Paula Johnson: His and hers … healthcare

Paula Johnson: His and hers … healthcare


Some of my most wonderful memories of childhood are of spending time with my grandmother, Mamar, in our four-family home in Brooklyn, New York. Her apartment was an oasis. It was a place where I could sneak a cup of coffee, which was really warm milk
with just a touch of caffeine. She loved life. And although she worked in a factory, she saved her pennies and she traveled to Europe. And I remember poring over those pictures with her and then dancing with her to her favorite music. And then, when I was eight and she was 60, something changed. She no longer worked or traveled. She no longer danced. There were no more coffee times. My mother missed work and took her to doctors who couldn’t make a diagnosis. And my father, who worked at night,
would spend every afternoon with her, just to make sure she ate. Her care became all-consuming for our family. And by the time a diagnosis was made, she was in a deep spiral. Now many of you will recognize her symptoms. My grandmother had depression. A deep, life-altering depression, from which she never recovered. And back then, so little
was known about depression. But even today, 50 years later, there’s still so much more to learn. Today, we know that women
are 70 percent more likely to experience depression over their lifetimes compared with men. And even with this high prevalence, women are misdiagnosed between
30 and 50 percent of the time. Now we know that women are more likely to experience the symptoms
of fatigue, sleep disturbance, pain and anxiety compared with men. And these symptoms are often overlooked as symptoms of depression. And it isn’t only depression in which
these sex differences occur, but they occur across so many diseases. So it’s my grandmother’s struggles that have really led me on a lifelong quest. And today, I lead a center in which the mission is to discover why these sex differences occur and to use that knowledge to improve the health of women. Today, we know that every cell has a sex. Now, that’s a term coined
by the Institute of Medicine. And what it means is that
men and women are different down to the cellular and molecular levels. It means that we’re different
across all of our organs. From our brains to our hearts, our lungs, our joints. Now, it was only 20 years ago that we hardly had any data on women’s health beyond our reproductive functions. But then in 1993, the NIH Revitalization Act was signed into law. And what this law did was it mandated that women and minorities
be included in clinical trials that were funded by the National Institutes of Health. And in many ways, the law has worked. Women are now routinely
included in clinical studies, and we’ve learned that there are major differences in the ways that women and men experience disease. But remarkably, what we have learned about these
differences is often overlooked. So, we have to ask ourselves the question: Why leave women’s health to chance? And we’re leaving it to chance in two ways. The first is that there is so much more to learn and we’re not making the investment in fully understanding the extent
of these sex differences. And the second is that we aren’t
taking what we have learned, and routinely applying it in clinical care. We are just not doing enough. So, I’m going to share with you three examples of where sex differences have
impacted the health of women, and where we need to do more. Let’s start with heart disease. It’s the number one killer of women
in the United States today. This is the face of heart disease. Linda is a middle-aged woman, who had a stent placed in one of the arteries going to her heart. When she had recurring symptoms
she went back to her doctor. Her doctor did the gold standard test: a cardiac catheterization. It showed no blockages. Linda’s symptoms continued. She had to stop working. And that’s when she found us. When Linda came to us, we did
another cardiac catheterization and this time, we found clues. But we needed another test to make the diagnosis. So we did a test called an intracoronary ultrasound, where you use soundwaves to look at the artery from the inside out. And what we found was that Linda’s disease didn’t look like the typical male disease. The typical male disease looks like this. There’s a discrete blockage or stenosis. Linda’s disease, like the disease of so many women, looks like this. The plaque is laid down more evenly, more diffusely along the artery, and it’s harder to see. So for Linda, and for so many women, the gold standard test wasn’t gold. Now, Linda received the right treatment. She went back to her life and, fortunately, today she is doing well. But Linda was lucky. She found us, we found her disease. But for too many women, that’s not the case. We have the tools. We have the technology to make the diagnosis. But it’s all too often that these sex diffferences are overlooked. So what about treatment? A landmark study that was published two years ago asked the very important question: What are the most effective treatments
for heart disease in women? The authors looked at papers
written over a 10-year period, and hundreds had to be thrown out. And what they found out was that
of those that were tossed out, 65 percent were excluded because even though women
were included in the studies, the analysis didn’t differentiate
