Yes, scientists should define their experimental protocols explicitly. That’s kinda a cornerstone of science. Based on the article (which could be poor and maybe the actually published paper is better), they did show the questions, and it looks explicitly like if a patient checked off ‘did not receive requested treatment’ (or something like that), then they would be characterized as mistreated. And that raises red flags. If they had a good control group, and if the scoring was more nuanced than implied, then it could be ok. But it doesn’t read that way, and that can damage a cause that is important and needs addressing (ie racism in the medical system affecting care especially regarding native women and maternity care). Science should always be questioned if only to make it stronger as it survives questioning. If we let it slide because of political correctness or not wanting to hurt feelings, then it’s no better than religion.

Why? It’s kinda important. When a study is published that is poorly done - ie poor science - it can negatively affect a very real cause that requires work to fix - like in this case to address the racism in the health care system. The study can be dismissed because it’s junk and people will equate that to dismisssing the issue.- people think ‘if they had to fabricate/stretch/spin the data l, then the concern is bs’. Now I haven’t read the original paper, and new articles have a habit of reporting very poorly on science. So maybe the article just butchered the methods they used; maybe the article purposefully did that to discredit the study - who knows. But just ignoring it to be politically correct or not hurt people’s feeling is backwards.

Gotta hit the buzzwords!

Keyword is ‘or’. If care provider failed to give a requested back rub at some point, this could be checked off and associated with mistreatment. Obviously that’s a stupid example, but it shows why this study was a bit crappy. I’m sure there’s is mistreatment due to racism, but this study isn’t so good at showing it.

I have zero doubt that there’s mistreatment in the medical system due to racism. But that was one of the questions they used to determine if mistreatment occurred. So, basically, it was a poorly done study and they should have had a control group and not included such open questions. And it’s rather hard to filter self reported complaints appropriately - I’ve never had a baby, but from what I understand it’s often a pretty nasty experience for anyone.

Well not getting what you want can be mistreatment, and it can not be. But if you read the article, that’s one of the questions that they used to determine if someone was mistreated.

For anything that happens when a cop’s body cam is turned off, it should legally be assumed the cop is lying.

If I’m 50+ and my eyes are out of focus can I try rubbing them hard to fix the shape? Be a lot cheaper than laser.

No. Thats the point. If I were, I might not know about how white people don’t get the support they want from the medical system.

Exactly. This is partly due to a chronically underfunded medical system - most new mothers don’t get the support they want. I wouldn’t be surprised if there is also racism involved, but it may not be as significant as inferred here.

Hopefully, he’s conscious and in horrible pain and they’re keeping him alive with all sorts of fucked up shit.

Mmmm … baby flesh

What if I’m into that?!

‘Over my head’ haha

Isn’t all pollen basically tree cum?

No objections here. But prolly best to make it look like an accident or natural causes.

No we lost the election because Trump won and we are all fucked over by that choice because it was a much worse choice than the only other viable choice at the time. I’m not a Democrat, I’d prefer a much more progressive government. But given one of the other it was fucking crazy not to do everything possible to avoid Trump.

Not me. I’d prefer a different candidate for sure. But it’s a simple logic that once there’s two viable options, if you don’t help pick one, you are responsible for the other.

It’s the non voters too. And it doesn’t matter if you call yourself a Democrat or a 3rd party or apolitical. If you didn’t vote for Harris, you helped Trump. And you are responsible for Trump. Suck it up and take responsibility for your own actions already. If you really think Harris would have been as bad as Trump then you can say that and be ridiculed for that ignorance instead. But basic logic of how votes work in the U.S. isn’t up for argument.