence on the other hand is the duty to do no harm or allow harm to be caused to a patient through neglect. And Justice means that we as providers ensure no one is unfairly disadvantaged when it comes to access to healthcare and unfortunately, we failed half of the population by performing medical research almost exclusively on men. Beneficence and Non-Maleficence go hand and hand on this topic. Without the adequate research, navigating the best treatment options as well as the risks and benefits of such treatments could lead to the patient receiving suboptimal care, which can ultimately expose the patient to unnecessary risks. I’m sure we’ve made progress in medical research, but it is important that we advocate for research on women’s health as well as making sure that women are represented fairly in clinical trials and other medical research moving forward.

Thank you Dr. Alyson McGregor for bringing so much great insight into the deficiencies of our current medical model regarding female medicine. I especially enjoyed your comparison to pediatrics not being the study of small humans and women not being the study of men with “boobs and tubes.” In the recent years we have focused on autonomy of female medicine and rightfully so. I appreciate Dr. McGregor commenting on the medical ethics principles of justice and non-maleficence in her TED talk. I first encountered this lack of research in women while I was writing a research paper on gestational diabetes (GDM). It was while writing this paper I realized not only is there a significant lack of research, but there is a significant lack of ambition for research. For example, women that are pregnant are generally screened for GDM at 24-28 weeks gestation. This screening requires drinking this horrible tasting liquid with a specific amount of glucose. I asked myself why in the year 2019, was there not an alternative to drinking this horrible liquid and taking multiple blood draws for the diagnosis of GDM? I at the time only found one published article with an alternative and it involved eating a specific amount of jellybeans. This study found that jellybeans could be used as an alternative with no significant difference in sensitivity or specificity. This article was published in 1999. Since then, there have only been a handful of articles or research reinforcing the alternative to that horrible drink. We as a scientific community need to prioritize the study of women’s health and focus on implementing better alternatives to women’s health. I know many women who hate going to a physician because they have correlated it to painful procedures or with dismissal of their complaints. We are failing half of our population when we stay content with the status quo.

Those who gave this video a thumbs down did so based on the title and didn't watch the video. Brothers; you can be anti-feminist, just don't be a knee-jerk anti-feminist.

Maybe most medical specialties should be split in two, for male and female patients.

Anyone else immediately think of Flibanserin/Addyi? What a clusterfuck that thing is.

Good presentation. I wonder if such a distinction is also useful to make between people of different racial backgrounds.

I'm glad to hear in this talk taht men and women have diferences in their bodys. Finally true emerges.....

good informative👍👍💟💝💘💋

The title could easily mislead you to dislike this. Knowing the history of Ted.

As a medical student, I’m amazed at the progress that humanity has made in understanding the human body and various pathologies. Of course this has come from hundreds of years of extensive research and incredible discoveries. However, it is clear that many models for research are not perfect and that all patients are not the same. Which as pointed out here has significant affects on women and diagnostic and treatment strategies developed for the “average” patient. I liked the point that women have often been excluded from research studies. It’s likely due to various reasons (such as historical assumptions as was mentioned) but the results are the same. There’s a significant lack of understanding of the female body in various pathologies due to a lack of specific research. So it seems reasonable to look at many old studies and seek to replicate them but with females as subjects. Recently there has been additional emphasis on understanding female patients (as well as other populations that have been historically marginalized). For example, we are taught that myocardial infarctions often present differently in women than men (such as pain in both arms, the stomach, back, neck, jaw; also sometimes without chest discomfort). While there’s obviously progress to be made, clearly many in healthcare also see this need and it’s been good to see that some changes have been made in medical education.

Why are there so many dislikes? This video is talking about common sense.

Dr. McGregor scratches the surface of what personalized medical care is all about. With years or research and genetic diagnosing, the medical field has discovered that different diseases not only affect patients based on their susceptibilities, but also based on their race, ethnicity, age, and gender. It is interesting to hear how so many medical studies have been based on males and that these same treatments are used to treat females. On an ethical perspective, we are not only hiding the truth from our patients, but we are also not giving them the best treatment for them specifically. I consider this issue to violate the concept of justice, in which we ensure fairness and equitable treatment to all. By focusing on males and using this data to treat the rest of the population, we are only benefitting male recipients and harming everyone else, females in particular. This is an eye opening talk because it opens the door to discussions between providers and their patients about the research behind their treatment, but also begs the question of research in the transgender population. If we are truly striving to provide equitable and fair treatment to all, no matter their age, gender, or race, we need to begin widening our scope of practice to identify specific treatments for each specific pocket of people in our society.

