Re: Some illnesses and treatments are race specific
Are you considering 'Latinos’ a "race”? That's a new thing for me. Do you consider "Hispanics" a "race" too? And what's the difference between a "Hispanic", “White” and "Latino” person? All have a European background, unless you'd classify indigenous Americans under any of those brackets. That would be a bit odd, though, as "Hispanic" suggests they have a Spanish European background, Latino suggests they have a Latin European background (are people of Italian descent Latinos? If anyone could be classified as Latino it should be people of Italian descent. Italians still speak a variety of Latin.) Meanwhile, the indigenous Americans came through Asia and probably have barely any European background at all.
Many of those classifications are cultural constructs, some only exist in the US. Here in Europe we don't have Hispanics, we tend to call people from Spain ‘Spanish’, we tend to think of Rome when someone uses the word “Latin”.
There is a cultural element to some illness. I mentioned Herzinsuffizienz (it translates as insufficiency of the heart) which is a common diagnosis in Germany but one you won’t find in many non-German textbooks. In some cultures talking to one self would be a tick box on a Schizophrenia assessment form, in other cultures it would not. The symptoms can be the same but whether they are considered an illness is cultural.
But obviously, the majority of diseases are purely biological. Increased likelihood of developing sun burn, Sickle Cell Anaemia, or Thalassaemia are the result of specific genetic make-up that is hereditary to a large extent (for instance SCA can disappear through the generations via Trait to No Carrier). They are all biological, not cultural. And, as I said earlier, there is some genetic clustering, Thalassaemia prevalence is higher than average around the Mediterranean. Glaucoma prevalence is higher in the Caribbean and Scandinavia.
It just doesn’t make any biological sense to subdivide the human race into various races depending on just a tiny fraction of their genetic variance. Where do you draw the boundaries ? The size of their jaw? Hair colour? Eyebrow relation to eye socket? Whether they have a flat or a rounded back of the skull? Whether they can digest lactose? Likelihood of developing Glaucoma? The shape of their femur? And why would you do it along those lines but not another? The most logical subdivision I know is that along Haplogroup lines and even that has little practical use except in the field of genetics. Most doctors do not need to know the haplogroup of their patient.