between women and men. What a lost opportunity. The money had been spent and we didn’t learn how women fared. And these studies could not contribute one iota to the very, very important question, what are the most effective treatments for heart disease in women? I want to introduce you to
Hortense, my godmother, Hung Wei, a relative of a colleague, and somebody you may recognize — Dana, Christopher Reeve’s wife. All three women have something
very important in common. All three were diagnosed with lung cancer, the number one cancer killer of women in the United States today. All three were nonsmokers. Sadly, Dana and Hung Wei died of their disease. Today, what we know is that women who are
nonsmokers are three times more likely to be diagnosed with lung cancer than are men who are nonsmokers. Now interestingly, when women are
diagnosed with lung cancer, their survival tends to be better than that of men. Now, here are some clues. Our investigators have found that there are certain genes in the lung tumor
cells of both women and men. And these genes are activated mainly by estrogen. And when these genes are over-expressed, it’s associated with improved survival only in young women. Now this is a very early finding and we don’t yet know whether it has relevance to clinical care. But it’s findings like this that may provide hope and may provide an opportunity to save lives of both women and men. Now, let me share with you an example of when we do consider sex differences,
it can drive the science. Several years ago a new lung cancer drug was being evaluated, and when the authors looked
at whose tumors shrank, they found that 82 percent were women. This led them to ask the question: Well, why? And what they found was that the genetic mutations
that the drug targeted were far more common in women. And what this has led to is a more personalized approach to the treatment of lung cancer
that also includes sex. This is what we can accomplish when we don’t leave women’s health to chance. We know that when you invest in research, you get results. Take a look at the death rate
from breast cancer over time. And now take a look at the death rates from lung cancer in women over time. Now let’s look at the dollars
invested in breast cancer — these are the dollars invested per death — and the dollars invested in lung cancer. Now, it’s clear that our investment in breast cancer has produced results. They may not be fast enough, but it has produced results. We can do the same for lung cancer and for every other disease. So let’s go back to depression. Depression is the number one cause of disability in women in the world today. Our investigators have found that there are differences in the brains of women and men in the areas that are connected with mood. And when you put men and women in a functional MRI scanner — that’s the kind of scanner that shows how the brain is functioning when it’s activated — so you put them in the scanner
and you expose them to stress. You can actually see the difference. And it’s findings like this that we believe hold some of the clues for why we see these very significant sex differences in depression. But even though we know that these differences occur, 66 percent of the brain research that begins in animals is done in either male animals or animals in whom the sex is not identified. So, I think we have to ask again the question: Why leave women’s health to chance? And this is a question that haunts those of us in science and medicine who believe that we are on the verge
of being able to dramatically improve the health of women. We know that every cell has a sex. We know that these differences
are often overlooked. And therefore we know that women
are not getting the full benefit of modern science and medicine today. We have the tools but we lack the collective will and momentum. Women’s health is an equal rights issue as important as equal pay. And it’s an issue of the quality and the integrity of science and medicine. (Applause) So imagine the momentum we could achieve in advancing the health of women if we considered whether these
sex differences were present at the very beginning of designing research. Or if we analyzed our data by sex. So, people often ask me: What can I do? And here’s what I suggest: First, I suggest that you think about women’s health in the same way that you think and care about other
causes that are important to you. And second, and equally as important, that as a woman, you have to ask your doctor and the doctors who are caring
for those who you love: Is this disease or treatment different in women? Now, this is a profound question
because the answer is likely yes, but your doctor may not know
the answer, at least not yet. But if you ask the question,
your doctor will very likely go looking for the answer. And this is so important, not only for ourselves, but for all of those whom we love. Whether it be a mother, a daughter, a sister, a friend or a grandmother. It was my grandmother’s suffering that inspired my work to improve the health of women. That’s her legacy. Our legacy can be to improve the health of women for this generation and for generations to come. Thank you. (Applause)

70 comments

  1. "Every cell in the human body has a sex, which means that men and women are different right down to the cellular level."
    Brace yourself for the feminist rage train!