@thewallofsilence Even the FDA acknowledges (on their very website) that historically the vast majority of trials were conducted not just on males but white males. The inclusion of others in clinical trials is relatively new.

It’s amazing to me how much medical curriculum and ethical guidelines change every year. Understanding differences between men and women is critical in the development of effective treatments for both sexes. By recognizing and addressing these differences, doctors and researchers can improve outcomes for patients and ensure that everyone receives the best possible care. I’d think that the basic biological differences between men and women would be considered more often in drug development, disease treatment, and in medical education. I’m surprised to hear that these differences are still an afterthought in many circumstances. This doesn’t apply just to the differences between the sexes, either. My school over the last two years has emphasized the importance of practicing medicine for people of different skin tones. Historically, textbooks and medical instruction for dermatological findings have used primarily light skin tones as model examples. However, these dermatological findings often look much different on a person with darker skin than on a person with lighter skin. This can lead to increased rates of misdiagnoses in patients with dark skin. In order to combat these hidden contributors of inequality in healthcare, it is imperative that education, development, treatment, etc. are done with the consideration of biological differences between males and females, as well as the genetic differences between ethnicities.

It's even harder right now that we are being forced the view that the differences between man and women are merely social constructs.

12:00 Well she should be proud that that's definitely happening, I have to give a report on this for college. i'm a nursing student but it's for a common plan class (medicine, obstetrics and kinesiology also have to take it)

"THERE IS NO SEXISM, NO NEED FOR FEMINISM, MEN AND WOMEN ARE TREATED EQUALLY" Yet a mass of men mindlessly dislike ANY Ted Talk with the word "women" on the title before listening to it.

Why the downvotes? We know that chemical balances in men and women can be significantly different. I learned about this in AP Biology. The example given in class was sleeping pills. Okay, I'm good, the example she gave was the same I learned about.

All these years and sadly nothing been done

She makes me uncomfortable with her long stressing pauses... but of course, she's right and I up-voted it.

Oooo is this actually a Tedx?

This was a fascinating talk and perspective on medical research methods. The importance of recognizing physiological differences between men and women in medical research cannot be overstated. For too long, women have been underrepresented in clinical trials, leading to a generalized lack of understanding of how certain drugs and treatments may affect women differently than men, and leading to improper dosing and avoidable side effects. From an ethical perspective, it is essential that medical research is conducted in a way that promotes fairness and justice for all individuals. This includes recognizing and addressing gender differences in research. By acknowledging and studying the physiological differences between men and women, we can develop more effective treatments for both sexes, and ultimately promote the well-being of all individuals. Moreover, it is crucial that medical research is conducted in a way that upholds the principle of beneficence, which refers to the duty to promote the well-being of others. This means ensuring that research is conducted in a way that minimizes harm and maximizes benefit for all individuals, regardless of gender. By taking into account gender differences in medical research, we can minimize the risk of harm to women and ensure that treatments are tailored to meet their unique needs. Furthermore, recognizing and addressing gender differences in medical research is consistent with the principle of non-maleficence, which refers to the duty to do no harm. By conducting research that takes into account the differences between men and women, we can minimize the risk of harm to both sexes and ensure that treatments are safe and effective for everyone. It is essential that medical research recognizes and addresses the physiological differences between men and women. Doing so supports the principles of fairness, justice, beneficence, and non-maleficence. By taking into account gender differences in research, we can develop more effective treatments for both sexes and promote the well-being of all individuals.

Downvotes, because god forbid we ever EVER admit that male and female are scientifically different on a cellular level. That's just politically incorrect.

