‘Concerning’ lack of female-only medical trials in UK, say health experts

‘Concerning’ lack of female-only medical trials in UK, say health experts

 

Sadly, a constant in our chaotic world.

NIH guts its first and largest study centered on women
https://www.science.org/content/article/nih-cancels-its-first-and-largest-study-centered-women

For now there's an update that says it's probably back on track, but who knows, really?

 

Pregnant and breastfeeding women were especially under-represented – involved in just 1.1% and 0.6% of trials respectively.

And thank heavens for that. Since 90% of these trials will be on drugs that turn out to be useless why expose pregnant or breastfeeding women to them for goodness sake?

And why expose women, who, if they are fit to volunteer and in mid life, might be pregnant despite being pretty sure they are not.

To me this is wokery gone mad. You might as well say why aren't there more women in the army or in air-sea rescue? Maybe they are lucky to be allowed to opt out?

And what do the figures show? 96% of trials are open to men and 93% to women. Is that a shock hour misogynist scenario? Come off it.

 

There does seem to be a sizeable difference between male-only and female-only trials, which are presumably studying sex-dependent conditions.

Given the number of women who suffer with reproductive system problems—which are really common, and can be so hard hitting they affect the ability to work, parent, and socialise—it looks surprising.

 

Do we know that. Breast cancer trials may take both men and women because men do get breast cancer. Although female reproductive problem are common they may make up a small proportion of all the different sorts of diseases you can do trials on so may not make up a large number of trials (the number probably not having much to do with how common a problem is).

I don't think numbers like this should be used as political footballs. They mean absolutely nothing without a lot more detail. It is typical of the Guardian to pick up on stuff like this without the journalist having a clue what it is really about. I wouldn't be surprised if some of the male only trials were first in man volunteer studies where men are at lower risk because they won't be pregnant.

 

This makes sense when you consider that there are far more phase 1 and 2 trials than 3 and 4.

 

I took the figure from the report on the MHRA data in the OP, but it's not easy to know whether it's correct.

But we do know much more research needs to be done. GPs are still either reluctant or not competent to diagnose common conditions, which in turn means a devastating (and probably under appreciated) impact on lives and fertility.

 

You'd better not start me off on that one!!