1.6 million examples, can’t blame the group size this time?
Results: The analysis included approximately 1.6 million live births and 1749 stillbirths. In the unadjusted model, compared with two white parents, black/black and black/white couples had a significantly higher risk of fetal death. When all demographic, social, biological, genetic, congenital, and procedural risk factors except gestational age and birth weight were included, the odds ratios (OR) were all still significant. Black/black couples had the highest level of risk (OR 2.11, CI 1.77-2.51), followed by black mother/white father couples (OR 2.01, CI 1.16-3.48), and white mother/black father couples (OR 1.84, CI 1.33-2.54). Virtually all of the higher risk of fetal death was explainable by higher rates of low birth weight and prematurity.
Conclusions: Mixed race black and white couples face higher odds of prematurity and low birth weight, which appear to contribute to the substantially higher demonstrated risk for stillbirth. There are likely additional unmeasured factors that influence birth outcomes for mixed race couples.
but wait, there’s more!
53,293 deliveries occurred during the time period, of which 329 resulted in a stillbirth (6.2 per 1,000 births). Compared to White women, non-White ethnicity was associated with a doubling of the odds of stillbirth (aOR for Black women 2.15, 95% CI 1.56-2.97; and for South Asian women 2.33, 95% CI 1.42-3.83).
Obese women had a trend towards higher odds of stillbirth compared to women of recommended BMI (aOR 1.38, 95% CI 0.98-1.96), though this was not significant (p 0.07). < aka no excuse there
Both higher parity (≥2 compared to para 1) and hypertension were associated with a higher odds of stillbirth (parity ≥2 aOR 1.65, 95% CI 1.13-2.39; hypertension aOR 1.84, 95% CI 1.22-2.78) but there was no evidence that area deprivation or maternal age were independently associated with stillbirth in this population. < aka no excuse there either
There was some evidence of effect modification between ethnicity and obesity (p value for interaction 0.06), with obesity a particularly strong risk factor for stillbirth in South Asian women (aOR 4.64, 95% CI 1.84-11.70).
“There was a high prevalence of stillbirth in this multi-ethnic urban population. The increased risk of stillbirth observed in non-White women remains after adjusting for other factors.
Our finding of possible effect modification between ethnicity and obesity suggests that further research should be conducted in order to improve understanding of the interplay between ethnicity, obesity and stillbirth.”
but you just said obesity was non-sig?
And the only reason to do so has now gone.
“How is it that minority infants are still unhealthy if their parents are smoking less than White parents? This is probably due to genetics and environment as well. A Dutch study compared the various rates of smoking among different ethnicities/races, “Since maternal smoking during pregnancy is quite equally distributed among the ethnic populations, it does not contribute much to the observed differences in birthweight.”(34) That study compared native Dutch people and immigrants…..”
“….As one can see, the amount of stillbirths was higher for the interracial couples. This was especially true of White father/Black mother relationships, but the White mother/Black father rates were still far worse than the rates of stillbirth for White couples. The outcomes for mulatto infants was at the detriment of the surveyed White population.(10)
What are the specifics to this horrible process? For this, we have to understand that having mixed genetic ancestry through mtDNA and yDNA perpetuates this happening. Let’s look at one of the best studies that has been published on this subject: “Divergent Patterns of Mitochondrial and Nuclear Ancestry Are Associated with the Risk for Preterm Birth.” This study investigated the unusually high rates of preterm birth among African Americans: “Haplogroup-defining polymorphisms are not merely markers of ancestry, and have consequences for mitochondrial function, including the regulation of mitochondrial gene expression.”(20)
Some might be surprised to know that many African Americans have large amounts of European ancestry. The European ancestry that African Americans have was distributed from White males when slavery was still legal.(20) To put it another way, having ancestry from vastly different ancestors contributes to these genetic predispositions. It is necessary to demonstrate this with a principal component analysis. The turquoise dots below represent the African population. As one can see, the African American population is represented by a long cline between European American (CEU) and African (YRI) samples. (24)
The majority of mitochondrial haplogroups (mtDNA) that African Americans have are African, since these come from African women originally, “… individuals with L, U6, or U5b1 haplogroup mtDNA and primarily African nuclear ancestry were defined as having low levels of divergent ancestry, whereas individuals with non-African haplogroups and high degrees of African nuclear ancestry had high levels of divergent ancestry.”(20) These researchers looked at any potential confounding variables that would skew results for the African American population. They examined a number socioeconomic variables such as years of school taken, income, etc. According to the researchers, “There was no detected statistical association between divergent ancestry and any of these factors.” (21)”
“But White people aren’t marrying out as much as other ethnic groups. Therefore, in the rare instance that a White person has a non-White partner, it is unlikely that these interracial couples are being treated in a less-preferable way by their families:
“…Whites are somewhat less willing to marry and bear children interracially than to date interracially. These attitudes and behaviors are related to warmth toward racial outgroups, political conservatism, age, gender, education, and region. Third, White women are likely to approve of interracial relationships for others but not themselves, while White men express more willingness to engage in such relationships personally, particularly with Asians.