  2. "Every cell has a sex" is a very misleading term to come up with. I guess I agree with the sentiment, but spreading misleading for the sake of a catchy phrase is not helping. I thought cells reproduce asexually? It just makes the real discussion more confusing.

  3. It does seem a bit odd to talk about this in terms of a rights issue, when actually men die younger, and I've rarely heard about men's health as a thing but very regularly women's health. She might have a point though, perhaps most research is done on men, I would be interested to know. Maybe a lot of "women's health" is fertility/child related stuff, and there's not enough focus on subtler differences in women. Regardless, it's great progress and science.

  4. I'm adding point as it goes on (I like critisising such videos Men VS Woman because as mush of a good point they might make not filtering the BS it can cause hatred of the complementary sex)
    1-Women health is not studied: it does not mean women were neglected, and no one wanted to know what problems they had, but it mean they were not studied as women but human. after all studing women who worked in ranches led to descovry of vacsin.
    2-Women and men are diferent: women and man are different but they (especially women) ask for equality, and not fairness. asking for this equality is what makes women more depresed, because in their mind equality is doing all that a man does and it just is not in her nature, causing her to have heart desease, dpression and all sort of stuff(no one other than the that woman is neglecting her)
    3-Male desease: Really, so it only happens in males. acording to her no woman has ever been diagnosed with any sort of heart desease because every one is looking for male desease!
    4-Money was spent and we didn't learn how women faired: nor did we learn how men faired, we learned how human faired. women again are not neglected they only have not been recognized more than others.
    5 to 20 – almost ever sentence she says the world Women she needs to say different genders. neglecting the difference in genders is what has cause lower healthcare for both men and women. she makes the neglegent of gender in medical since look like neglegent towards women. why would you compain breast cancer research founding with long cancer, when you titel the video His and hers. why don't you compair it with prostate cancer research(which is 1% if breast cancer)
    21- if the are 60% male and male and female included and male only experiments, it mean s 40 where only female, it means if only 20% of those 60% experiments are male and femail included (which I think there is more, since it apears to be illigal not to include women, since men don't need to survive) there is equal attention paid to men and women.(40% of the experiments)
    Final conclusion :
    with this talk she expects all the attention to be on women, even in the areas women's problem is founded 100 to 1 comparing to men's problem, she asks for more, and not only for more, for more that comes from man ("womens right, like equal salary") as if men are getting more attetion! WT
    —————
    I know spelling mistakes probably exist, but English in not my main language, I hope you can make sence of what I said, because it does me not good but contributes to your welbing
    To all Dearest MEN and WOMEN

  5. "Paula Johnson: His and hers … healthcare" Find the two words that don't belong.

    Really though, if you're going to be this blatantly feminist, at least own up to it.

    I'm also not buying her argument that, "Women's health is an equal rights issue as important as equal pay," in the sense that I find it hard to believe there's a conscious decision to treat women with less attention then men (when it comes under the knife for example).

    All in all, I understand the point of the talk and actually agree that it has salience in the medical world, but her presentation of the matter was downright insulting.

  6. Personal question:
    wouldn't all this energy put to find out how to help Women and women only, dos omething actually productive if put for the better of all man kind! Why all black people should fight for Colored rights (I like my rights to be coloed!), all women fight for women right, and disables fight for disables right, and no one fights for Plain Human right! WHBOU(what has become of us!)

  7. I totally agree with what this lady has said, her arguements are perfectly valid and she raises a genuine issue. However that way that she has presented them are most likely going to put a lot of people off and brand her entire talk as "flagrant feminism", I mean seriously, you could make a drinking game out of the number of times she said "women" during her talk.

