nadel@aerospace.aero.org (Miriam H. Nadel) (08/16/89)
First off, for those wondering - yes this group is alive but Ambar and I cannot send out articles unless we get them from you. I can't speak for anyone else, but I've been way too busy to generate much myself and I'm trying to keep people from feeling that I (or any of the other moderators) "own" the group. Now what I really wanted to bring up has to do with a couple of things which are very big issues in the world today. I received a flyer concerning AIDS and lesbians and I think some of the information on it is well worth passing along. There have been instances of woman to woman transmission of HIV but statistics are not well known because there is no recording category for lesbian transmission of HIV. The percentage of women with AIDS in the "unknown means of transmission" category is much higher than the percentage of men with AIDS who fall into that category. Women's organizations are 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. 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. 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.) Comments? Miriam Nadel
bevans@jarthur.Claremont.EDU (Brian Evans) (08/29/89)
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