Dr. Ruth Simkin once wrote, in an editorial entitled Women’s Health: Time for a Redefinition published in The Canadian Medical Association Journal: (1)
“In medicine, the male has been viewed as normative in research, treatment, societal constructs and, until recently, health care provision. Most of us are aware that much of the published medical research has involved male subjects only.”
Perhaps the best-known example of such research – what Dr. Simkin in fact describes as “the height of ludicrousness” – was the 1986 study at New York City’s Rockefeller University on breast and uterine cancer.
Despite the clearly obvious reality of these malignancies in women, all of the subjects in this study were men. Continue reading
In November 2003, psychiatrists at the 
It’s 2003. The 
Just because a scientific paper sounds authoritative, it doesn’t mean we should always take what’s published in journals as gospel. For example, here’s what scientists might really mean when they pontificate:
Well, that was embarrassing, wasn’t it? The prestigious Harvard teaching facility Brigham and Women’s Hospital had to apologize for its study suggesting a potential cancer risk from consuming the artificial sweetener aspartame.
The Ethical Nag 