  8. "It was only 20 years ago that we hardly had any data on womens health"
    Oh really Paula? Maybe the reason for this is because scientists didn´t make a distinction between men and women and just developed medicine for HUMAN BEINGS! Medicine that helped men and women!
    Because they were not sexist like you, Paula Johnson.

  9. "Why leave womens health to chance"
    Give me a break!

    The majority of deaths in the workplace: MEN
    The majority of suicides: MEN
    Who receives less money for studies on prostate cancer? MEN
    The majority of homeless people: MEN
    Who has a shorter life expectancy? MEN
    Who comes home after a war crippled but often receives no support? MEN

    And this looney tries to tell us that we leave women´s health to chance…

  10. Here in Scandinavia it's actually the feminist movement who have denied that the sexes would be different physiologicly. They clame that the sex is just a social construction. So I am glad that there are women like this one in the video to state the fact that we ARE different. If a male scientist says that the feminists will attac him.

  11. The doubly do is describing that this talk by Paula Johnson is thought provoking. It certainly is.
    I understand the content provided as thought stimulated. I only hope that the data and results presented are valid as I have my doubts on some claims or suggestions and some biological theories are scarily combined to theories that have not been validated as cause and effect. That women think differently, alright, but to dismiss womens physiology as completely different to men's physiology=confusin

  12. Its a bit devious to say that the sexes have different kinds of medical issues due to there sex and to go on and focus ONLY on womens health issues. Sorry but i just loose all intrest when there is such a bias in a talk.

  13. She has some good points but I don't like how she victimizes women specifically. You cant really compare gender neutral studies to the problems of equal pay and sexism. In that respect, I really don't like the insinuation behind her presentation. "why leave women's health to chance?" and what about men's health since the studies were gender neutral? there would certainly be benefits to both genders if studies took sex into consideration.

    Gender is important in research, lets leave it at that. leave sexism and inequality out of it.

  14. 1:54
    "Women are 70% more likely to experience depression during their lifetime, compared with men."
    While showing an image that indicates women being 7 out of 10 meaning 133% more likely.

    And the speech continues at pretty much this level. Dont bother.

  15. Stress is the ultimate causation of disease. Excess expression and the stimulated over-saturation of hormonal glucocorticoids are what affects the body, exploiting it and leading it in the direction of most of the diseases that we see today in Western society. Genetics are also an attributing factor.   

  16. This woman doesn't prove anything, it sounds to me like she is trying to create a scare that women aren't being properly looked after by their healthcare providers so that they go to her clinic instead. She provided some anecdotal "evidence" that men and women may be very different biologically, but failed to show how this was relevant to healthcare. 
    The point about estrogen helping women survive lung cancer proves nothing at all; only that women are at a natural advantage when it comes to surviving disease – which we already knew as women have longer life expectancy than men. It does not explain how this will help treat women with lung cancer, only why men are less likely to recover.
    And men and women responding to stress differently because of brain scans? So? How is this helpful in treating disease? Demonstrating in a very general way that men and women in one particular situation may react differently isn't problem solving.
    Also, I'd be interested to know where the women who have XY chromosomes fit into all of this? They're much more common than most people are aware and yet appear female in every way other than the Y chromosome. Is it really the case that we're different down to a cellular level?

  17. This talk is a bit sexist.

    Gender based medical research is not just for women when this information could benefit research for both sexes.

    I don't trust her statistics, and she doesn't show many of her sources.

    If medical researchers are really not storing the data that shows the sex of their subjects, than there are definitely a lot of other genetic factors being overlooked.

  18. What I don't get is how are the cells different if the difference is with only one chromosome (I guess that's kind of minimizing the issue here, but regardless)? Does two X means that it produce a different phenotype then one X and one Y (personally I don't think that's the case, because the X/Y chromosomes just control sex determination, to my knowledge at least)? Is it because of different epigenetic markings between the somatic cells of the two sexes?

