So are you claiming that there is something biologically different about the different races that means their normal biochemistry differs between one another?
Yes, genetic variations meaningful to e.g. certain drug responses [1] correlate with race.
Fair question which, if asked without malice, doesn’t deserve a downvote.
https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/vitamins-and-minerals/vitamin-...
"If you have dark skin – for example you have an African, African-Caribbean or south Asian background – you may also not get enough vitamin D from sunlight."
Skin colour is a poor dividing line between populations, though maybe on this vitamin D issue it might be more reasonable. There is no "black race." There are populations of various African origins, a much more complex and messier situation that the category "race" obscures. There is statistically more genetic diversity _within_ Africa than in the entire human population outside of Africa, so drawing a cline based on some "black" or "African" or "Negroid" basket of traits is fully 19th century quackery.
EDIT Put another way: "race" is a cultural category, with little biological meaning. The key question here is vitamin D responses in southern-adapted vs. northern lattitude adapted population groups.
Even though the racial aspect of it can be taken a bit to the eugenics side by bad actors I believe that more studies should be performed to assess if there are or not significant physiological differences to account for during medical development.