NEW: In New Orleans, a group of Black doctors risked their careers to accuse their medical school of institutional racism. The year was 2020. What would it take to prove that there was a problem — and fix it?
Princess Dennar was the first Black woman to run a medical residency program at Tulane. She alleged that her white bosses undermined her authority for a decade-plus, trying to drive her out, and her Black trainees suffered the consequences. Her claims set off a chain of events:
Lawsuits from 3 Black women (one resolved, one lost, one pending). A survey showing that many fear that Tulane ignores racism. A boycott (#DNRTulane). Dr. Dennar's demotion—then resignation.
And now, Tulane's accreditation is at risk if it doesn’t improve its diversity climate.
When Tulane went on probation in 2021, I wanted to retrace how a racial reckoning in medicine happens from the inside. I spent months interviewing people & reading tons of court records/emails/documents—including ones never before reported on.
The conflict at Tulane unfolded during nationwide protests over racial injustice and police brutality. But also a pandemic that has disproportionately killed Americans of color and underscored how this country's medical workforce doesn’t reflect the patients that it cares for.
While 13% of Americans are Black, 5% of doctors are. Medical training is hard as is. For some, it can be—and at Tulane, was—extra alienating.
“We’re in the heart of New Orleans, where most of the patients look like me. Why aren’t there enough doctors here that look like me?”
Many Black women say their time at Tulane was deeply painful, and hope that it is working to implement “a school-wide cultural change,” as it says it is. But what that looks like to Tulane is not necessarily the same as it does to those who have left.
I'm grateful to every person who spoke to me for this. I hope this can serve as a portrait of what demanding change looks and feels like on the ground during this hopeful, difficult, complicated moment in history.
As vital as error detection is to keeping science honest, watchdogs say there's no upside (not a good way to make friends). The pandemic has shown how vulnerable—and vital—they are.
“I’m convinced there is a chilling effect,” @MicrobiomDigest says. “I’m feeling the cold too.”
Scientific discourse is polite, deliberate, discreet. Critics say that doesn’t work during a pandemic.
"There’s something unhelpful in the way we think about science as a self-correcting process. It makes you think that it’s just going to correct itself on its own." —@hggaddy
NEW: Ivermectin prevents COVID 100% of the time—or so says a study out of Argentina. Maybe you heard about it via Joe Rogan (who says he’s on ivermectin now).
The lead author’s defense: “We are not statistical people.”
One of the hospitals named as participating in the study says it never approved such a thing. After it complained, its name was changed to “Other peripheral Medical Centre”—but the data remained.
Local health officials have also said they have no record of this being approved.
NEW: A big study about honesty—led by Dan Ariely, who literally wrote the book on the subject—is being retracted over fake data.
What does Dr. Ariely have to say? And what's the company that allegedly provided the data? I have answers. buzzfeednews.com/article/stepha…
First, if you haven't already, check out this amazing data detective work by @DataColada, which blew up this week. It shows how this influential 2012 paper—which found that signing at the top of forms, not the bottom, curbed cheating—had fabricated data.
NEW: When JAMA, one of the world's top medical journals, claimed “no physician is racist,” a furious backlash ensued.
Now, scholars are boycotting. They say they won’t submit research to JAMA until it makes changes, starting with diversifying its staff. buzzfeednews.com/article/stepha…
At least 10 scholars say they're boycotting for the time being. Many no longer trust JAMA to fairly evaluate research on racial disparities.
This is a potential risk. “People’s careers have been made by a single publication in JAMA—that’s how important it is,” says @mclemoremr.
In October, @rcg1812 wrote to the heads of JAMA and NEJM about their “stark deficit of diverse editors.” Neither followed up w/him.
“Many Black doctors, and other doctors from marginalized groups, have simply had it with medicine’s hypocrisy and resistance to positive change.”
Notes from tonight's FDA call on Moderna's vaccine: NIH is thinking about studying how well vaccines prevent asymptomatic spread, maybe in college students or another group who won't be eligible soon. Peter Marks called this “a critical thing to get answered.”
On allergies: The prescribing information for Moderna’s vaccine (as with Pfizer’s) says it should be avoided by people with severe allergies to any component of the vaccine.
Peter Marks said that one ingredient in both vaccines, polyethylene glycol, can be associated with allergic reactions (in general) and “could be a culprit here.” But he stressed that was a matter of speculation for now. “We just don’t know at this point.”
The @washingtonpost has a story today about John Ioannidis’ research into and statements about COVID. It does a nice job of recapping the year. Some thoughts...
This piece does a good job of frankly stating that the course of action that Ioannidis was advocating for in the spring is now widely viewed as a mistake. (Though I should add that lots of people held that view in the spring, as well.)
More new details on Stanford’s fact-finding investigation, which Stanford has repeatedly declined to release to me!