It's an area that the rest of medicine could look to as an example.
The professionals making bigger, more realistic breast implants are simultaneously improving affordability, safety, and quality at a rapid rate🧵
Consider one of the most recent improvements in boobtech: the Mia.
The Mia is the first successful "injectable" breast implant.
It cuts down scarring, complications, surgery time and cost, and it looks and feels more realistic than earlier implants.
The Mia is installed with a small armpit incision about 2 centimeters in length.
This is a significant reduction from earlier generations, which were regularly closer to 7 centimeters, or almost 3 inches.
After incision, a pocket is created with a custom balloon tool designed by the creators of the Mia, Establishment Labs
This approach is done without having to put the woman under. Only local anesthetic used, which reduces surgical complication rates, exposure to anesthesia, etc.
Finally, with another custom tool, the implant is inserted into the pocket, pulled up, and done.
The total procedure time is 15 minutes. The total time in office averages about 90 minutes, including doctor preparation, patient briefing, and so on.
And you're done!
You can go back to your daily activities next day. There's a minimal recovery, and there's minimal follow-on side effects
In fact, though traditional breast implants lead to somewhere between 6-13% rupture rates and 15% contracture, the Mia's first trial saw 0!
The Mia includes an optional non-ferromagnetic RFID sensor that can hold patient device info for peace of mind.
The Mia isn't even the best out there!
Preservé preserves more breast tissue and the implant it's paired with gives women a fuller upper-breast (frequently desired).
The implant it's used with delivers fractions of the typical complication rate, for a much gentler surgery, with a much more realistic feeling, greater patient comfort, an easy recovery, and so on.
It is an amazing advance in boobtech.
The biomaterial it's made from also minimizes immune reactions to implantation.
This was a feat of biomedical engineering generated by exploring material options and winding up with something that really just works!
And there are already other boobtech improvements in the pipeline! I could go on, but won't.
I want to talk about why boobtech is so advanced.
I think it has to do with three things.
The first is the much lower regulatory burdens compared to trad pharma.
Low regulatory burden benefits make sense, so I'll explain the second thing:
A higher out-of-pocket share.
Plastic surgery is often not covered by insurers. It's aesthetic, optional, etc. Patients cannot tolerate massive cost inflation if they have to pay it, so they don't!
And finally, plastic surgery attracts some of the smartest doctors
The smartest doctors in a given year tend to be either dermatologists or plastic surgeons, because those disciplines tend to offer more work-life balance
They're not high-pressure, but they still reward highly
In fact, I think these tie into why aesthetic procedures are generally high-performing when it comes to price, innovations, etc.
Just look at how they compare to inflation in general and inflation in medicine more broadly.
They're great!
Aesthetic procedures are a model for how medicine ought to work
Not entirely, but at least partly
There should be room for new tech paid for by patients; room for docs to train with tech and implement rapidly all the time
There should be more room for progress and big breasts!
Anyway, just my two cents.
The pace of progress in boobtech is incredible. I want that for every area of medicine.
This research directly militates against modern blood libel.
If people knew, for example, that Black and White men earned the same amounts on average at the same IQs, they would likely be a lot less convinced by basically-false discrimination narratives blaming Whites.
Add in that the intelligence differences cannot be explained by discrimination—because there *is* measurement invariance—and these sorts of findings are incredibly damning for discrimination-based narratives of racial inequality.
So, said findings must be condemned, proscribed.
The above chart is from the NLSY '79, but it replicates in plenty of other datasets, because it is broadly true.
For example, here are three independent replications:
A lot of the major pieces of civil rights legislation were passed by White elites who were upset at the violence generated by the Great Migration and the riots.
Because of his association with this violence, most people at the time came to dislike MLK.
It's only *after* his death, and with his public beatification that he's come to enjoy a good reputation.
This comic from 1967 is a much better summation of how the public viewed him than what people are generally taught today.
And yes, he was viewed better by Blacks than by Whites.
But remember, at the time, Whites were almost nine-tenths of the population.
Near his death, Whites were maybe one-quarter favorable to MLK, and most of that favorability was weak.
The researcher who put together these numbers was investigated and almost charged with a crime for bringing these numbers to light when she hadn't received permission.
Greater Male Variability rarely makes for an adequate explanation of sex differences in performance.
One exception may be the number of papers published by academics.
If you remove the top 7.5% of men, there's no longer a gap!
The disciplines covered here were ones with relatively equal sex ratios: Education, Nursing & Caring Science, Psychology, Public Health, Sociology, and Social Work.
Because these are stats on professors, this means that if there's greater male variability, it's mostly right-tail
Despite this, the very highest-performing women actually outperformed the very highest-performing men on average, albeit slightly.
The percentiles in this image are for the combined group, so these findings coexist for composition reasons.