However, neither White men nor White women are very likely to actually engage in interracial relationships. Thus, positive global attitudes toward interracial relationships do not translate into high rates of actual interracial cohabitation or marriage despite the fact that most White Americans (especially White females) aren’t interested in being in a relationship with a non-White person.” (5)
In fact, different races/ethnicities do not experience the same amount of stress while they are in an interracial relationship. And this spans across different age groups, “The negative effects of interracial dating hold similarly for boys and girls and among White and Black youth. Interracial dating less negatively effects the depressive symptomatology of Hispanics, though, and actually appears to ‘protect’ Asian youth from depressive symptoms.”(9) Additionally, White women seem to get extremely stressed from being in a relationship between either Hispanic or Black males. Blacks in those relationships aren’t affected by stress in those relationships:”
“…Furthermore, non-Hispanic whites with non-Hispanic black spouses also fare worse than their interracially married peers with Hispanic spouses. In contrast, the self-reported health of married non-Hispanic blacks shows no significant difference between the interracially and the endogamously married.”(10)”
“Where this stress is coming from is another important aspect to consider: Even if there was a trend of neglect for interracial families/pregnancies, it would only be because of the natural inclination to find these relationships unacceptable, “Bias against interracial romance is correlated with self-reported feelings of disgust”. (12)This phenomenon can be observed via brain scans. There is an intense neural mechanism that is triggered when a person observes interracial couples,“Interracial couples elicit a neural disgust response among observers — as indicated by increased insula activation.”(12)In this case, this psychological disgust could be considered an extension of ethnic nepotism or association; if people are disgusted by these relationships it would imply that being involved with an individual of an out-group is not beneficial to the in-group. Because the effects of race mixing create unhealtheir children, this natural disgust is moral. And as I have shown above, the most distinctive evidence proves this.”
At a neurological level, they’re viewed as animals, as sub-human, and even babies perceive race and avoid the out-group.
“That indicates that viewing images of interracial couples evokes disgust at a neural level,” Skinner said.
Participants were quicker to associate interracial couples with non-human animals and same-race couples with humans. That suggests that interracial couples are more likely to be dehumanized than same-race couples, the researchers write, and previous studies have shown that people tend to exhibit more antisocial behavior and are more likely to use aggression and even violence toward dehumanized targets.”
Nobody is jealous. Are we also jealous of the dirty toilets used in the study? Anyone can trade down. It isn’t hard. Black women trading down to omega white men is still a trade down. Race-mixers are always omegas.
It’s biology, white people have nothing to do with your herpetic uterus.
Yes, it’s relevant.
But we found that Asian American young women are at risk of high STDs. For instance, Asian American women had a higher prevalence of STDs than White women in both 1995 (10.4% vs. 7.7) and 2001 (13.5% vs. 8.3%). The incidence of STDs (not diagnosed with STDs in 1995, but developed STIs in 2001) among Asian American women was also higher than that of White women.”
Magic Dirt? Doesn’t work.