Most medical research is on white people, this was not racism, but more than European countries fund more medical research than Asian or African or even American. It was also common for males because males did not get pregnant thereby removing the fear of high does being circulated in blood as a threat. However, as more of the world grows up and we have more data, it indeed is wise to test on both. As for rats since females are used for breeding, and experience hormonal cycles they use males. Since studies are on male rats, it is safer for a scientist to make it on to male humans and if previous studies of say drug named AB is on males, for a new drug AC it is for scientists safer to test in males as well. Academia rewards those with positive results and due to higher tolerance of pain, previous studies on men and less complaints in general, it is economically and more rewarding in career to work on males. Is it fair? Not really, but one must also see what lead to this bias and how forces of economics force scientists to take a short cut.

Dr. McGregor should be commended for bringing up an issue that has been around for decades. However, we’re only now seeing its negative impacts on women. I agree that many of the symptoms of diseases we hear about, like her example of a heart attack, are typically seen in men. However, I would like to propose that we are all atypical. I’m a second-year medical student; we learn that patients rarely present as a typical case for anything, and no two patients with the same disease will present the same way. As Dr. McGregor mentioned at the end of her talk, we are all different. We all have different hormone levels, ideas, and life experiences that shape who we are, so this begs the question of whether we should focus on individualized medicine. Individualized medicine sounds great and is the perfect solution; however, we live in a capitalist society. Who determines which patients receive treatment and those which do not? Not everyone can afford individualized medicine, which infringes on the ethical dilemma of nonmaleficence for physicians not to cause pain or suffering. Here’s a scenario to consider, a doctor prescribes a medication to a female patient as they would to a male patient to treat her headaches, knowing full well it will only partially relieve her pain. However, if she were to get genetic testing and the doctor could give her individualized treatment, the patient would be better off. However, the patient can’t afford that kind of treatment, would the physician be in the wrong for prescribing a medication that leaves the patient in pain? In my opinion, no, they are not in the wrong even though it seems they are violating the nonmaleficence ethical principle. It is not their intent to leave the patient suffering as the doctor is doing everything they can within the means of the patient.

Dr. Alyson McGregor brings up an excellent point in her TEDMED talk about women’s health and how nationally rooted paternalism has led to detrimental health consequences for women. From an ethical standpoint it is clear to see that the FDA has not taken every serious measure in clinical trials and drug development to, “do no harm” the principle of non-maleficence. Though drugs take on average 15-20 years to develop, it is astonishing to ponder that a majority of drugs are not properly trialed on male and female species equally, thus, pointing out a violation of another principle of justice. Harm and benefit analysis should be equally assessed in both males and females- evenly distributing the risks and information of side effects for an entire population. It is completely unethical that women would die in motor vehicle accidents than men because their dosages were not properly assessed in clinical trials or accounted for. This type of outcome could have been prevented and the FDA should take immediate action for drugs on the market currently and those in trial to be reassessed for proper dosage and investigation into side effects on all persons. There must be accountability and responsibility to prevent further harm to be done. I believe that Dr. McGregor had a great approach to the problem, by getting all parties involved will make sure that justice is preserved. By telling patients that they have the opportunity and should be encouraged to ask if a treatment is appropriate for me, is a powerful example of autonomy that a patient possesses. Real reform will take healthcare leaders, all medical staff, patients, and the government as well, because this is a pressing issue in that it is half the nation.

“As Dr. McGregor explained, historically, women have been excluded from medical research due to concerns about their reproductive capabilities and potential harm to fetuses. However, this exclusion has meant that there is a lack of data on how medications and treatments affect women, resulting in the prescription of drugs that may not be safe or effective for women. Although this initial exclusion from research was done out of the ethical principle of Nonmaleficence, it has led to immense harm to women. Sometimes the intention to not cause harm produces unintended consequences in the future. This is one reason I think it is important to try to consider what is going cause the least amount of harm for someone not only right now but in the future as well. I would argue, that not including women, or other minorities, in medical research is unethical for several reasons. It perpetuates health disparities and can lead to unequal access to healthcare. Medical research is crucial for developing new treatments and therapies, and if certain groups are excluded from this research, they may not receive the same level of care as other groups. This can lead to disparities in healthcare outcomes and exacerbate existing health inequalities. In conclusion, not including women and minorities in medical studies is unethical because it perpetuates health disparities, can lead to a lack of understanding of how treatments affect different populations, and is discriminatory and a violation of their rights. It is important for medical research to be inclusive and representative of all populations to ensure that healthcare is equitable and just for all individuals. “

