What if we did a study on the survival rates of patients who were treated by brunette doctors and blonde doctors?  Wouldn't we find that patients did better with one set of doctors, either blondes or brunettes?  In that case, wouldn't it mean that blondes or brunettes make better doctors?

That's the kind of argument put forth by a prima facie bogus study that claimed that women survive heart attacks more often if they have female doctors.  Actually, the study claimed that men and women survive heart attacks more often if they have female doctors, but the focus of the article ("Women more likely to survive a heart attack with female doctors") was on the fact that women survive more, as the fate of men is of little interest to the liberal media.

The finding comes from a study of two decades of data on almost 582,000 heart attack patients admitted to hospitals across the state of Florida between 1991 and 2010.

And the research showed that the gender gap for patients treated by female physicians was only about 0.2 percent: 11.8 percent of men died, versus about 12 percent of women.  But treatment by male physicians tripled the gap to 0.7 percent: 12.6 percent of men died compared to 13.3 percent of women.

Correlation does not establish causation.  They could just as easily have found correlation in survival rates in hospitals with white- versus green-colored walls, or doctors whose names started with A-M as opposed to N-Z.

Prior research suggests that patients generally communicate better with caregivers of the same gender [sic]. 

Congratulations!  Does this mean when men go to the hospital, they will have the right to demand a male doctor?

Another possible factor could be that female heart attack patients are entering hospitals with gender-specific symptoms that are more readily recognized by female physicians, Greenwood added.

What?  What are "gender-specific" symptoms of a heart attack?  Do women have hearts in different parts of the body from men's, like Vulcans?  Why do liberals always reduce everything, and I mean everything, to what's in their pants?

Dr. Nieca Goldberg, a spokesperson for the American Heart Association ... said gender [sic] affects communication style, "and communication – getting the medical history – is very important in leading to an accurate diagnosis."

Talk about sex stereotypes!  This is what we are meant to think: when a male doctor sees a patient, he shakes him roughly by the shoulder and barks, "You look fine to me!"  (Because he is a man.)  But when a female doctor sees a patient, she gently touches his hand, gives him a warm smile, and says, "Open up to me.  Tell me everything.  I am here for you."  (Because she is a woman.)

In addition, Goldberg suggested, "There may be some unconscious bias, or that women physicians spend more time with their patients."

I think Goldberg was unconscious when she said this, in a liberal hypnotic trance.

This "study" was funded by the University of Minnesota and so was subsidized to some degree by taxpayers.  Instead of looking for the cure to diseases, the U. of M. is wasting taxpayer money on political studies.

I fully expect more studies of this kind showing the superior healing skill of transgendered doctors, 2% American Indian doctors, and even undocumented doctors.  Hardcore leftist "gender" politics has infested everything, even medicine.  These doctors, who should be fired from their jobs for wasting money, instead are earning accolades for their brilliant "discovery."

Ed Straker is the senior writer at Newsmachete.com.