yes, that did undermine their credibility with some populations, despite being only 201 people that never had syphilis in that study, 100 years ago
> “Its revelation has also been an important cause of distrust in medical science and the US government amongst African Americans.”
one core issue is that the participants themselves didn’t know for at least 40 years, so thats the same as any medical lies now wouldn’t be revealed till 2063 or beyond, and that’s a hard gamble to make with someone you don’t trust because they represent the same organization that gave you a reason not to trust.
The Tuskegee trials ended in 1972 which is barely 50 years ago.
Also "despite being only 201 people that never has syphilis" is not the relevant part. There were 600 people, ~400 had syphilis, they were intentionally not told they had syphilis and treatment was intentionally withheld, and non-treatment was disguised (either placebo or intentionally ineffective "treatment"). As a result:
* More than of the subjects were killed by their syphilis infections (literally more than a quarter of the victims)
* Dozens transmitted syphilis to their wives, and it's reasonable to assume a lot of others in the community
* 20 kids were born with congenital syphilis
> one core issue is that the participants themselves did not know
The information was explicitly and intentionally withheld, and they were instructed to not see other doctors for treatment. They were explicitly told in fact that they were being treated.
This was not some minor experiment with no real consequences, this was a US government approved and funded experiment that continued into 1970 violating the same post-WW2 medical ethics laws nazis were charged with. As late as the 60s the CDC was explicitly arguing that the experiment should not be stopped until everyone involved had died and could be autopsied, e.g. the literal intent was for them to withhold treatment from all victims until they died from a 100% curable illness.
Don't try to minimize this experiment by falsely claiming it was a hundred years ago, or that it didn't kill people.
At first I thought it was useful that you were elaborating for others
but no, you were actually triggered by someone that was affirming the same information as you
its like you skipped the part about acknowledging why people are accurately skeptical of an entity that undermined their trust
in favor of copying the exact same article for anybody that looks, because you didn’t like the way a different part was summarized, cute.
lesson: if you want the support of people that actually are invalidating a group entirely, you need to acknowledge the parts they would agree with, and then add in the conclusion, like I did.
"yes, that did undermine their credibility with some populations, despite being only 201 people that never had syphilis in that study, 100 years ago"
which misrepresents the number of impacted people, overstates how long ago this was, and is overtly dismissive of what the study did ("despite being only" is dismissive language).
Your comment was inaccurate at best, plainly ignored that actual nature of the "experiment", and again was phrased in a way to imply it was an overreaction to stop trusting the medical providers funded by or aligned with the US government.
Hence I wrote a comment that said your stated numbers were objectively false (sure there were 200 people who didn't have syphilis, but there were 400 people who did and for whom treatment was actively denied, and doctors who did treat them received complaints, and it killed more than a hundred people, more than half the people your comment claimed were involved). Your "summary" was fundamentally false and acting like my comment was because I "didn't like how a different part was summarized" is questionable.
it was also accurate. the parts I did write were also accurate. it isn't important that you want to highlight the end of the experiment instead of the beginning.