Women being left behind in medical research is a perfect example of the ethical dilemmas that can come up in medicine. Those researchers that Dr. McGregor referred to who decided to avoid doing research on females of childbearing years because of potential dangers to the fetus were actively keeping their oath to “do no harm.” They believed that it was better to isolate testing to males for the sake of safety. What’s interesting is how this relates to the principle of justice. Everyone deserves to be treated equally, obviously. I bet those early researchers believed that as well, but they decided that a different ethical principle should be the final determining factor on their selection of research subjects. It seems like what Dr. McGregor is getting at here is the principle of beneficence. Beneficence means that a physician (or researcher, for that matter) has the obligation to do whatever they can for the well-being of their patients, even if that means engaging in something that has the risk to “do [some] harm.” Surgery is an excellent example. You are technically doing some harm to a patient, but the ultimate goal is a higher level of overall health. This is awesome what Dr. McGregor is doing, and I look forward to utilizing the resources she is putting together. I want to be the best physician I can for all my future patients, not just the males. It’s nice to know that I will have the resources to accomplish that goal.

In this talk, Alyson McGregor discusses how the healthcare system often overlooks the differences between men and women in terms of diagnosis, treatment, and medication. The ethical principle that is being discussed is justice, as it is unfair for women to receive suboptimal care simply because they are not the "typical" patient that medical research has been done on. It is alarming to hear that women are more likely to suffer from adverse drug reactions due to the lack of female representation in clinical trials. This not only jeopardizes the health of women but also undermines the accuracy and effectiveness of medical treatments. McGregor highlights the need for more gender-inclusive research and greater awareness of the differences between men and women in medical practice. It is crucial for healthcare professionals to recognize the importance of tailored care that takes into account the unique needs and characteristics of each patient, regardless of their gender.

I think I'm the only one who likes the way she talks

I think we need to do more research into the differences of females and males. She brings up a good point, that so many of the clinical studies and trials for medications are done on groups of almost exclusively males. This process obviously neglects the biological differences between the sexes, and it has had real world consequences in drug reactions and side effects. To start, we must come from a place of recognition that there are physiological differences between the sexes. Without this basic groundwork, we can’t have a productive conversation about why there are different outcomes between the two. With this in mind, we can then explore how biology has made the sexes respond differently to the same treatments or medications. There are already well documented differences in disease presentation between the sexes, a heart attack presenting as more abdominal pain instead of the “classis” crushing chest pain that is more common in men. These differences in presentation are only a part of why it is different to study the differences between the sexes. Women are experiencing the adverse outcomes of medications more than men, because they are often not a part of the clinical trials that get the drugs to market. So, when a drug hits the market, it has often only been tested males, and there is not enough data showing what the adverse effects will be in women. We need to recognize there are differences, and then take steps to make medicine more personalized, and it seems like a good first step would be studying males and females.