  19. Things about men vs. women will never be the whole truth do to bias. This is why I hate 99% of humans (no, just because it is an odd number does not mean that I hate one more)

  20. "discover why these sex differences occur and to use that knowledge to improve the health of women".

    aaaand that's the point where I stopped the video. Why not use that knowledge to help both sexes or at least the one with the 6-10 year shorter life expectancy and 4 times higher suicide rate?

    Another case of the overprivileged helping the overprivileged becoming even more overprivileged.

  21. Wow…TED needs to stop having people like this come on and give talks because what they are saying have no basis in reality whatsoever.

    Men on average die faster than women. Men die a lot more than women via workplace accidents. Men die a lot more and suffer a lot more from diseases except Alzheimer. The reason men do not suffer as much as women when it comes to Alzheimer is because we are already dead before it has a chance to happen. Men also get way less funding and help from practically everyone when it comes to male related health issues.

    & for some ridiculous reason, we still need to improve women's health ? Never mind the fact that women get more funding, get more support, die a lot less from diseases and live longer than men….

    TED should stop feminists from hijacking it and instilling this need for more and more and more and more for women.

    Any sane person who is humanitarian would look at the health dilemma men face worldwide as opposed to women's and agree that its high time we start focusing on making men's health better.

  22. A great call to science for better data! Healthy Socially Intelligent Dynamic Systems (SINDYS) need to be fair across the board and recognise differences in the populations! Especially gender!

  23. I don't care how many degrees in biology she has, I don't care how many speech awards she has won, what she is doing here is blatant demagoguery. 

    Of course, it is subtle. She is not 'Hitlering' it out there, and pandering to the glib and incurious of the planet, but she is using poor opinions backed up by specious sounding lies. Heck, I almost believed her at the 'Collective will and momentum', and many people probably did too. But then she said equal pay. And it was lost. I gave up. But others, those who clapped, they did not. They believed her.

    They believe her, because she provided some data. Well. The data was wrong. Look at the 70% thing. Utter crap. Look at it. Do some 1st grade math. It's not 70%.

    She is a great demagogue, I mean she convinced some of the smart people of the audience for crying out loud.
    But a biologist? No. A good chemist? No. Someone who should be looking into lives and health of human beings? No. 
    All she is doing is spouting some poor normative statements, specious sounding false empirical statements, and demagogueing using her own personal experiences to perpetuate the vendetta that is the foolish feminist faction against the world. 
    Humanitarian my ass. There was more in this video about how 'males get better treatment' and 'males get better pay', than there was biological evidence of the matter at hand.

    Now. I will admit that there is a discrepancy between healthcare standards in a FEW areas (like 2 areas) between men and woman. And this lady's speech may have been useful if she did not spend her time pandering to the feminists of the world, and actually discussed those areas…

  24. I came because it was a TED talk, I left because it was BS, I unsubscribed because recently so many of them have been.

  25. I dont like all examples she gave…
    The heart artery thing is a relatively newly discovered thing. Before that, symptomes were different so it was thought to occur more often in men. As a result, its decreasing currently.
    Women's lung cancer was on the rise because of the increased use of cigarettes decades ago – smoking was a men's thing, before it was getting mainstream with women.
    As for decease, women's or men's lung cancer is no different. smoking is a high risk factor and because of late occurring symptoms, survival is low anyways. Best thing you can do is not smoke and not live by busy streets/high ways, male and female.

    Also i highly doubt they are not checking between women and men in data sets in research. However, its not interesting to publish every single data test in the papers. So i do think, for most research the difference between men and women is not significant – or it wouldve been in there in some form or the other.

  26. Sounds impressive until you consider women live about 6 years longer then men on average. Yes, there's a gender gap, but not in the direction this speaker is arguing for.

  27. Far too much anger in the comments.
    This is a video from someone who wants to promote women's healthcare, and encourage more spending in women's health. They might convince people, and they might not. But no reason to get angry.

    As a male, I don't understand what set all these youtuber's off.

