It often does a disservice to marginalized groups and often merely furthers the careers of mediocre academics
This reminds me of the work Helen Pluckrose, James Lindsay, and Peter Boghossian did. They wrote a bunch of nonsensical academic papers with a woke tilt just to see if they could get them published. For example, they rewrote a portion of Mein Kampf through the lens of a gender studies "expert". Of course, they had no problem getting their stuff published...
The amount of money in Washington DC is sickening. They have no clue what it is to live at $60,000 a year, and yet they try to make policy which affects people at this income level. People not living in Washington DC actually can live quite well on $60,000 a year, as long as the government stops trying to help them. Especially, since most of the policies they pass are suggested by people who have financial interests in getting them passed. In medicine you need to follow the money anymore. Screening makes money. A lot of it.
Colonoscopies done routinely are not a good idea.
Prostate screenings done routinely are not a good idea.
Mammograms done routinely are not a good idea.
They seem to be sensible but when push comes to shove, in the aggregate, these screenings feed the Big Medicine beast. They cause tons of over-diagnosis and over-treatment and reduce lifespan and more importantly, reduce health span.
But we can look forward to more and more of these recommendations because they serve the industry.
Fryer has had things to say about Black deaths at the hands of police, too. And he embraced findings that surprised him. He's also looked closely at what works for schools.
I don't know how to completely rid our society of racial prejudice and discrimination. ATST the most serious problems with education, crime, health, socioeconomic status and lack of opportunity affect American born African Americans and to a lesser degree Latinos. Other brown and black people do well by those measures.
I wish there was a less pejorative term than 'woke'. Regardless, though well-intentioned, they may be doing more harm than good. Yet there is a readily identified segment of our society that fare poorly. I want to see them do better, whether it's a stern lecture (doubtful) or programs to effectively improve education or healthcare. It seems plausible to me that improving job opportunities, education and socioeconomic status might go a long way to improving health. More rigorous studies in academia could be a good start.
Pandemic school closures are almost certain to result in downstream health disparities. This fact seems to be of little interest by those who study this important subject.
Any chance of a link to the Roland Fryer talk?
This youtube episode from Freakonomics featuring Ronald Fryer is a must listen
“Why should Black and Hispanics be coerced into participation in a screening program that is itself unproven?”
I think it’s so white paternalistic saviors (and that ilk) can feel better about “doing good for the poor minorities.” That and political crap. The arrogance of that crowd astounds me.
I never dreamed as a younger person that I’d say any of the above, yet here I am.
Getting “more” of something is only worthwhile if that “something” is itself worthwhile.
“More useless stuff” should not be an administrative goal for anybody.
The thing is, you don’t even need to have gone to medical school to have known that. A primary school-aged kid already knows that.
“Hey little Billy, how about more Brussels sprouts?”
When people pumping out medical research fail to grasp concepts that a 6 year-old has figured out….that’s not a good look.