The idea that women should advocate for themselves in healthcare is based in ethical principles that emphasize fairness, respect, and autonomy. The ethical ramifications of women needing to advocate for themselves in healthcare have highlighted the need for healthcare providers to pay more attention to women's health concerns and to address gender bias within the medical field. One of the key ethical principles in play in this issue is the principle of justice. This principle says that healthcare resources be distributed fairly and equitably, so that every patient can have equal access to high-quality medical care. When women are not listened to or taken seriously by healthcare providers, they may struggle to access appropriate medical care, which can have serious consequences for their health and wellbeing. This can create unfair and inequitable access to healthcare resources, which is a violation of the principle of justice. This can be exacerbated in places where women cannot access basic healthcare, which is true in places all over the world, even in the Western world. Another important ethical principle at stake in this issue is respect for patient autonomy. Autonomy refers to a patient's right to make decisions about their own healthcare, based on their own values, preferences, and beliefs. When healthcare providers dismiss women's symptoms or fail to provide appropriate care, they may be compromising their patients' autonomy. This can make it difficult for women to make informed decisions about their own health, and can prevent their ability to exercise their autonomy. Finally, the principle of beneficence is also relevant to this issue. Beneficence requires healthcare providers to act in the best interests of their patients, and to promote their patients health and wellbeing. When healthcare providers fail to listen to women's concerns or dismiss their symptoms, they may be failing in their duty to promote their patients' health and wellbeing. This can lead to negative health outcomes for women, which is a violation of the principle of beneficence. The ethics of women needing to advocate for themselves in healthcare highlight the need for healthcare providers to be more attentive to women's health concerns, and to address gender bias within the medical profession. This is going to require a commitment to fairness, respect, and autonomy, as well as a willingness to challenge stereotypes about women's health. It also emphasizes the importance of empowering women to take an active role in their own healthcare, and of promoting informed consent and patient autonomy. Ultimately, creating a healthcare system that provides high-quality, equitable care to all patients, regardless of their gender, is essential for promoting ethical and just healthcare practices.

love this video

great points. but the title is too click baity and actually takes away from the main message. may have misleading connotations to those who read titles without listening to the entire talk.

This warranted a fifteen minute TED talk? When the title captured 80% of the message...

I was about to comment that I was not surprised that this has so many down votes, as it has the word women in the title and people on KZfaq tend to be rather sexist. But then I realised how badly the talk was delivered.

This video is actually really interesting, I trust that her science is correct, and I'm actually unaware that they tested most "unisex" drugs only on one gender. But it makes sense where the current status quo stems from, considering the complication with a gender that has hormone fluctuation, it's like trying to do a science experiment on a boat in a storm vs still ground. This also opens up an interesting can of worms, on one hand she's getting hate for suggesting there needs to be more focus on women in the West, in 2015, which can infuriate a lot of people thanks to the work of gender politics pushers who have taken legitimate issues to infantilise to a point where even when serious issues are raised, people roll their eyes, it's like the boy who cried wolf, the variant cover version featuring the privileged girl who cried patriarchy. On the other hand, she's getting hate from the current wave feminists, how dare she suggests there are physiological differences between men and women other than reproductive organs, next thing you know she'll be saying women make difference choices due to those differences!

More women volunteering to participate in dangerous clinical studies? Go right ahead... On a serious note though, test base diversity is a real issue in many fields and not just medicine. Medical trials are outsourced to third world countries. Psychological studies are conducted largely on college students freely available in vast quantities. There's a lot of room to improve all over the place.

good point at the end. from a socialist pov, there are so many diversities between different races and people in general. simply dividing males and females are not nearly enough

Individualised healthcare is the future!

I think the downvotes are also because of her speech pattern. It's pretty odd.

Thank you for educating us, this is a.very sensitive topic but I think legally it may lead to severe anxiety and complications in between wife and husband their marital relation religion puja environmentand in turn on whole society.. Because in society everyone and everything is interlinked and one single bloodshed can lead to trauma in blood and body fluids waste management stress health disorders.. Being a mother is to conceive the future worlds destination and to prepare him by secure nutrients to face the world and make his own mark.. If we allow him to weakness right from womb I think there's severe error in the way we are perceiving things doing them and getting the results.. Children also face severe psychological stress and trauma after knowing this and may face lot of discrimination in their family.. So I think we can or should raise a voice against and warning by a statutory organization be given against misuse or overuse.. It is not to hurt to anyone s religious sentiments but to relieve few innocent people from unnecessary trauma due to existing laws that are working against their own self.. So I think we all can collectively stand against this and fight for true justice being liberation from evil and pollution..