    Must be feelings, man… You'd think they were a bunch of whiny children.
    Quit throwing away free stuff because it isn't what you wanted.

  28. Lots of insecure boys leaving comments below.  Its a shame boys still feel threatened by women after all these years.  Its not their fault your lack of success at attaining women's attention leaves you feeling inadequate.  Keep your insecurities to yourselves, women are equal to men and there is nothing wrong with them being different from us.  Its what makes us different that makes us stronger.

  29. Until individual medicine becomes a reality, we will still be forced to categorize people by different physiological groups. It's good to see a champion for one of those groups, and hopefully they can follow her organization's example.

  30. Sidebar: I was totally happy with this presentation until she starts talking about how one sex is being discriminated against. If medical research is being conducted less effectively due to the differences in male and female subjects, isn't that hurting both sexes relatively equally? Suggestion: leave your hang ups at the door when addressing TED and the Internet. This was very fair and balanced until that instance where I went from intrigued to off put.

  31. I've summarised this talk on TedSummaries com web site. I enjoyed it – though I too wonder if her point about research papers not investigating different data sets is because a) it was never analysed or b) there was no noticeable difference making the publication redundant. Findings relating to estrogen levels suppressing lung cancer could be helpful for both sexes.

  32. Sure is a lot of drooling idiots in the comments.
    You can tell, because they talk about "Feminism" as if it's anti-men.  No.
    I suggest just looking the word up and educating yourself on what it is, dictionary, google, wikipedia, whichever – just fuck off and read please.

  33. So…. did she say women have rat brains? But to be serious, I have no idea why you'd want to include gender distinction in animal trials. At best what you're looking at there is A) it isn't poison B) doesn't have any bad side effect C) it more or less does what you expected it to do. When moving on to human then gender distinction becomes more important. 

  34. I stopped watching the moment she started generalizing men and women. Too bad she conveniently overlooks the fact some women are in fact XY, and some men are XX.

  35. As always when someone speaks about female health there's a bunch of idiots chiming in asking "what about teh menzzzz". More studies have been done on male health than any other, and even more on white men. What makes certain people so insecure when another group's health is being considered? She doesn't have to consider your man feelings when she discusses the topic or give actual facts. We know a lot less about men of colour, white women and women of colour than we do about white men. Get over it, make some space.

  36. What about the health of men, If I was to do a same talk about men, I would get so much shit. Yet because for some reason unknown to me… women are still oppressed? No their not. Guys tend to ask for raises, there is no women's wage level. My point is women are not oppressed their just not greedy. And that isn't a bad thing. This crap is all about making a divide rather than bringing men and women together it implies that women need to fight the male oppressors?

    Maybe in some ways like industries with very little women in. But the idea that women or men need to work, and earn money is bull shit. If a woman is working than a man should be able to stay at home and look after the house. If they want too. All this is doing is making more problems. Kids are not looked after by parents anymore because their all wanting a career and some body to look after their kids, the connect between humans is degrading by the second and people have forgot how to work together. All this does is create more divides and more shite.

    Humans need to make sure they are treat fair, not equally. Fairly. Equally is bull shit. I don't expect a child to do as much as a man. I don't expect some women to do as much as men, and I don't expect men to do as much as some women. Fairness is looking at each person as an individual and working out what is right for them and stop trying to squeeze them in to some deluded capitalist economic model and start looking at people as humans and not statistics on your medical competition score charts. Let people live as families. Stop trying to turn people in to slaves. Ironically.

  37. Wow, comments section.
    When she is talking about sex differences, she is literally talking about biology and the formation and behavior of cells in men and women. Its not a feminist ideal, its science.
    And no, the reason that men's health has NOT been left to chance as much as women's in these unbalanced or poorly defined clinical studies is because they are not done on gender neutral test subject!! If they test underrepresents women, or does not take into account the data from female test subjects, it just means that only the data from the men is being focused on.