Adverse side effects from pharmaceuticals in women due to a lack of the clinical testing process represents a significant dilemma in the healthcare industry. Historically women have not been well represented in clinical trials due to a wide variety of factors such as hormonal cycle swings, potential reproductive issues and other issues that could complicate the researchers’ outcomes. With these practices, this has led to a lack of data, safety and efficacy on many drugs for women. More than just an issue of medical ethics, this is also one of social justice. Women, especially of color have been subject to discrimination and biases of systemic nature in healthcare. This lack of clival testing on women perpetuates this bias and further exacerbates existing disparities in healthcare. Women have the right and deserve access to safe and effective healthcare. Moreover, these special needs should be tailored to their uniqueness that can only be achieved through equitable representation in clinical research. Pharma companies should prioritize this responsibility of safety and well-being of all individuals with the potential use of their products. This includes ensuring the trials are designed and conducted in a way that represents the diversity that exists within our population. Lastly, Physicians and researchers alike have the responsibility to consider potential risks and benefits for treatment of different population and to moreover covey those risks clearly and transparently to their patients.

Maybe the solution isn't designing better drugs, maybe its designing easier to maintain women. Just sayin...

So men and women aren't the same? How many years did it take scientists to figure this out?

Very interesting information, but its a fucking hassle to search it.

i love her voice lol, I forgot what she said...

We don't need more drugs that give us more side effects than what its proposed to be treating. How about we all just try to focus on prevention rather than treating a symptom. Most people are on a poor diet from lacking any alkaline foods, exercise to promote oxygen flow within the body, a overload of acidic foods and poisonous water being pumped from just about every city in America. we shouldnt personalize medicine down to every detail nor gender unless disease or injury (ect.) is gender based as long as we make it healthy for the body to begin with.

It would be pretty obvious if "every drugs" are tested by male testers only. Any drug reaching the hospital for final tests would be so far out of the way. Also, it would be insanely cost INEFFECTIVE if most drug companies tests their drugs with a "bias" test, they would spend millions investing in a drug, just to find out it has ridiculous side effects on females. Even basic salesman understand this kind of logic. If every drugs were tested by male testers only, I am pretty sure even the most powerful pharmaceutical companies won't be able to cover them all up. She does look very convincing though, and very attractive as well.

The fact she just kept repeating studies most often include only males is not true. Like it doesn't only include males as she says...although I do agree with everything else she said

Does anyone have sources about aspirin being dangerous to women?

How does an assumed intelligent audience give so many dislikes to this?

We need more talks like this period half of an ambient is a joke for me, a 12.5 on an empty stomach just makes my anxiety go down so it's easier to lay in bed. and my doctor never even talked to me that he cut it in half so I wondered if there was something wrong with me. Men and women aren't the same and neither are all women, and I'm stuck in this stupid box even though my body metabolizes stuff so much different. Hardly anything works for me, opioids really only have helped at a strong dose, like I never got used to it, and I barely felt a mood effect from opioids. Just takes the edge off.

wow everyone hates this............ that's not right. If there's a message to be given, let it be heard? Why are so many negative comments necessary about generalizing it into a "gender issue". The general public is strange.

I’m a male and can’t handle pharma meds

One thing that a lot of people don't know is that women actually have more inflammatory in our systems than men do. That is a huge reason why clinical trials need to include both men and women of an equal number.

Me: "Doctor, will these percocets I'm being precribed be specific to my gender?" Doc: *blank stare* "Get the f*** out my office"

It's because of the chronic neglect of the special needs of women in medicine, that in developed countries women only live 5 years longer on average than men.

Why all the downvotes?

앨리슨 맥그리거님 ( 여자에게도 최고의 의하서적이 필요하다) 잘 읽었습니다. 읽으며 너무나 공감이 많이 되었습니다. 감사합니다

One reason is more men volunteer or get paid to take part in trials of new medications.

Cool

the genders aren't so different that a separate area of study is needed. regardless women lead longer and healthier lives so its men that are not catered to. they die earlier of things women don't.

' Bikini Medicine ' , that's true :3 one of the best talks , thanks for sharing .

How does the transgender patient alter this dynamic. Do providers treat the gender or DNA of a patient and how much does hormone therapy change the cell DNA if at all? Do I dose my transgender male like the female he was born as or as the man I am trying to transition her into?

Sooo put these drugs back on the market for male use...

sigh, the men in the comments are really scared by women... I'm very sorry for you guys.

Started off strong, but the "Gender" problem seemed to be a issue against "women." I would have liked it to be both, and the "racial factor." If you ever see labs they'll tell you to base results in Latino or African Americans, this can be an issue as well. Just a thought.