    Yes, she does speak very broadly in her talk, but you guys are missing the point entirely. You associate "sex differences" with irrational feminist ideals when instead you should be taking in the new information and encorporating it into your own philosophies. This is science, folks.

  38. She is too femistic (And I am a girls). God!!. Both women and men are overseen in different points in medicine research. For example men with breast cancer aren't as valued as much as women with breast cancer. It went to the point where breast cancer is a woman thing and not a man and woman thing. Some people don't even know that men can get breast cancer. 

  39. Highly unscientific talk. In nearly very study they test men and women. In some, they don't analyze the difference, however for men and women! She promotes that women are neglected by saying that they don't do studies specifically for them. And there she completely misses men! So if there is a lack, than in the differential analyses between men and women.
    She hits the peek when she shows the circular diagram where she merges unclassified test animals with make ones … Very suggestive!

  40. What could have been an interesting brief history of medicine and a "public" introduction of documented evidence that diseases are affecting each gender in different ways ended up as a mis-handled "women need more tests done" rallying call. Simple things like. 33% female animals in labs, what's the date of study? What were the figures 5-10 years ago? What type of testing is being done on both sexes to determine the core differences needed for diagnosis, treatment and prevention?
    When were the differences in diseases between sex specific symptoms discovered? How many corporations running testing facilities have already published their own papers looming into the deeper links between gender and disease links?
    As I said above, an interesting topic but the talk was lacking.

  41. In short. Don't label a talk "his and her" if you are only going to cover one side. Regardless if what side that is.

  42. We can all stop heart disease and age-related diseases from happening. The simple solution is to stop vaccinating. We can lower our life expectancy to 30 to 35 years and make death by childbirth and infection the rule rather than the exeption, just as nature has dictated for thousands of years. Most people does not realise that they should really be dead, or never have been born if it wasn't for the science of soap and medicine. When we realise this it makes modern medicine look like a true miracle. It is important to know that we do not yet fully understand the human body, we have just scratched the surface. Age related diseases like this is something we have just barely started seeing and understanding. There is no magic wand.

  43. It is disgusting that women are misdiagnosed 30-50% of the time, but what about the men? How much do they get misdiagnosed? It is great that they want to focus on specifying treatments for women, and I support that, but this courtesy should be extended to men as well. Men deserve just as much as women do, and should also have research being done on specifying treatments for men.

  44. Why is it that women are misdiagnosed 30-50% of the time? Why is this not the same statistic for men? It is extremely unfair that not only do we get misdiagnosed, but we are often not taken as seriously about pain levels and such in the hospital, but a man will be. it is a wonderful fact to hear that they want to start specifying treatments for women, but will this help us be taken seriously? Modern medicine is quite literally a life saver, but it is also an eye opener. without it, we would be dying of every infection and in child birth. If i have an illness that is specific to my gender and my body type, should i be given the same harsh medications that would be given to a man? Why should i be given a treatment that might just make me worse because I can't process the drug the same way.

  45. Okay I agree with this but when you make a choice and telling the people that they are women and those are men. Are they discriminating? But the question is whether the women or men. The disease and the prescription of the women or the men really matter? After  watching the video I came to know that yes there is a difference in the symptoms and different in the results. My question is that if this continues or it has been like this for a period of time. How many people lost their lives because they didn’t receive the correct medication and treatment. Where we find the clues that who is wrong and who is right? Again question rises that why the science treats male and female in the same way? If there is a difference, and today we are discussing this what has science and the advancement in the medical doing for years? This is the basic thing which needs to address. Why this couldn’t address earlier. Who lost their lives who is responsible for them?

  46. 01:58 – What's with this graphic? If you say women are 70% more likely to experience depression, you can't show 10 stick figures with seven of them being female and three being male (ie, it's not the same as 7/10 people with depression being female) – that would mean women were 133% more likely.

  47. Men, if you have any women in your life that you love, just shut up and listen. Stop trying to act like the system in place isn't faulty. Accepting our mistakes and failures helps us LEARN. Try it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *